Crime Weekly - S3 Ep113: Jennifer Kesse: The Man Behind the Fence (Part 2)

Episode Date: February 24, 2023

Orlando, Florida - Home of Mickey Mouse and sunny beach vacations, a city that 60 million people flock to every year whether it’s for the theme parks or just the sun and heat that South Florida is known for. But for the friends and family of 24 year old Jennifer Kesse, this city would become a symbol of all that was wrong and evil in the world. Jennifer was last seen on January 23rd, 2006, she spoke to her family and her boyfriend on the phone that evening and said she was going to bed, she was tired from a trip she had just home from. But the next day, when she didn’t show up for work, her parents traveled to her Orlando condo and found everything normal, as if she had woken up and planned to go to work that day. There was still water in the shower, clothes tossed on an unmade bed, and a wet towel in the laundry room. Days later, Jennifer’s 2004 black Chevy Malibu would be found abandoned a mile down the road, in a not so great part of town, but the car held no clues as to where Jennifer Kesse was either. The one clue that law enforcement was able to retrieve should have cracked the case wide open. It was surveillance video of a person parking Jennifer’s car and walking away from it without even a glance back, and the surveillance clicked a photo of this person every three seconds, and every three seconds this person's face was obscured by a tall wrought iron fence. To this day, Jennifer Kesse has not been found, dead or alive, and the people who love her have fought tirelessly for answers, a fight that included receiving over 16 thousand pages of police records on the investigation, and these pages held more clues which has only fed the fire of this mystery. Try our coffee!! - www.CriminalCoffeeCo.com Become a Patreon member -- > https://www.patreon.com/CrimeWeekly Shop for your Crime Weekly gear here --> https://crimeweeklypodcast.com/shop Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CrimeWeeklyPodcast Website: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.com Instagram: @CrimeWeeklyPod Twitter: @CrimeWeeklyPod Facebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod ADS: Honey Get PayPal Honey for FREE at JoinHoney.com/crimeweekly. PDS Debt PDS DEBT is offering free debt analysis to our listeners just for completing the quick and easy debt assessment at www.PDSDebt.com/crime. HelloFresh Go to HelloFresh.com/crimeweekly65 and use code crimeweekly65 for 65% off plus free shipping. ZocDoc Go to Zocdoc.com/CRIMEWEEKLY and download the Zocdoc app for FREE. Then find and book a top-rated doctor today. Many are available within 24 hours.

Hello, everybody. Welcome back to Crime Weekly. I'm Stephanie Harlow. And I'm Derek Levasseur. So today we're picking up with part two of the Jennifer Kessy case. And I was really encouraged to see how many people were, you know, looking forward to seeing us cover this case. It seems to be very important to a lot of people. I saw a lot of comments of people saying, you know, they live in Orlando or they live in the South Florida area and they still see Jennifer Kessie's missing person posters up. And, you know, everyone from that area has a story about how Jennifer Kessie has touched their lives, whether they went to the same college as she did, whether

they went to the same high school, whether they somehow had interactions with her parents. They all, you know, in the comments were touched by Jennifer in some way. And, you know, it's nice to see that people are still looking for her, that there's posters still up and that and you know it's it's nice to see that people are still looking for her that there's posters still up and that you know the her name is still strong especially in the florida area yeah and i think also everyone relates to it because it could be someone you care about it doesn't this jennifer was just living a pretty normal life nothing too crazy going on as far as we know and one day she's here one day she's gone and nobody really knows what happened to her still. And I know it happened in 2006, right?

2006, uh, this took place and I know that that's, it seems like it was yesterday. I feel like 2006 was yesterday, but it wasn't. But I, I feel like I was 23, 20, 22, 23 at that time. No, maybe younger even. No, I was about 23. No, maybe a little older. Yeah. No was 23, 22, 23 at that time. Maybe younger even. No, I was about 23. No, maybe a little older.

Yeah. No, 23, 24. And I feel like technology obviously wasn't what it is today, but security cameras and cell phones, they were a thing. And to think in that world that this woman who's at an apartment complex, not on the middle of the woods can just vanish without that without a trace Other than some things that we're gonna talk about tonight. There's really difficult and then when it comes to this specific case I feel like the reason people are so

invested in it is not it's probably for the reason that a lot of People are just same reason I was when I started looking at the video that we're gonna talk about tonight We think man, there's a saying in baseball like it's a game or even in football it's a game of inches right this case is a game of inches it really is where if just one thing changes we might not be covering this case and to think that that little literally a couple inches is the difference or frame rate is the difference is crazy but that's where we are And we can't stop because as of right now, Jennifer has never been found. So you can assume whatever you want. I like to go with assuming that she's still out there somewhere. And so to keep it relevant, to keep people talking about it,

maybe there's someone who didn't know about the case now does, and maybe they have information that can help. Yeah. I actually want to comment on the surveillance video because like you said, we're going to talk about it, you know, pretty in depth here in this episode, but I almost wonder just simply because the quality of that video was so bad to begin with, even if that fence post hadn't been there, if this person wasn't like distinctive physically enough, then we still might not be able to identify him or say who he was. You know what I mean? We're going to talk about why there was issues with the quality of the video that go beyond the fence post covering his face every time it snapped that picture every three

seconds. But I almost wonder, and I find myself wondering all the time, like it wouldn't really matter. We still might not be able to tell who this person was, even if that fence hadn't been there, because it's just really bad quality. Like every time I watch it, I'm like, what is even the point in having these cameras up? Because they're so bad. I think, I think, I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but I do think it would have held a lot of weight in other situations. So, yes, if the person's completely off the radar where let's say it's a freeze frame shot and you see it and you're like, I don't recognize that person, not only because the video quality is not there, but also just because it's someone who hasn't been identified yet. Yeah, I can see like having a photo of this person. And yet we're still sitting here with the case in salt because the video quality is so poor.

But I do think from an investigatory perspective, what it would allow you to do is cancel out people that are already on your radar. So if there's certain construction workers who police have hopefully interviewed and friends of, of Jennifer's and friends of Logan's and ex boyboyfriends, whoever they interviewed or talked to during this investigation, if there's anyone who they thought, hmm, I wonder, the video more than likely would be able to rule those people out. Because if it was someone that you've already met and recognized, I do think there'd be elements of that video that you might say, okay, that person kind of looks like so-and-so. Now, it may not be perfect,

but I do think it would rule out some people in the investigation because right now, all possibilities are still on the table. Could it be the construction worker? Sure. Could it be just a random person? Yep. Could it be a stalker? Could it be a former colleague? Could it be a friend? Could it be a former boyfriend? Could it be someone that she was talking to that we didn't know about? They're all possibilities. We haven't been able to definitively rule any situation out because we don't have anything to go off of. So I do think the video would be extremely helpful in clearing people who have been implicated both by pundits who weighed in on it, investigators who weighed in on it, and also Jennifer's family. They had some strong opinions about this case and who they think could be involved, specifically Logan,

from what I was seeing. So it may help with that. And it may absolutely not because I've seen people say, well, you know, the boyfriend, Rob, had this person drop the car off or he paid him to drop the car off or he just grabbed some random guy off the street and said, hey, can you drive this car down the road and leave it there? So, you know, even though I think that's absolutely ludicrous, like I do not think that the boyfriend, Rob, has had anything to do with this, but there's people out there who still do think that he did for some reason. And, you know, they wonder if the person who had Jennifer taken paid somebody to help them commit this crime or to dispose of the vehicle afterwards in case there was surveillance cameras. So it wouldn't even really exclude anyone. And if you want to exclude physical people, I think that they have enough on this guy, like specifically his height, that would help to exclude some people because we're going to see, like, if NASA is right about this person of interest's height, he's a very short man.

So we'll have to, we'll talk about that a little bit more. But let's do a quick overview of what we talked about last episode. Jennifer Cassie, she leaves her boyfriend's house in Fort Lauderdale. She drives about three hours back to Orlando. She goes to work. She comes home. She talks to her parents and her brother on the phone. She lets them know that she had a good vacation in St. Croix with Rob. And then she gets on the phone with Rob as they do every night before they go to bed. She has a quick conversation with him.

I miss you. I miss you too. I need you to tell me that you miss me because I'm feeling like a little insecure about this long distance thing, etc., etc. They get off the phone. And then what happened from around 10 p.m. until the next morning, we don't really know. By the time Jennifer's parents and brother got there, they found that her condo kind of looked like she just left for work and the towel was still wet and there was water in the shower and her pajamas were on the floor. So it looked like she got up, took a shower, pulled some clothes out that were still on her bed to wear to work, chose an outfit, put on her new Nine West heels and then left for work or, you know, put on her flip-flops, which we're going to talk about in a minute, and left for work. But either way, she had all of these things with her that have never been found. Her work briefcase, her cell phone, which is an LG

cell phone, her brother's friend's cell phone, because that had been left at her condo over the weekend when her brother and his friends were staying there. She had all of these things with her that have never been found. But by the time Jennifer Kessie's family arrived at her Orlando, Florida condo and found that although she was gone, there was no sign of foul play or forced entry, they still weren't comforted by that. And they instinctively knew that something was wrong, so they called the Orlando Police Department who sent over an officer to take a report. Now, according to Drew Kessie,

the initial responding officer was super casual about the whole thing, and he told them that Jennifer was a grown woman who'd probably just fought with her boyfriend and taken off in her car to blow off some steam, she'd eventually be back. And then the police officer turned and walked out. Just out of curiosity, you know, I've heard many times that this kind of happens, right? This seems to be pretty standard where the police aren't taking the concerns of the family or loved ones or friends of this person

who's missing seriously. And they're like, oh, this oh this is an adult like what would you have me do run around town looking for this grown-ass person that most likely just took off and wants to be left alone and then the police really don't do anything initially which as we know is kind of problematic if there was a crime committed because that first 24 to 48 hours is super important in you know tracking down evidence and before the trail goes cold. So what would you suggest that a loved one of somebody who's missing does in this situation where the police aren't taking them seriously? Because I am definitely curious, like what are the routes or the paths that they can take to get around this?

All right. So that's a good question, because instead of trying to get into the mind of the police officer who responded, because we don't know what the interaction was like, obviously we weren't there. I think the way you pose that question is perfect because you can't control what the police are going to do when they show up, but you can control what you do. And I do think that this is a positive way to look at it because even if the police officer shows up, you have way more tools to help solve this case initially than they do. You know, their friends, you know, their family, you have cell phone numbers, you have addresses. You need to get everyone together in your circle, your friends, your family to start being proactive. Don't rely on an outside entity. Don't rely on law

enforcement. Don't rely on anybody. You can organize something very quickly, especially in today's age with social media, where you can say, Hey, I want you to go through all their social media. I want you to DM, DM all their close friends or DM anybody they have photos with. I want you to go to these addresses, check all of them, make sure I want you to call these numbers. I want you to go around and look for this. All you really would want law enforcement to do at this point, hey, listen, we're going to go check her work. We're going to go check where she should be. We're going to go talk to the boyfriend. All I ask that you do is you put out an APB, a BOLO, just to other law

enforcement agencies, including your own, to be on the lookout for this registration plate. Here's the registration data. Here's the plate. Here's what it looks like. Any identifiable marks that would be specific to that car. So if it's a Honda Accord, what about that Honda Accord would make it unique if you happen to see it but didn't see the plate like a den or a paint scrape, something like that. All I need you to do, sir, I know that there may be protocols where you're not going to put her in as a missing person right this second. I'm not here to dispute that with you. All I'm asking for you is to put out a Bolo for this vehicle so that if any surrounding

agency spots it, they'll stop her and have her call us. That's all I'm asking for you is to put out a BOLO for this vehicle so that if any surrounding agency spots it, they'll stop her and have her call us. That's all I'm asking. There's no protocol preventing them from doing that. They can easily enter that into NCIC, which is a database. It'll go out to all police departments. And if they happen to see that vehicle or run that plate, it'll pop and let them know. That's really all you need them for initially. But the other benefit to doing a lot of it yourself is after that period, when they come

back, because you're maybe unsuccessful, all of these roads that you've already went down are, you can check those off and you can present that to them and say, Hey, this is what we've done already. So you're not wasting time doing something that's already been, been investigated. You need to go from here. We've already checked these addresses. We've already talked to these friends. we've already went to replace a work what's the next step because now we have to escalate it so i think that's the things that you can do get your family and friends involved if you really feel like something's wrong and this

isn't something that's normal for the person involved get everyone on deck call text dm you know whatever you got to do get get them out of work, whatever they need to be, and start your own search party immediately to find out where she is or where he is. So if you crossed off all those avenues, now when law enforcement responds back, you can hand them over everything you've done and say, hey, we need your help now. This has escalated to a situation where it could be potentially dangerous. But I do feel like there's issues with that because that's basically what Jennifer Cassie's family did, right? They did it on their own initially,

but like I said, that first day or two, the trail's going cold. Law enforcement has the ability to pull cell phone records, see where her cell phone was pinging, pull banking records to see if there's any activity, stuff like that that can give you a pretty hard and fast clue as to where she is, whereas her parents aren't going to be able to necessarily call her bank unless they're authorized on the account and say, hey, has my daughter been using her credit card? They're not going to tell them. And if she's on her own cell phone plan and they call Verizon, Verizon's not going to tell them either. I worked for Verizon. We are very strict about that. So it's problematic because all of these clues, for instance, you could see, oh, hey, Jennifer's phone pinged at this location or she purchased gas at this location.

So we know she's heading out of Florida and she's in like Virginia or something. You know, you'd be able to have a better idea of where she was and what was happening with the abilities that law enforcement have. And what about the people who don't have family members who are going to go so hard? What about when they go missing? They just go missing and there's nobody there fighting for them. That's unfortunate. We could do a whole episode on this and I'm not defending law enforcement. Some may look at it that way, but there's an expectation of privacy that adults have. And so when you have someone who maybe Jennifer doesn't want to be found, maybe she's doing something she doesn't want other people to be aware of, if their husband or their father or mother go to law enforcement because they want to use them as a tool to get the information they need, law enforcement has to justify to a Verizon what that search warrant is for.

Okay. This is the reason why we want her cell phone records. So there has to be something that you can articulate to say, hey, the situation is escalated. We feel she might be in danger. Verizon, we know you're very, they don't, AT&T, Verizon, all of them, they don't give up those records easily, even to law enforcement. We have what's called an administrative subpoena. I don't even know if they accept those anymore when i was on my way out those things

in the beginning of my career you could write up an administrative subpoena have it signed by the chief of police the records were there in 20 minutes now they're requiring warrants from judges or a magistrate to to give you those records because they've had situations where they turn them over and then the person comes back around and says why are you giving my phone records to law enforcement I I was only gone for six hours what are you doing so that's the only thing I'll say but I do agree with you that law enforcement has the ability to walk into a bank with the proper documentation from a judge or whatever and get those records I would also say to all of you out there, if you have a family member or friend that you do trust, I would maybe give them access to, you know, Hey, in a worst

case scenario, here's my username and password to my AT&T account or my Verizon account, or Hey, I'd like to put a cosigner or someone who has access to my bank records. God forbid something happens again. It would have to be someone you trust, but maybe have a person that you are close to that, God forbid, something like this goes down. That person has the ability to log onto your account to say, okay, hey, I can see she was using her phone an hour ago. That's the only thing I would say. Again, if you don't want to rely on law enforcement to help you and you want to put yourself in the driver's seat, those are proactive measures you can take to maybe prevent a situation where law enforcement shows up and says, hey, she's only been gone like two hours. No judge is going to

sign a warrant yet for her phone records. You can circumvent that. Yeah, I don't think anybody wants to get in the driver's seat and cut law enforcement out. I think it's more of a necessity thing. But I do believe that police, and I think they have gotten better at this, they need to listen to the family. If the family says this is out at this, they need to listen to the family. If the family says this is out of character, they need to listen to that. If this girl didn't show up for work and she's never missed a day of work and they talk to her employer and that's confirmed, they need to take that seriously and they need to be a little bit more cognizant of that. And I do think that that has changed slightly since 2006. I definitely do.

I definitely think it's changed, but there are rare situations where you do have people, a husband thinking his wife's cheating on him. Oh, she, I haven't found her. And now they do that, they could have a lawsuit on their hands. Again, in the grand scheme of things, that shouldn't be what matters. But with the way people are so happy today, that is something that local government agencies are concerned about. But I do think there has to be some common sense to it, right? I hate to say this, but when you show up on a call, we do this every day. So we've heard it all. And there has to be some common sense where, hey, what does she do for work? Has she ever been late for work? Make a quick call to her employer or his employer. Have they ever been late? You can do a quick

investigation within 30 minutes to figure out like, okay, is this really out of character for this person or is, is the parents or, or significant others just overreacting? So you got to do a preliminary investigation. I'm not saying you walk in there and immediately enter, enter them into NCIC as a missing person, but there's a preliminary investigation that you can do where, Hey, have you called a preliminary investigation that you can do where, hey, have you called these numbers? Have you done this? Have you checked this location? Have you done that? Let me send a guy over to that spot as well. We'll see if we can see anyone. Call the employer real quick. Hey, Sergeant so-and-so here, Dallas PD, want to look into this? Whatever it might be. There's some things you can do that if you, after verifying it yourself, feel there's

some validity to what they're saying as far as this being out of character for them to just go off the radar, then maybe there's, you have to escalate it quicker than the 24 hour hold. And maybe it's something you got to enter immediately, especially, especially for cars still there. But this case, their car was already gone at that point. Correct? Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, that's the thing about the car, right? Like we know what happened to the car now, but in hindsight, cause obviously you're going to get into all that. I don't want to steal that thunder, but the car not being there, I think for most people would be like, oh, well maybe she went somewhere and didn't tell you

guys, maybe, maybe she doesn't want to be found right now. That's, that's the other side of the coin. So there's really no perfect system, but I do agree with you that in the last few years, especially with what has happened in some of these cases and the scrutiny that law enforcement has received over it, they are more proactive in their approach where they realize if they go to a call, something happens to this man or woman because they didn't react, they could lose their job. So that is something that has gotten better and there's always room for improvement. Yeah. I mean, I think like Gabby petito was a perfect sort of example that's a fuck up that's a that's like no brainer fuck up

like even more coming out about it with visible injuries she had to her face we had said it i'd said it when we did it initially there was there was clear signs that there was some type of domestic dispute going on yeah it's not there's there's no discretion there i hate to say and i said it before say it again there's no discretion there whether I hate to say, and I said it before, say it again. There's no discretion there. Whether you feel it's a one-time thing or whatever, the laws are very, they're very clear. If you can determine a primary aggressor, which in this case, the don't come for me on this one, but small, tiny girl, bigger guy scratches on her face.

He has the ability to walk away from it. He didn't, he's getting locked up. You guys can figure it out at court. If you want to drop the charges down the road, Gabby, that's your problem. I'm doing my job here because I'm not leaving it open where I'm going to walk away and you're going to end up killing this woman as soon as I do. Now that's on you. So completely fucked up there.

I feel like that situation is super obvious what you're supposed to do. The missing persons ones that I struggled with them a lot too. When I would respond to calls, if we had children, the parents would always be very upset about their missing child, 16, 17 year old girl or boy, where they're like, oh, they went, they missing, this never happened before. This has never happened. And I'm like, okay, so I'll run their name through our juvenile database, which is an internal database. And I find out that little Johnny or little Jane has run away 17 times. Now the argument could be made, well, what if the 18th time is for real? You know,

what if something actually happened to him? I agree with you, but we're trying to develop a, an opinion on what's going on instantaneously without living in the household. So there's no perfect system, but I, you know, we are, I think law enforcement as a, as a unit is getting better about this, especially with technology. And like you said, cell phone tracking, all that stuff. Susie ran away and she always runs away. But this time she's 16 and she's out on her own and something befalls her. So it would behoove the police to find this person, 16-year-old Susie, who ran away. Be like, Susie, we're just trying to make sure you're okay and you haven't encountered somebody nefarious. Or to find Jennifer Cassie and say, hey, Jennifer, we just want to make sure you're alive. But if you want to be left alone and you just don't want anybody to know where you are, that's cool. Let us know.

And we won't tell anybody. We'll just tell them we found you and you're safe. That should be what's happening. They should be at least entering these people into that database in case, right? I'll speak for myself. I won't speak for law enforcement as a whole. I'll just speak to how as a patrolman, Derek, and as a Sergeant Derek, if it was a juvenile and they are still under the custody of their parents and the parents were insistent on it, I would enter them just, just to cover my ass, just to cover my patrolman's ass. I would enter them at the end of the day, from a legal standpoint, the parents are in charge of

them. They're asking me to enter their child. I'm going to enter them. I have nothing to lose with adults. I was more cautious, especially if the adult that was missing, wasn't someone who had a history of mental illness or was fully capable of you know making their own decisions if there wasn't anything obvious that something had happened like we checked the work or whatever i wouldn't enter them right away because i've had situations in the past where other adults like i had said earlier significant others friends are using this this tool for their own purposes. And it might not even be criminal. They might know where that significant other is.

And now they're using law enforcement to build that case. So we do have to be careful because as, as bad as this may sound, people do have a right to their privacy. If, if Jennifer was out seeing another man ethically, we may not agree with it, but she has the right to do that. No one should be able to stop her so if we expose that that could be an issue because we don't legally have the right to give that information to law enforcement i hear what you're saying as far as well you just identify where she is as long as you know she's okay you can at least say to the family or friends hey

can't tell you where she is can't tell you what she's doing, but she's okay. That's all we can tell you. But then it becomes a whole different issue because we have situations where if there's nothing on the surface that looks bad and the person's only been missing for an hour or two and you have three or four cops in that jurisdiction, you're out looking for someone who's perfectly fine. There's a lot of logistical elements to it when you're running a police department or running a shift where you only have so many police officers on the road and they have to answer other calls. This is a whole different issue that I'm sure some of you don't agree with, but I've said to you guys before, there's been points where I've had me and two other patrolmen for an eight hour shift. It's crazy. It's insane. And we were a very busy department, but there's a

lot of, there's a lot of variables to it. Like I keep saying, I sound like a broken record. It's not a perfect system. That's for damn sure. And I completely understand that. I'm not like, you know, trying to give anybody shit, but I want you guys to know out there listening, hopefully this never happens to you. But if somebody you love and care about goes missing and you feeling your gut, something's wrong, you insist that they're entered into that database. You can. There's no law. They say, oh, you have to wait 24 hours. You have to wait 48 hours. That's bullshit. There's no law. Tell them you know that that's bullshit. You're talking about another adult? Anybody. Anybody. It's my sister. My sister's 30 years old. If my sister goes missing, you better believe I'm making so much noise. The police will do whatever I want just so I go away.

So do that. That's what I'm saying. And I would I don't necessarily completely disagree with. I just don't get yourself arrested for it because there is a discretion there that law enforcement has where there's policies and procedures about missing adults. And like Stephanie said, be persistent, insist on it happening, all those things, but they technically don't have to enter them right away.

It is up to the officer to make that decision. You're nodding your head. No, but that's the truth. I would love to see them try to arrest me because I'm insisting that they do their job. I would love. I just don't want anybody out there saying crime weekly said you have to

enter that person. You know, you don't, but if you feel that you, you need to, and they're not listening to you, then yes, you insist and you make a freaking pain of yourself until they do it. That is one thing. Yeah. I think that's fair. And at some point they may do it just to get you off their case.

And so if you want to go that route, but they don't have to legally. They don't have an obligation to enter that person if the situation doesn't dictate it. If you go to them after an hour and you're saying your 30-year-old healthy sisters, you can't get a hold of her, you want her entered into NCIC immediately, they may push back on that a little bit. That's all I'm saying. I just want to prepare you. I know you guys take a lot of what we say to heart. I don't want you guys out there. I invite them to push back. I cannot wait for them to push back because that's ludicrous. So, of course, depending on who you ask, though, the law enforcement to, you know, the law enforcement response to Jennifer being missing was very different.

Drew Kessie, who's Jennifer's father, he claims the department botched the investigation from the moment the initial officer was dispatched, on the afternoon of Tuesday, January 24, 2006. However, according to the Orlando Police Department, they had Jennifer down as a missing person by 7 p.m. that evening, and within the hour they were searching for her. Sergeant Roger Brennan said, quote, the key thing we were trying to do at this point, starting from 8 p.m. on, is to find Jennifer's car, Jennifer, her phone, her property, end quote. And initially, the police admitted that they did think that Jennifer might have left the night before of her own free will. But once they saw the condo and they took in the scene, they began to reformulate their initial theory, with Detective Joel Wright saying, quote, her condo was just as if she'd gotten ready for work and took off out the door for work. And since her door was locked and there were no signs of forced entry, a good

deduction would be that she did make it at least out the door, end quote. But it was very soon after the first police officer seemed to not take Jennifer's absence seriously that the Kessie family took action. And within hours, Jennifer's condo had become a base for her family, friends, and her sorority sisters to gather in. They began making phone calls, printing out posters, and in just a few hours, they were out on the streets of Orlando putting up the posters with Jennifer's picture on them and asking people if they'd seen her. But no one had. Now, law enforcement does claim that this was kind of an issue for them as far as processing forensics inside of Jennifer's condo, because by 7 p.m. when Jennifer was finally reported missing, there'd already been roughly two dozen people inside of Jen's condo, including her boyfriend Rob and Rob's mother, who had driven from Fort Lauderdale as soon as they heard that no one could locate Jennifer. And I don't think

it's super important that they weren't able to do forensic inside the condo because they seem to believe that she left and then that's when something happened to her. But I will say we have seen this in multiple cases and probably not the best place to make your base of operations being the condo where Jennifer was last known to be, you know, just in case. Because they didn't really know anything could have happened. She could have been attacked inside her condo and then the person took her keys and locked the door on the way out. It could have been a very, you know, like quick attack where there wasn't like things knocked over or a struggle. We don't really know. So just to be on the safe side, maybe don't make like the scene or the last place that this person was seen become your base of operations, because then you do have to, you add all this DNA and

the police, it's going to take so much longer for them to sort of go through all the different DNA profiles and pick out the one that doesn't belong and you know we saw this in the Springfield three case remember when all the people were going in there looking for Susie Streeter and her mother and her friend and her friend Stacy and there was just like so many people traipsing in and out that the police were like, we don't even know. There's like millions of DNA profiles in here. We don't know who's supposed to be here and who's not. Yeah.

I think I agree with you with this too. You know, there's two ways to look at it at that point. You're just trying to find your loved one as fast as possible. And there may be something inside that apartment or inside her vehicle. If the vehicle was there that may assist you in doing that so yeah you could leave it there to be you know tape it off for law enforcement later if they decide they want to do it that's gonna be more beneficial or advantageous down the road if there's a trial right to convict this person who they believe it is at that point it's really not that

important your number one priority is to find your loved one. And if there's information that can assist in that, the preservation of life is most important. We're not worried about prosecution later. So yeah, in hindsight, it would have been nice to be able to do that. But I don't blame Jennifer's family for doing what they did. To be completely honest with you, even having my background, I would have done the same. I would have said, hey, if you want to process it now, you're here, you just got here, it's eight o'clock. If you want to process it, process it now. If you're choosing not to, we're going to contaminate that crime scene because I'm going

to go through her property and I'm going to see if I can find something because you're not going to at this point. So I'll give them the option, but that's it. We're not going to just preserve it. I'm not going to stand by as your security guard for a crime scene until later that evening when you want to process the apartment and or the car. Yeah, I agree. I completely agree.

I wouldn't think it. If it was my daughter, I'm going to look through her computer. I'm going to see like, did she book a ticket, you know, a flight somewhere, like stuff like that. In fact, I just got back from San Francisco and when I pulled my computer up, like my flight itinerary was right up on my computer because it was the last thing I looked at because I was checking into the airport and stuff. And I was like, oh, this would be great if I went missing. And nobody knew where I was going because somebody would just be able to pull my computer up and see this right here. And I think a lot of people do that. So, yeah,

that's definitely like one of the first places I would check. But the next day, the Orlando police interviewed Jennifer's family and her boyfriend, Rob. And of course, Rob was considered a person of interest early on simply because he was, you know, Jennifer's boyfriend. But the police soon found out that his alibi checked out. He had been at work over two hours away and Rob's cell phone pings supported this. And speaking of cell phone and cell phone pings, I wanted to quickly talk about something that I forgot to mention last episode. For many years, we'd been told that Jennifer's cell phone was powered down soon after she got off the phone with Rob the night before. But law enforcement also claimed that her cell phone was pinging outside of the apartment complex after 10 p.m., which led many people to believe that Jen had left her condo

during the night of January 23rd after getting off the phone with Rob. Now, Drew Kessie was asked about this during a Q&A, and he responded, quote, this is a very important question and one that I personally have spread misinformation on. You see, there is what people talk about, what law enforcement tells you, and then there's the truth. I, for years, have felt and thought, I was told by law enforcement, that the phones were manually turned off or destroyed at approximately 10.20 p.m. on 1.23.2006. That is simply false information, and I, in my heart, believed I heard that for years. The Ping study presented to us showed such illogical locations and times in Ping's off-towers that made absolutely no sense. Yet again, law enforcement was pushing that

Jennifer was out and about after 10 p.m. that night, and we didn't know our daughter. Again, we plainly showed law enforcement how absurd their thought process was in the Ping study. About two years later, I was able to convince a detective to get with a Verizon specialist on the Ping study and see if anything had changed when a real professional looks at it. That was done, and we were told by the detective that the Verizon specialist said the entire ping study was no good and totally unreliable. Once again, it was all new technology and the towers were always shutting down, skipping to another, etc. In the end, the data was totally flawed and not to be believed as per Verizon, end quote. What do you make of this? Well, this kind of goes back to the Adnan

Syed case. It was early on with pings and pings were never that accurate. I know we use them over the years and it would show a general location, but I can tell you right now, it wouldn't like find my iPhone. I can tell if you're in your apartment or in the parking lot where pings were never that accurate. It might put you in the general vicinity and it's a overall radius of an area that you could be in, but it was never that exact. So there's no way they would be able to tell whether Jennifer was inside of her apartment or in the parking lot. Not at that time. Not without like a, cause there's a difference between tower pings and GPS location, right? They're talking, don't get those two confused.

They're two different things. The pings is a triangulation between multiple towers that they're using to kind of give you a general vicinity of where that phone was. GPS coordinates are pretty much exact within a couple, maybe 10, 20 feet of where that phone is at that point. Sometimes even more accurate with the new features that iPhones offer. So I think what he's saying is probably true. It doesn't seem like law enforcement has come out and disputed what he had said there. So it was a newer technology. I don't know why it would be completely unreliable. The pings were probably still in the general vicinity of where her apartment complex was. But maybe they mean as far as like, oh, she's outside her apartment at 10 p.m.

There's no way they would be able to tell that. So it's bullshit. No, it sounded like her phone pinged and then like five minutes later it pinged like across town and she couldn't possibly like been across town. And I mean, I definitely feel like her phone may have been powered down, but we already heard that she was talking to Rob on her landline because she didn't get great cell reception in her apartment besides for the balcony. And once again, this is 2006. So I know initially I was like, yo, if she doesn't have her phone on, then how is she waking up in the morning? But they had alarm clocks back then because we weren't depending on our phone. What's that? Yeah. Alarm clocks.

It's a joke. I know, but like we weren't depending on our phones for everything. So I almost wondered like maybe she shut it off and even left it in the car, you know, like maybe she just left it in the car or left it in her briefcase the whole time, knowing that when she grabbed her briefcase for work, she'd just be, you know, going because we weren't attached to our phones like we are now. It wasn't like we were on, you know, Instagram. It was like you called, you texted. And if she knew she had her landline and she was going to talk to Rob and her family or whatever on the landline, then she wouldn't even have a need to even have her phone on or like near her because that's how I used to be. You know, back in the day when I first had my first cell phone, I wasn't like it wasn't in my hand all the time.

Now it never leaves my hand. It's obnoxious. So I think that it's likely she shut down her own phone, but I don't think that she left the apartment. You don't think that she let you don't think that the phone left the apartment or you don't think that she left the apartment that night? I don't think she left the apartment that night. Yeah.

And I think that more so goes to to all the other evidence, right? Like, I mean, all of her business attire, the items she would have taken to work, the shower being still wet, the towel, all that stuff is evidence that it was more of her morning routine than a night routine. She wouldn't be leaving her house at 10 p.m. at night with a briefcase, I don't think. Yeah, it's like context clues, you know? Yeah. Absolutely. And some people say, oh, she came home, talked to Rob and then took a shower and then went out. I mean, maybe, but like for nobody to be coming forward and say like, oh, yeah, I was supposed to meet up with Jennifer. Or are they saying that person somehow to know that she was meeting up with them and the police have her cell phone records and her home phone records and as far as we know

once again we don't know because they haven't told us but they know if she talked to anybody that night and i'm sure they've already questioned that person so it's like i don't i don't think that's what happened and jennifer kessie's family her parents have all of these police files now. And if that was the case, she had spoken to somebody that night. I'm sure they would have told us by now. They would have released that information because they've released plenty of information. I agree with that. There would have been some footprint, whether it was the landline or it was her cell phone or an email. If she was going to meet someone, there would have been some communication to confirm where they're meeting, when they're meeting, et cetera. If not a friend or family, someone else she's confided in about

that. So I do agree with you. And I think I said it in the first episode where she's got to work, she gets up early. I think you said she's in work by nine. Where's she going? Where's she going? Unless she's planning on sleeping at that person's house and then going from there, which is possible. But I think everything else in that apartment unless it was staged to look that way uh suggests that she left that morning and was heading to work and once again there would have to be some sort of communication like hey i'm spending the night at your place tonight or you know like i'll go to work from your place there'd have to be something whether email or cell phone or landline to show that she had spoken to somebody that night or you know at

all during the day so let me just throw one more scenario at you though let's say this person knows she's in the apartment alone someone who she's not in fear of maybe someone in a uniform maybe a contractor something like that who knocks on the door she opens it they attack her they set the house up to look a certain way before they take her that night. She could have been gone since that evening where they kind of set the house up to look like it, they take her keys, they lock it on the way out. I know you're looking at my shower.

They don't have to take a shower. I can just turn the shower on. They could just turn the shower on. Now I'm saying this and I'm saying it because it's a scenario that can't be completely ruled out regardless of how unlikely it is. But I do think there's a world where. If you're to believe the cell phone ping, right? Like if you're to believe that for a second, one explanation of that phone without us having these pings would be that, that, that she's

taken that night, the phone pings while they're outside the apartment, because they're taking her at that point, she's being transported unwillinglyly and that's before they break the phone or manually turn the phone off And that could explain the ping if the pings were reliable, which you've already explained is more than likely not the case But is there a world we live in where that ping could be accurate that she's outside the building at 10 p.m Yeah, again, very unlikely but there's a way where you can explain everything that we've observed in that apartment and have have it be someone else who she didn't see as a threat when they showed up and maybe because this person wasn't expected there wouldn't be some type of exchange on the phone whether it's landline or cell phone because this person she didn't she didn't plan on meeting

that evening and they just happened to show up and, hey, you know, we got something for you. This is for the apartment or someone in a police uniform. There's a, you know, that our firefighters, firefighters uniform, something where it's your guard is let down because you look through the keyhole, the people and it's someone that you're you're you're desensitized to. Yeah. And you know, what's actually interesting that you say this when she was on the phone with Rob, it was like 9.57 p.m. Allegedly, and like, I'm still trying to figure out if this is like misinformation or not, but it's pretty, it's pretty split. But allegedly she told Rob, someone's knocking on the door, my door to my apartment. I think it's the upstairs neighbor. I'm not going to answer it. Okay. So did that knock on the door really happen at 9 57 PM? Was it her upstairs neighbor? We're going to talk about that next episode, the upstairs neighbor, the alleged upstairs neighbor. Some people are like, oh,

maybe she just wanted to get off the phone. So, you know, she just pretended someone was knocking at her door, uh, her door, things like that. So we don't even know if the knock really happened. That's the problem. Imagine if that's real, though. I mean, it's one of those situations. I was thinking about this over the week because we give them these cases and I start running scenarios through my head as I'm driving. I think about Brian Kohlberger, right?

Because Brian Kohlberger, for the most part, there's some digital connections now as it's coming out. And I'm sure there's going to be more. But overall, the victims weren't very familiar with Brian Koberger, for the most part, there's some digital connections now as it's coming out, and I'm sure there's gonna be more, but overall, the victims weren't very familiar with Brian Koberger. He was just some psychotic person who was stalking them, essentially. Jennifer could have had a stalker that she wasn't even aware of. Someone who was watching her go into her apartment every evening and was aware that she was home alone because they had been stalking her for weeks, months, who knows? They could have easily gotten a hold of something that looks like a resembles a police uniform or a firefighter's uniform or a construction worker. Cause they're seeing them all over the complex all day where they wait until it's late enough in the evening that maybe nobody else would be around. They're aware at this point that there's not a ton of

other people living in the building. They walk up to the door and say, ma'am, I'm here with the alarm company. We just have to reset your alarm for the panel downstairs and that she opens the door six inches and it's game over at that Point they're able to get a hold of her they clean up the apartment They make it because they know her routine They make it look like she left in the morning to throw off police as far as the window that she would have been taken And now police are assuming she left in the morning when reality her perpetrator took it that night. I'm throwing out a theory here. I don't really have anything tangible to go off of, but I also don't think there's anything to say definitively that couldn't have happened. Especially when you throw out something that I wasn't aware of, like, oh, allegedly there might have been a knock at the door at 9.57.

If we knew that to be true, then that scenario just becomes a lot more plausible, right? Someone's potentially knocking on the door. Yeah, so from what I can tell, this allegation has only been made by Drew Kessie on a podcast. I think it's called Unconcluded, the podcast. So he said this. And apparently Jennifer didn't really check to see who was knocking at the door. If this knock happened, I did reach out once again.

I reached out to the family members just to clear this specific knock thing up. I didn't want to talk about it until I had gotten some sort of like affirmation one way or the other. But she didn't know who it was. She didn't get up and look. She just kind of assumed like, oh, I think it might be my upstairs neighbor. I'm not going to answer it. So it could have if the knock happened, it could have been anybody. It could have been a construction worker. It could have been somebody that she worked with who was just showing up. She didn't know who it was at that point, but how would they get in? Or did they knock again later after she got off the phone?

And then she answered it when they knocked again without looking through the people, or she looked through the people and was like, oh, that's Roger from work. What's he's he doing here and open the door where they see someone with a badge yeah i can't make out with the badges at that point all i see is someone in a uniform with a little badge on yeah you open the door now based on what you've explained to me about jennifer doesn't seem likely but we have mishaps we have laps of judgment where you could slip up one time and that might all take all i'm saying to everybody out there is keep your mind open. I know there's certain things that we're talking about in this episode that may suggest one thing. Oh, you know what? There was contractors all over the place. It's got to be a contractor. It's got to be a trafficking thing, right? That's the obvious

answer. Well, maybe because that's what people are mostly thinking is why we don't have this person in custody yet because we're not thinking outside the box. And even though the scenarios may seem unlikely, you have to explore them until you find a piece of evidence that definitively rules that out and at this point with this case based on what you've told me that's not really there yes logic tells you that based on what the crime scene looked like she left in the morning i agree but is it would it be the first time we ever heard of a suspect staging a scene to look like something that it's not no of course not so you have to keep it in play. Do you think if somebody knocks on your door and pretends to be a police officer,

would it be okay for you to be like, hey, slide your badge or your card or something under the door? I'm not opening for you? I'm telling all of our listeners and viewers tonight that unless this person is doing something like that, like a business card, or at that point you say, what's your name and badge number? I'm calling the local police, what the police department are you with? I'm calling them to confirm that you are who you say you are and that you're on a call at this building. I've actually recommended that to people that are driving. If you get stopped by an unmarked car and they have red and blues, it's very, it's okay to go the speed limit, find an area that's publicly lit, that

there's people around. And before doing anything, before even rolling down your window, open it at a crack if you want and just say, Hey, what's your name and badge number? You're in plain clothes right now in a unmarked car. I'm calling your agency to confirm that you're even on a traffic stop right now. I'm not opening my door, rolling down my window until I know for sure. And I strongly believe in that. And any law enforcement officer that understands

his or her job would be perfectly okay with that based on those circumstances. They would understand in this society, people are going to be very skeptical of who they open their doors to. And they should have no issue with that. Yeah, I've driven all the way home with an unmarked car trying to pull me over.

Well, don't do that. Don't do that. Don't do that. You just told them where you live well i know but like once i'm home now they know who you are but what is he gonna leave no but now they can come back later they know where you live drive to a public area and more importantly drive to your local police department drive to the closest lawn for a police idea and drive right up to the front door. That's why you got me, Steph. Not just a hat rack, right? I'm here for you.

Don't drive up to your house. I just feel safe in my house. It's like, what are you going to do to me in my house? You know, like, yeah. But there's always things you can do better. But yes, anybody shows up at your door late at night. It's perfectly okay to be a dickhead and be like, no, I'm going to need to see a little bit more than just, I'm going to open my door to you. Why are you here? So don't go down that path where you're like, oh, Derek and Stephanie think she was abducted at

night. I'm just saying there hasn't been anything presented to me that rules that out definitively. That's important. I will say this was 2006 technology wasn't great. It was like up and coming and evolving, but it wasn't where it is like up and coming and evolving but it wasn't where it is now and you know where it could be and as drew kessie has pointed out more than once technology did not help anyone in this case as we know with the surveillance video too and additionally as far as i can tell jennifer kessie's phone records have never been released which is strange so we don't really know who she was calling or who she was talking to. We just hope if it was something substantial, we would hear from either the police or the Kessie family, and we haven't. And on that note, we're going to take

a quick break. We'll be right back. Okay, we're back. And now we're kind of getting into when things start being discovered because on the afternoon of Thursday, January 26, 2006, a resident of an apartment complex called Huntington on the Green reported to 911 that a car had been parked in a visitor or temporary parking spot in front of her building for a few days and basically abandoned like nobody had returned to it. When Orlando police arrived, they found that the vehicle in question was Jennifer Kessie's 2004 black four-door Chevy Malibu. And at first glance, the only thing out of place about the car was that Jennifer Kessie was not with it. And I listened to this podcast where some reporter who was really

like covering Jennifer's case right from the beginning, I forget her name, but she was covering the case like from day one. And she said, we were all so stressed out because the media were like there when the car was discovered. And they were like, are we going to open the trunk and find Jennifer's body in there? Because that's really what you kind of expect. Like that's the worst case scenario. That's what you expect. But not only was Jennifer's body not in the car, it seemed like nothing was really out of place in the car. Now, this apartment complex, Huntington on the Green, it's only just over a mile down the street from where Jennifer lived, I think 1.2 miles away. But some people might say that it might as well have been on a different planet. Mosaic at Millennia, which was Jennifer's complex, it boasted highly manicured lawns, a safe and gated community, and around-the-clock security. It was also located in a slightly more upscale, like, kind of public part of town. If you were driving on Interstate 4 in Orlando and you got off the exit for the Mall of Millennia, you'd find yourself on Conroy Road,

a busy street with retail shops on one side and the massive mall on the other side. Now, just after the mall, Jennifer's condo complex was located on the north side of the road. And even from the street, you could tell that it was a nice, upscale, gated community. But if you kept driving,

Conroy Road would transition into Americana Boulevard, and that's when the upscale and luxury views ended and the seedy strip malls began. This is a place or an area that's known for drugs, you know, high crime rates, at least in 2006. And according to locals, this location is one of the worst neighborhoods in the Orlando metro area. Some people say they won't even drive near that area at night and they'll go miles out of their way to avoid it. According to Drew and Joyce Kesey, Jennifer's parents, Jennifer herself would have no reason to be there. So why had her car been abandoned there? Now when the Orlando Police Department arrived at Huntington on the Green, they found Jennifer's car parked in a visitor spot in a small side parking lot near the complex pool and clubhouse.

And initially, there were no apparent signs of struggle inside or outside the vehicle. At least that's what the general public was told. No signs of struggle, nothing out of place. There was no blood inside the car. And the only discernible print that CSI was able to pull belonged to Jennifer, and it was like a palm print. They also were able to find an unknown DNA sample, but it was only a partial DNA profile and not enough to be entered into CODIS. Inside the car, on the floor of the passenger side, police found two pairs of flip-flops.

And Jen's family claimed that, you know, she would always wear flip-flops when she was leaving work or heading into work. This way, you know, it's more comfortable when you're driving because driving in high heels is not comfortable. Walking in high heels is not comfortable. That's why I never do it. But she wouldn't scuff her high heels on the pavement because she's wearing flip-flops. So it's to protect the integrity of the shoes and also just for comfort. Now, one of the pair of sandals were darker in color, and they looked similar to a pair of flip-flops that Jennifer is seen wearing in pictures from St. Croix. Remember, she had just been to St. Croix a couple

days before she went missing. Now, in the side of the driver's door, police found a travel cell phone charger as well as a broken key, and this key belonged to Jennifer's mailbox at her condo. And something the detectives found very interesting was a DVD player in the back seat. This DVD player had been a gift to Jennifer from her boyfriend, Rob, and this told the police that whatever had happened to Jennifer

had probably not been a robbery or a carjacking. Another thing that stood out that is in the police report is Jen's car is described as being neat, and her parents found this very hard to believe. Jennifer would typically keep her living space very clean and orderly, but her car and her bathroom were the two places that Jennifer just couldn't seem to keep clean and orderly. But her car and her bathroom were the two places that Jennifer just couldn't seem to keep clean and picked up. It appeared that whatever she took out or used would sort of just stay wherever she left it until she got around to picking it up or putting it away. This went for her car and for her bathroom as well. So her parents were a little like confused as to why her car would be so neat and just have these few things

in them. And also, you know, why is there only one print that belongs to Jennifer in the car? Was the car wiped down before it was parked? It's a great point. There's a couple of things that you said in there that I agree with law enforcement, where you're thinking it's a carjacking. Obviously, at that time, DVD player right right now we're thinking 2023 like what's that 10 bucks but back then it's probably pretty expensive probably a couple hundred bucks and it's portable easy to easy to conceal and also easy to resell right i mean to anybody or just trade for drugs or whatever it might be so i agree with that assessment that it's not indicative of a robbery where the motive is financial right you're trying to obtain things money credit card whatever it might be possessions possessions, jewelry, things like that.

You would take the DVD player. There was one other thing that I wanted to talk about, which I didn't want to interrupt you because you were in the middle of a sentence, was the DNA. I know at the time they're saying that DNA was insufficient to enter into CODIS, but I wonder if now with the way science and technology has advanced, would they be able to take that smaller sample and do something with it? I know we have PCR testing where you're able to clone or duplicate the existing sample so that you can check it multiple times. What we're talking about here is taking a sample that may be incomplete and finding ways to fill in the sequence, right? To maybe get, it might not be as good as a full DNA profile, but there's some type of

technology out there where they can take a piece of it and fill it in. I don't know. DNA is so complicated. Maybe that's not the case, but with all the labs out there today that have solved cases that seemed at the time unsolvable, that'd be interesting to see if they revisit it. Cause I'm assuming that those statements were made probably around the time 2006 when this, when this happened. So I wonder,

I'm sure drew and his family still staying on top of it. So I wonder if that's been suggested, but yeah, it all, it all makes sense as far as the car's cleanliness. Could it be signs of someone cleaning it out? Yes. It could also be because she just recently cleaned her car out.

And for the one or two days we've all been there where you clean your car out and it looks like a brand new car and then back to your old ways. That could just also be the situation as well. However, if we're going to explore the path of this was more, you know, premeditated me and I talk about ideas that they staged the apartment. Well, if I'm going to say that, how can I not say it's plausible that they staged the car or clean the car? I can't.

So yeah, it's possible. And the whole thing about this case that bothers me so much, and there's a lot actually, I shouldn't say the thing, but the fact that this car was taken to a location that I know wasn't the greatest of areas, but it still was populated by human beings. And so you run such a risk, going back to the car, getting in the car, and i know you're going to go over the specifics but going back to a complex taking the car driving it to another location where at all points you could be seen on camera which did happen by people or by a person yeah i mean there's so many situations where you're exposing yourself so my question by the pool, and it's florida. It's it may be january, but it's hot right now. The question's why? Why do it? Why do it? Was she ever in the car? And if so, why why not drop it in the woods somewhere?

Why not drop it at a park? That's not as populated. I don't know I don't know It does suggest that the person may not be a career criminal that they may not have planned it out Because I don't think that would be the process. I think you would take the car. I do understand wanting to dump the car as fast as possible for the reasons I said to you in episode one, you're in the car of the missing person. You don't know what's being done at this point. You don't know who's out looking for it. It doesn't even have to be law enforcement. It could just be the victim's dad driving back to a complex and you pass them in the Malibu. Now you're cooked at that point.

So you're taking a huge risk going back to the scene of the crime at any point, nevertheless, getting in the vehicle. So I don't know why they would do this. There's something about that car where they wanted to throw people off. And like you had said in episode one, they maybe wanted people to believe that she had gone to work or that she may have just gone somewhere and took off and she was okay. And this would extend the amount of time they have to get to weigh. That would be the explanation. But man, risk worth reward.

Remember what you said earlier? You were like, oh, missing person, especially if the car is still there. Well, the car is not there. So the responding police officer is going to be like, well, she probably just got her car and drove away. Like the car's not here. She's not here.'s not here like so yeah definitely and check this out maybe you'd want to take it further or drop it someplace more like remote but let's say you're working a shift at the apartment complex where she lived and you can be gone for hours yeah right so you just want to

drive it a mile down the road, leave it and get your ass back so that nobody notices that you're gone. So when the police come looking later, no one can say, well, John was gone for like two hours today, actually, right around that time. So that is suspicious, go talk to John.

So I definitely think they just wanted to get get get rid of it as soon as possible. They don't want to be driving around in it. They didn't want to look around for any place to go. They just wanted to drop it and move on with their lives and not be around it in it. Nowhere near it. Oh, yeah. The car was plutonium for sure. They didn't want to be near it.

They knew it was for the reasons I'm saying. It's bad to be in the victim's car at any point. Not good. Middle of the day. car at any point. Not good. Middle of the day, not a good situation. So they clearly felt it was a big enough deal to risk it all for that. I don't know. They got away with it. So I guess it worked out and it did give them a few more hours. So mission accomplished, I guess, if that's the way you want to look at it. Gave them a lot more hours. Yeah. So like I said, initially we were told by the police that Jennifer's car showed no signs of struggle.

But that was before Drew and Joyce Kesey sued the Orlando Police Department and got their hands on over 16,000 pages of police notes, pictures, and videos after settling with the police department in March of 2019. Now, the previous year, in December of 2018, Drew and Joyce had sued the police department, saying that their daughter had been missing for almost 13 years. And even though no new leads had come in and no arrests had been made, they'd continually been denied access to the files concerning Jennifer's case. Drew and Joyce said that they wanted to hire a private investigator and basically see what kind of independent investigation, you know, might happen and what it might turn up. But their requests for the records were repeatedly denied. And when they hired a lawyer to file an official request, they were told that the extensive files would need to be redacted before even being released.

And this could cost upwards of $18,000, a sum of money that the lawsuit called exorbitant and unreasonable. And this is kind of weird to me because Florida has a sunshine state law where basically like all records about investigations and stuff are considered like open to the public. It's usually like if you're trying to get public records or police records, Florida is the easiest place to get them. But I have seen a lot of cases go down like this where you'll file a FOIA request and then they'll be like, oh, we'll get you the records, but you're going to pay like $35 per page. And we have like 5 million pages here. So just give us, you know, our $1.5 million right now and you can have whatever you want. And so they basically charge like these crazy amounts of money just so you won't you know pursue the the record request now in this situation i understand if they need to pay somebody to go through and redact over 16

000 pages of police notes that that's going to come at a cost, but like, you know, $18,000 seems ridiculous. I don't think they should have to pay anything. I think that the cost, I think to be fair, it could cost 10, 15 grand to have someone do that. Shouldn't be at the expense of the victim's family. That's what we pay taxes for. Yeah. Pull from that. It's been like over a decade, man. There should be no, I feel the same way about our medical. I feel like there's certain things in life that we shouldn't have to pay for. We pay for it in everything we do. We get taxed for everything.

And I think property taxes and all these different things that you pay for your local city or town should cover the paper that they have to print on. And the people, you know, administrative people who have to go through and do what they have to do and redact it. And just to, just to piggyback off of what you said, cause we've talked a lot about cold cases and when outside entities should get involved. 13 years is enough. 13 years is more than enough. You had your shot Orlando PD, you didn't solve it. You may have new people coming up in the ranks that may have a different perspective on it, but at that point you got to put your ego aside. You got to be willing to work with the family and their investigator so that they can take a shot at it. Worst case scenario, you're still right where you are and it's an unsolved case. But you got to expand your reach at that point. You got to allow

other people to take a look at it and at minimum, give the family the opportunity to look at the facts so that they can see what you're dealing with and come to their own conclusions so yeah 13 years you shouldn't have to sue a police department to get access to it and i've said it and i'll stick to it two or three years the case that's a long time to wait i can't imagine still relatively new 10 15 20 years it's time to let someone else take a look at it. And I don't think law enforcement agencies should be opposed to private investigators, certified, licensed private investigators coming in, taking a look at it, or at minimum, the family members saying, hey,

I'm her father, I'm her mother. I want to look at it. They should be able to get that paperwork. Yeah. And the private investigator was like a previous federal agent. So he had like, you know, experience, right? And he's going to spend all of his time working that case. You know, at this point, 13 years later, I can guarantee you they have a detective assigned to that case, but he's not opening that folder or she's not opening that folder unless something new comes in. It's sitting in a file somewhere collecting dust. Well, they're opening that folder now to redact some shit. Yeah. Yeah, no doubt. But yeah, I completely agree with it. I think it should happen. And here's the thing. Yeah, I know you want to keep it in house because if you ever have to prosecute someone down the road, it could hurt the case if this is out there.

Well, guess what? If you turn this evidence over to the family members, right? Or this report over to the family members and they screw it up by telling everybody about it. Well, when they do find someone and it doesn't get prosecuted, you can look at them and go, mom, dad, we told you this is on you. That's your that's your your ship to sink. And I mean, honestly, that's concerning. If the police have the same records, I mean, even better records because they're not redacted. And then all of a sudden the parents and the P. the PI get it and they're like cracking this case open. Like you didn't do your job properly. So like we need to be looking at everybody with a side eye at this point.

Because if you've had 16,000 pages. Here's where I would argue with you. And I've said it before. Not all cops are created equal. You could have 10 detectives inside that building, right? Just because of detectives doesn't mean they're good detectives. It's just like baseball players, right? Everyone can play baseball. It doesn't mean they're all going to be pros. So you could have a private investigator like this guy or girl, I don't know what it is, who's a former FBI agent who specialize in these types of cases, who could come in there and mop the floor with this police department, just because he or she has experience with these specific things. Just because someone, it sometimes takes an outside perspective or a different type of experience in investigations to crack the case.

So yes, it could be negligence. It could be, hey, that's a problem. You guys should have saw this. Like if it's something egregious, like, hey, I'm looking at a photo of the crime scene and there's a sign there that says so-and-so did it. You should have probably spotted that, but you didn't. But if it's something where this person just pieces the puzzle together by taking a different approach, I'm okay with that. And law enforcement should be okay with that as well.

They shouldn't look at it as a personal attack. No, I'm with you. I agree. I've always thought that an outside perspective is helpful. But this is a pretty big case. So not only, and it's been over 10 years, 13 years. So am I going to assume that only one person has ever seen this from the alert? No, several people from the Orlando police department have seen it. And then you've got the cold case guy who, you know, it's kind of his job to like

go through the file again and see if anything's been missed. So when this file, this large file, substantial file in this big case has been looked at by multiple eyes inside the Orlando Police Department and then it gets, you know, to this PI and immediately they like are like, well, it's obvious who did this. That's an issue. That's an issue with your police department, in my opinion. What would the issue be? That multiple people have seen it and didn't see what this one PI saw. Like you should have somebody in your police department who's like as smart as this rando PI. Are you saying like in the theory that if it's something obvious,

like, Hey, look at police one-on-one, here's the, here's your answer. Because in that case, I agree with you. Yeah. Yeah. I would say, you know, if, if it's something like pretty obvious, yeah. But you could have a PI and I, I, there's such a negative, and I'm biased because I'm a PI, but I, and I have a couple of investigators that work for me that I would put up against anyone Honestly, they're studs and I think they're better than a lot of the detectives. I worked with truthfully and there's they're really good But I do think there are PIs who have a lot of experience in specific areas that may be helpful in certain cases So I want to get to a point where law enforcement sees private investigators as a tool, not necessarily an adversary. And that might never happen,

but it'd be a nice, as we get further along, hopefully it becomes the case. It would entail a lot of egos being deflated and put to the side. I've experienced it. Trust me, with breaking homicide, I've experienced, I've had smaller departments that honestly are terrible and the case would have been solved if someone else had it. And then I have departments like Seattle police department who has an entire homicide division, the size of my former police department who welcomed me with open arms because they checked their egos at the door so it's like or they're like so over it's freaking seattle they're like we have so many crimes to track down take this dude take it off our plate please whereas the smaller police department's like we don't have shit going on and we gotta somehow justify our paychecks so we're gonna work this one case but not really yeah no and they say no they screwed it up they don't want anybody touching it because they know it's gonna make them look bad whereas seattle the guy came in he's like listen i don't know what you're going to do that i haven't already

done i got 24 years in this and he did he was he was a squared away detective but he's just like i'm open man hit me with something that i haven't found and i'll go with it and guess what he has way more experience than me and i found something that he hadn't found and we we we arrested someone so but guess what he didn't come back to me and discredit what I did. He was like, thank you. Let's roll with it. And he did. So, I mean, you know, different story, different day, but that's definitely a battle that's

being fought within the law enforcement community right now, for sure. Yo, this police officer was so smart, so much more experienced, so much better than me. Yes. He was. I found something that he didn't see. It doesn't make me better. And that's the point. It doesn't make me better

because maybe nine out of 10 cases, he's the guy you want working it. Maybe it's something where he's looked at it so many times, you miss something. Honestly, there was things in there that I found that I don't know if I would have found if I was still a cop. It was more so the role I was in,

being in television, getting access to certain things, not having to be held to the same standards and also being able to go outside. He was restricted by the medical examiner that was assigned to Seattle PD. I was not. See, we got to think outside the box, man. We got to think outside the box. And the weird thing is, I don't know why the Orlando police department was so like close to the chest with this case. A lot of people say that they just don't understand why. Orlando Police Department was so close to the chest with this case. A lot of people say that they just don't understand why.

Did they find something that they didn't want to reveal? We're not quite sure. However, I will say the Cassie family did receive some files in January of 2018, but they claimed these files were so heavily redacted that they were basically unreadable, which I believe. Once again, it's a good question as to why the Orlando Police Department feel like they have to hide so much about this case. But let's take a quick break and we'll be right back. OK, we're back.

So as part of their settlement, the Kessies were supposed to have all these police files within three to four months of this decision being made in court. Yet over a year later, they were still getting files. And as they were getting these files, they went through everything with a fine-toothed comb, hoping to find something that was missing or something that could bring a new lead, a new avenue for investigation. And there's a lot of stuff that Joyce and Drew Kessie uncovered in these files along with their PI. But for now, we're specifically going to stick to the stuff about Jennifer's car. But I do want to say the Kessie's claim that it took years, like I said, years, not months

for all the files that they were supposed to get. And Drew Kessie said, quote, when we received the files, it was like someone just threw 16,000 pages on the floor and picked them up again and scanned them. We had to hire someone to go through them and categorize it and organize it properly so we can go in and query the database, end quote. And I always wonder, like, is this a sign that the files for Jennifer Cassidy were just always disorganized? Or is this a sign where the Orlando Police Department was like, screw you guys. You got what you want, but we're going to make it as hard as possible for you to, like, get through this shit. Like, what is it?

Because is it, like, nefarious or is it just like we're super disorganized and we never had this shit? We never had this shit in order. Or is it like, we're legitimately just going to make this as hard as possible? Because I know lawyers and stuff do that to each other, you know, when they like go into discovery and they're like, we need everything you have on this. And they're like, you want everything? Okay. And then before you know it, there's like 17 million boxes of just like papers showing up at the lawyer's office. And they're like, oh shit, like we really did it here. So is it nefarious or is it like just disorganized? Could be either or, right? We don't know. We don't know who, what they thought at the time. It could absolutely be like, hey, you got what you wanted. Be careful what you wish for. Or because I've seen it where we've had cold

cases and they're like 20, 30 years old and it's like 15 boxes and nothing is organized. Nothing is fine. You can't find anything. Nothing's been updated in the computer database so you can search it digitally. So the first thing we do with a cold case is take everything, scan it, put it into some type of file organization system where you can search a word or search for a specific thing and find it without having to go through seven boxes of papers. So that could be the case where they just had all these files over the years that have accumulated from different leads, whatever it might be, and no one ever took the time to organize it properly.

And they weren't going to do it for the Cassies if they didn't do it for themselves. So they said, hey, here's what we got. Enjoy. And that's what it seems like the Cassies did. They said they had to find somebody to organize it so they could query the database, which I assume is the same thing as you were talking about, like search by word, which is awesome. Is there a software you use for that? I don't know. I remember one specific case that I can't say because it's still unsolved, but we just PDFed everything. We scanned it into a system and then you can actually scan the pages where the words become something that are searchable. I don't know what the software was, but it was something where it was encrypted.

It was obviously stored within the internal database in the police department. So even after we're gone, anybody can search it 10, 20, 30 years from now. And you have to start there. We also made folders for most cases where the big hitting stuff, things that you want to get caught up. And it was like one big binder where you could go home and read the whole thing over a couple days and download on the case pretty quickly. And then if you have questions that come from that folder, you can search it digitally. Yeah, that sounds awesome. One more thing before we move on. Do you think they were being petty or do you think they were just disorganized? Just your gut instinct. Tell me

now. Go. I'm biased. You know what I'm going to say. I feel like they were disorganized. Just your gut instinct. Tell me now, go. I'm biased. You know what I'm going to say. I feel like they were disorganized from the beginning and that's 13 years. You could have had a changeover in detectives over that period because you think, yeah, 20 year career, but that could have been the changeover where a 20 year guy left it after a couple of years, someone else knew had it. I would say from my anecdotal experience, it's probably disorganization because I've seen it in my departments. But I will also say that because they made this so public, because they were not very complimentary of law enforcement, I absolutely wouldn't be surprised if they made it a little bit harder to sift through because this was like an F you to them. I hope that's not the case, but I'm not an idiot. I know it's very possible.

But to say, I don't know the dynamic between them. I only know what you've explained to us. How nasty did it get? I don't know. I mean, it probably didn't get that nasty, but like we said, egos, you know, egos. Yeah, I mean, I'd like to think that's not the case, but I'd be remiss if I said it's, it's, I haven't seen it before. I mean, we've, we had detectives on my own job that we nicknamed cold case because every case they took it turned into a cold case. Damn.

Dead ass. I'm not going to say that person's name, but some, one of my buddies watching this, listen or watching this are laughing right now because they know who I'm talking about. Or they're not because they're like, that's why they called me cold case this person's that person's not listening because that person ironically always thought they were the best detective in the department too oh yeah yes yes it's not really ironic it's pretty common there's someone on there's someone like that in every job you guys are all looking at going yep that's sammy i know sammy right freaking. Yep. Everyone's got a Sammy. So, yo, is his name really Sammy? Obviously not, Stephanie.

Okay. It's redacted, okay? Or it is. Or is it? Or is it? Okay. So, listen, according to Drew Kessy, there were about 150 photos that law enforcement had taken of Jennifer's car in total. But up until that point,

he and his wife and his son had only seen about four or five of those. So as they were going through all of these new-to-them photos, the Kessies believed they saw in some photos what appeared to be evidence that a violent attack had taken place on the hood of the car. Drew Kessie said, quote, it looked as if someone was thrown down on the top of the hood, arms spread out, and then dragged back almost like off the hood to the point where you can almost see fingers scribbling down the hood, end quote. So Drew Kessie claims he called the Orlando Police Department when he saw these pictures and he was like, yo, yo, did you guys see this? Are you seeing the same thing that we're seeing?

And when I say we, I mean, you know, Jennifer Cassie's family as well as the P.I. that the Cassies had hired. And his name is Michael Toretta. Of course it is. It's such a P.I. name, Michael Toretta. But anyways, Drew was like, did you guys see this? Right. And he claims that the detective responded back. Yeah, that's your crime scene.

As if the police already kind of knew that this was, you know, there on the hood, even though that had not been what they discovered that the reason this detective might have seemed to know about these hood marks already is because law enforcement already suspected that there'd been an altercation on the hood of Jennifer Kessie's car. In the police report from the day the police first checked the vehicle out, Detective Julia Skaz wrote, quote, observed what appeared to be marks on the hood of Jennifer's car as if someone had been pushed on top of it. End quote. It's also noted that detectives on the scene told crime scene techs to also process that part of the car, although it does not appear that the hood of the car was ever processed. Not for DNA, not for fingerprints. At least if that happened, it's not in any of these 16,000 pages that the Kessies received. Drew Kessie also saw what appeared to be a large boot print right by the

gas pedal of the car, a boot print that was too large to be Jennifer's, but might belong to the person who was captured on the surveillance camera parking her car by the pool in the lot of Huntington on the Green Apartment complex. Yeah, this hood was something that we teased a little bit, but it was something that when we got the case for breaking homicide, I was like, oh, this is interesting. Does it solve your case? No, but it does, as that detective said, in not the best way. Yeah, that's your crime scene.

This is why most people that know something, the majority of the case would say, yeah, it's probably not likely that it happened in the apartment because it looks like the sign of struggle is outside. I don't know. I've seen the photo. It's, again, they have probably more enhanced photos.

The photo is publicly around. So it's probably gonna be on the screen right now as I'm talking. Being in person, you could probably see those fingerprint marks. I couldn't see it from the photo itself, but if that's the case, if they're right, well, then it suggests that she was attacked from behind more than likely, right? She might not even have seen her attacker coming where she's fidgeting with her phone or her keys. She's looking down as she's going through them, fidgeting through them to get to

the car. And as she does, her attacker rushes up to her from behind, throws her on the hood of the car, and then does whatever they do. So that's why we're thinking, and we said it in episode one, more than likely she never left that parking lot. It's because of the sign of struggle that you see in the car. It doesn't seem like she pulled over somewhere else and picked someone up or something like that. It seems like before she even entered her vehicle, she was attacked. Yes, exactly. And I mean, that kind of also bolsters the idea that she left in the morning, right? Because who's standing outside of her car at night when that's not typically when she leaves? If anybody was watching her, they'd know what time she leaves for work. So they'd be ready for her. Exactly. That's why I mentioned Brian Kohlberger because there's a real possibility. And I'll say

it again. I'll probably say it one or two more times i know a lot of things would indicate construction worker right like they're there they know that they can it could also have been someone that jennifer was not even aware of like brian kohlberger where they're watching her for weeks on end and they're learning her schedule and they're finding out when she's at work and when she's home maybe there's something that happened where they realized she was going on vacation with another man and it escalated their level of anger with her because she was seeing someone else. She might not even know this person exists.

They might be creating this. Like a Joe Goldberg, right? Who's that? From you? I haven't watched that show. Oh, God. But I heard it's a great show. I got to watch it.

I've been watching Last of Us. That's my show I'm watching right now. But I digress. I'm sure, yes, like Joe Goldberg. Or somebody she knew but didn't know was stalking her, right? Also true. Also very true. So this person, whoever they are, they knew her schedule.

They would have to know her schedule. And they would also have to have a familiarity with the parking lot. It doesn't mean, or the complex, it doesn't mean that they work there. It could just mean that they were in that parking lot a lot and that they learned the schedules of the contractors and who was around and who wasn't and figured out the best time to carry out whatever they wanted to carry out. So again, I know it screams someone who works there, but it could also have been someone who we weren't aware of who's been watching Jennifer for weeks.

And so this is why this case becomes more complicated because the person that we're looking for may have never been identified by anybody in Jennifer's life, including Jennifer. Absolutely. I kind of think it's somebody who works there. I know, I know you do. I know you do. And I think a lot of people are with you and that's why I'm saying, okay, I bet your law enforcement thought that as well. That's why I'm saying it still doesn't mean that it wasn't, it doesn't mean that it wasn't, but I always try to think, okay, if everyone everyone's thinking this if we're all thinking this what are we not thinking about what's the what scenario are we missing because maybe that's why we haven't maybe that's the one that we need to be talking about so i'm with you i hear where people are coming from and i know that the obvious

answer would be someone who worked there and would have access to different things and would see her on a daily basis and wouldn't be necessarily someone who would come off as suspicious because they had a reason for being there. But I do think. Someone who lived there even, right? Someone who lived there. Another resident. Absolutely. So a lot of, and you would also say because it's in the morning and there's people all around that someone would have heard something.

Unless there was a collaborative effort and multiple people who are working there were involved with it. That's the only real way to cover it up. But it is a scenario where if this person's waiting outside, they decided this day because there was no contractors in the immediate area when they decided to do what they did. Yeah, but there's so many units that weren't filled around her because she was in the purchasing condo area. so you'd also maybe have to be somebody with that kind of inside information to say like if i grab her at her car even if she makes a sound or screams or makes a ruckus no one's gonna hear her anyways because i know that this unit this unit this unit and this unit surrounding her are empty so we're good you know

i agree like i said i agree there's there's a lot of things that suggest it's someone who is familiar with that apartment complex and the area because they they drove the car to an area that wasn't very great that not a lot of people from that complex were frequenting but yet they knew exactly where it was and they went directly there it seems like they went directly there anyways so i don't know if they were joyriding but they could have been joyriding maybe yeah maybe have been joyriding. Maybe, yeah. Maybe they're just like, I'm going to drive like a mile down the road and wherever it is a mile down the road, that's where this car is going. It could have been that. And let's talk about the Huntington on the Green Apartment Complex because the cameras that were mounted

by the pool area, they were on the roof of the clubhouse on the southwest side of the pool, and there was two cameras. One pointed in one direction, and then the other pointed in the other direction, so that more than one angle of this pool area was covered. Now, the first camera captured Jennifer's car entering the parking lot right before noon on Tuesday, January 24th, less than five hours after it suspected that Jennifer Kessie was taken from her own condo complex just about a mile down the road. The person driving Jen's car pulled in, then they back up into a parking spot, the third one from the left, and this person remained in the car for 32 seconds before getting out and walking away from the car at 11.59.45. By 11.59.53,

the person of interest is seen walking around the corner of the pool past the hot tub, and at 12.00.06, the person of interest goes out of sight of the first camera and then appears on that second camera about 20 seconds later at 12.00-26. That's when he passed the far gate on the east side of the pool and apparently exits out onto the road on foot. Now, like I said, the quality of the surveillance footage is pretty bad. It was 2006, so surveillance cameras were usually recording in analog and in time-lapse, meaning instead of a continuous recording, a still frame would be snapped every three seconds. The picture is black and white. It's grainy. It's almost impossible to pick out any details. But what makes identifying the person on the surveillance footage

even more impossible is that it just so happens every time the still frame was snapped, every three seconds, the person of interest's face happened to be directly behind one of the thick wrought iron posts from the fence that secured the apartment complex pool. Now this video or these still frames, they've been analyzed by multiple law enforcement entities, the FBI, even NASA. Tons and tons of armchair detectives and still we do not have a clearer picture of who it is that's driving Jennifer's car and abandoning it just over a mile from where she lived and where it's believed she was taken from the same day. And what were they doing for that like four and a half or five hours between when she was allegedly taken on her way to work and when they dropped the car off? Was Jen ever in that car or did she get put into a different vehicle and the

person and somebody else who jumped into that car and followed the vehicle that she was in with that car? But then like where was her car? Was it at the apartment complex for the whole time and they finally decided to get rid of it around noon in case anyone came looking? Or was it gone from the apartment complex as soon as Jennifer Kessy it gone from the apartment complex as soon as Jennifer Kessy was gone from the apartment complex? There's so many questions, no answers. It's very frustrating. Yeah, because just a quick refresh, the employer called Jennifer's father at what time? What was that around? Early, probably about 10 a.m. Yeah. Okay, so 10 a.m. Yeah, so 10 a.m And they didn't they call the complex almost immediately after that didn't they and said hey? Yep, well on their way they called so probably they were calling before noon. Yeah. Yeah, so you're right the car must have been gone

Yeah, the car was gone. Yeah, and this is something where I don't see the perpetrator coming back to the scene of the crime I just they'd have to whether they're Someone who has a ton of experience with this or a novice, you know, you don't go back to the scene of the crime unless there's some type of gratification out of it, which is possible. But that would have been too early for that. You don't go back there and hop in your victim's vehicle. You just don't do it. Because now, for all you know- Wait, you don't think they went back to the scene of the crime I don't think they yeah I don't think there's a scenario where you just you you like oh

Maybe the car was there and they went back and they got it and then moved it I think that's out of the question because as we just kind of figured out reasonable deduction They were calling the parents were calling around. Let's say even 1030 11 o'clock and the man and management was saying her car's not outside so the car was already gone at that point. And more than likely, based on those facts, she's attacked in the parking lot. They get her in the vehicle. Maybe at that point, she's already restrained or maybe unconscious, whatever the case may be, they leave with her in her own vehicle. And then they go somewhere.

Honestly, I think this is why, and my memory started to come back to me. I think this is why there are some experts, some law enforcement people who believe that Jennifer never left that area. Whatever happened to her after that moment happened immediately after in a swampy or wooden area where she couldn't be seen or heard. And then she was disposed of, and then the vehicle was dropped off at this apartment complex. It all happened within a reasonable area. That's why there's been numerous reports of people searching bodies of water nearby, et cetera. There's some other things I think you're going to mention that we had talked about off record that have been reported over the years. But that's what the consensus is that it probably all happened because it's hard to imagine a world where the offender attacks her, takes her, drives off somewhere in the distance, like really far, and then proceeds to come back to the general vicinity of the scene of the crime where now law enforcement and family members and friends could be canvassing the area looking for her. And now you're exposing yourself by being in her car.

So more than likely it happened all in that area, although it could have taken a few hours, although I will say four hours if it happened in the car. They take her into one of the units that's not filled. And whatever happens to her, happens to her there. That way it's like, okay, we're not driving around with her. Nobody's seeing her out. She's not like trying to signal to somebody while we're driving in her car, this is the safest thing. We're gonna bring her to this empty unit, do what we gotta do and then get rid of the car. Or one person or two or three

people take her into the complex, and then the other person gets away with the car and puts it somewhere. I don't think that they took her away from the complex. It's a risk that doesn't need to be taken. I don't necessarily disagree with you. I guess that the thing would be, did they clean up the scene of the crime? If it's one of the apartments where they had prepared for it, they put plastic down, painters, tarps, whatever. It might be something where after whatever's done is done, they can clean up relatively quick so that anybody else going into that apartment at a later time wouldn't notice anything. Yeah. Because that's what i'm saying the police weren't looking there they're not processing these like empty apartment

units that never happened so she could have been attacked and brought right back inside and they're tearing up carpet they're painting you know they're doing stuff that like if you were gonna you know murder somebody you're like, oh, that's okay. I'm replacing this carpet and I'm painting these walls. Like nobody will know this even happened by tomorrow. I still got it. I got to still say it is so crazy that this offender would get into her vehicle after that happened. If that was the case, I just can't get away from it.

Like if you're able to carry out the crime without ever going near her vehicle, staying inside, hidden from the world because of the apartment, great. Then you take off and you go. You go do your thing. You don't go to the victim's car and drive it around because you could get caught by – you could be seen by a witness. You could be seen by cameras. You could be seen by anyone. It's such a risky move to get in that car. That's the only thing that creates a level of hesitancy with me to think everything happened

in the apartment complex. Because why put yourself in the vehicle unless you have to get rid of it? Because now wherever you were ties back to you somehow and you can't have the car be found there. If you're going to take the car with Jennifer in it, which is what we would assume happened. Yeah, maybe. Why attack her outside of the car on the hood? Why wouldn't you wait till she unlocked her door, got in, and then like pull up really

quick with a knife or whatever and be like, shit. What is, we're throwing her under the hood and then still forcing her to get in her own car is still risky. She could put the car in drive and run you over and get out of there. You know, now she knows who you are and she got away. She's seen your face. They're not going to let her get, they're not going to let her get in the car. You want to get them.

That's why a lot of these robberies, all these things happen before the person's in the driver's seat because that's when they're at their most vulnerable. Once they're in the driver's seat, especially nowadays with it being remote push to start, put it in drive forward right into the apartment complex walls. Who cares? Just cause a scene.

So more than likely going to get her outside the car. And also when she's at her most vulnerable point, because like I said, when you're, especially 2006, there's not push to start. It's all keys. So you got your keys in your hand. You're trying to find the car key, whatever it might be. You're looking down. You're not necessarily paying attention. Someone's able to grab you from behind, but to your point, yeah, you attack her from behind and you drag her and bring her back inside. That is also very possible. I don't see anything that would say it's not. The only problem I have with it is why are you getting in the car immediately after? Or if it's a team effort, like you're saying, one or two people grab her, bring her inside. One of the counterparts take

her car, move it somewhere right out of the apartment complex so people think she went to work and wherever they park it then they move it later to the to the other complex which i guess is possible going back to that car so risky though but they they must have moved the car if they moved it they moved it immediately because they wanted to create a gap where people didn't think she was still at the complex if she was there or they took her somewhere remote did what they did and then dropped the car off there and his counterparts are waiting for him nearby you know where he's going to walk to that vehicle and get in with them and then go or the cars parked there the whole time and when the cassie's called the office manager and said can you check to see if jennifer's car is there he's like yeah sure hold on a second put him on hold sat there and like

you know twiddled his thumbs and then got on i was like no car here she must have left for work like that's also possible so the car's still there but then i posed the question because i was asking myself this if that's the case then what would be the point of going and removing the car from the scene of the crime hours later when the whole point would be to like throw police off you didn't move the car down the road and light it on fire you just literally jumped in the car moved it a mile down the road left trace evidence potentially and exposed yourself to being in the victim's car at a later time like what would be the point of it though as from a from a criminal perspective if it wasn't to take the car immediately in the morning to give yourself a window to do what you wanted to do.

Yeah. You get what I'm saying? That's the rationale. I'm not, I'm just devils. We're trying to play it out here where the only sense would make that you would take the car and roll the dice is that you needed a vehicle to get out of there.

Or you were trying to create a window where people wouldn't be looking for her. And you wouldn't go back there later in the day. Or both, I mean, yeah. Or both, or both, right? That's probably the most plausible scenario, but you wouldn't go back there later in the day, let's say noon, whatever it might be,

because it would have to be right around 1130, and you're like, okay, we already did what we had to do. We got her out of here. We're going to move the car down the road, because that's really going to throw cops off. You're just putting yourself in more of a chance of being caught. I got to make a note to myself because I wonder if they had like garages on this site, like if they had like storage areas or garages, like I know they have like parking spots and stuff like

that, but did they have garages? Did they have a place on site where that car could have been stowed out of sight until they were ready to leave, you know, because if she goes missing at like 9 a.m. or 8 a.m. and then she gets reported missing, these guys are going to want to say where they were at that time. And if they're like, well, we were actually driving Jennifer Kessy's car down the street, like they can't prove where they were and that they're not on site if they work there, then that's an issue. So maybe they wanted to give themselves an alibi for the time that she went missing and they couldn't do that if they were off the apartment grounds trying to hide her car. So I have to look into that and see if there was anything like

garages or storage areas or something. I definitely think whatever spot her car was normally in, she probably parked in the same spot most of the time, similar spot. I'm going to go here out on a limb and give the manager the benefit of doubt based on the sense of urgency from the parents. They probably looked out the window or whatever and said, yeah, the car's not there. Now, to your point, could it have been somewhere close by or is it out of the lot altogether? Either scenario is possible, but I definitely think the car was moved somewhere almost immediately after she was attacked, which to your credit would suggest more than one person because unless they tied her up, put her somewhere, then went back to the car, it would seem like more of a collaborative

effort as opposed to one person doing this by themselves. But who knows? It's possible it still could be one individual. So I read something online and I don't know if it's true. So I'm prefacing it, but I read something online and i don't know if it's true so i'm prefacing it but i read something online that a lot of people think this is a trafficking situation where it's not like she was taken to be raped and murdered she was taken to be trafficked i mean she was gorgeous right yeah we clearly see that she's 5 8 she's a beautiful beautiful woman and so she would catch

the eye of people who were out there you you know, looking for women and girls to traffic. And we know that they exist. And they said that they believe in part taken the movie, you know, with Liam Neeson was kind of based on the Jennifer Kessy case because it said that like the producers actually called the police who were like in charge of the case and like called the family and stuff because they were trying to get information. That's just a rumor. Okay. If anybody can find anything to like support the rumor, let me know. But that is very interesting because Jennifer Kessie and the girl in that movie are very similar. And Liam Neeson is very much like kind of the father who's never going to stop until he finds his daughter, which is exactly how Drew Kessie is. right? It's kind of like spot on.

It's interesting. I mean, trafficking is definitely on the table and she's someone who's known to be alone a lot. So it would be easy to take her without someone noticing immediately, especially if she's in an apartment complex that's not heavily occupied. Well, let's take our last break and we'll be right back. All right, so we're back. Let's talk about this figure on the video, the surveillance video, even though it's not a video, it's like a bunch of still shots strung together. But it's believed that this person of interest is a man, although some people heartily disagree and believe it's a woman.

I don't, but they might believe that it's a woman due to the fact that NASA puts this person's height as being between 5'3 and 5'5, which, you know, is kind of short for a man. That's not like an average male height. The FBI now has the height of this person of interest somewhere between 5'3 and 5'11, which I feel like is like the majority of men, right? That is the average height. And then many people online believe that the person's height is closer to being between 5'8 and 5'10.

And these estimates are achieved by comparing the person's height to the fence or the gate that he was walking next to, as well as other cars around him and apparently the palm trees around him. Also, they calculate things like how high was the camera on the roof of the clubhouse and what horizontal distance away

from the person of interest the cameras were. 5'3 and 5'5 seems very, even for like a woman, you know, that's kind of short. Like I'm 5'4 and I think I'm short. 5'3, I don't know. So I don't know if NASA is correct, but it seems like NASA believes that they're correct and it is NASA. So I don't know. But like I said, it's hard to tell anything about this person between that damned fence post and the horrible quality of the video.

But many people have claimed to have seen like a lump or a knob-like protrusion that's coming out of the back of the head. And some people say that it's the person's hair pulled back into a bun or a short ponytail or even like a slicked back hairstyle with the longer portions of the hair sort of sticking out of the back of the head. Some people say it looks as if the person had something on their head like a bike helmet, a beret-like hat, or even a backwards baseball cap. The clothing that this person is wearing in the still shots has been always reported as being light colored, which led a lot of people to say it looks as if this guy's wearing a uniform of some sort, maybe a painter, someone in the medical field, a chef, construction worker.

However, I did read a very interesting blog post from Crime Squid, and they showed surveillance stills taken from another case, an unrelated case. And you can see in the black and white photo, if you're watching on YouTube, I'll have Shannon put these up. But in the black and white photo, it looks as if the suspect is wearing all white. But then in a colored photo from a different camera that had better technology, the suspect is clearly wearing a bright pink shirt and darker pink or red pants. So apparently everyone's clothes come up looking white or off white in these early black and white analog surveillance videos. Oh yeah, definitely.

And also you could have a situation where it's not, it doesn't seem like that time of day it would be, but with night vision and stuff too, infrared, it's either white or black or a grayish color. And it sure is out there, sure it's powder blue or whatever. You just, it's tough to tell from this video and as you're talking about i'm watching it again just just to refresh my memory even though i've watched it like 30 times since we last recorded but i can totally see that being the case it does appear that the clothes are i would just say light in

color that's what i would say but you have had situations where the the colors are kind of inverted and you you know. So it could be really any color. Like his clothes could be any color. Because in this picture of the other case, the dude looks like he's wearing all white. And then you see the full color picture and you're like, damn, like he couldn't have a brighter clothes on. This is like the brightest clothes ever. So honestly, this person could be wearing any color clothing.

Well, the only thing I'll say is it's something you can easily figure out though, right? Like we're speculating, but from, if you're the detective working this, what you do is you walk by that camera at the time when this happens and you wear a bunch of different clothes. You wear white clothes, you wear black clothes, you wear purple clothes, pink clothes. And you walk by. And you just see what it looks like on footage afterwards. And now you can reasonably deduce the potential colors that you're looking at. Just an idea. It might be something you want to do.

So Joyce, Cassie, Jennifer's mom said something similar. She said, oh, everyone's clothes look like that because we saw when the police were doing their investigation and they were walking by, their uniforms looked the same. But I don't think that they tried on a bunch of different, that would make too much sense, honestly, for the Orlando Police Department. I mean, it's something that you'd want to do to try to replicate that photo. What color t-shirt and pants best represented what we see on video to get it's not a hundred percent but it narrows down the pool if you know hey if i'm wearing a black t-shirt it looks black on camera if i'm wearing a dark colored t-shirt it looks dark on camera it's not gonna look like

that we're looking at a color that's white off white light pink maybe something in that very light colored family then you know how the camera operates and you can work off of that. Do I think it makes a huge difference? Maybe not. But if they're able to pull camera footage from the surrounding area for that day, maybe someone matching a similar description is seen on another camera because they went to grab a pack of cigarettes, a honey bun, who knows? Something inadvertently thinking that this isn't going to be part of the investigation. But now, because you were able to use what you had to better identify the person, now a video from the local gas station that you thought was insignificant becomes the key to the case. Okay, so what we do know about the clothes is as follows. The shirt and the pants, they both seem to be a little baggy on this person. The shirt is short sleeved and a lighter color than

the pants, which are baggy and cinched at the ankles. So the pants kind of look like maybe joggers, you know, how they get like kind of tighter around the ankles or maybe sweatpants that were too big on the person and they put like rubber bands around the ankles. Some people said that it looked like that as well. Some people even say that the pants look like they might be dress pants. The person of interest was wearing dark colored boxy footwear, possibly work boots or high top sneakers with lighter colored socks. Some people believe that the shoes also look a little too large for this person. And what does stand out though is although the person of interest is obscured by the fence, it seemed this was just a happy accident for him because he doesn't seem to be making any attempt to conceal himself, right?

He's not hiding his face or turning away from the camera. It's like he doesn't even know the cameras are there. And right where Jennifer's car was parked, there's a sidewalk. So like if you got out of her car after it was parked, there'd be a sidewalk directly in front of you. And if this person had walked along that sidewalk, it would have brought him behind the pool and like less chance of people seeing him because that path kind of winds through a few buildings. But instead, this person walked around the pool in full view of the cameras, in full view of the road, and in full view of anyone who may have been lounging around outside. And it doesn't appear that anybody was. But this is Florida. Like I said, it still gets pretty hot in January. There may have been people in the pool who could have later identified him or like a lifeguard, because I know that usually there's lifeguards on duty, even if there's not people in the pool. But the point is, he didn't know. He wouldn't have known that. And because he didn't seem to be aware of any of this, it's believed that this person of interest had no previous knowledge of this apartment complex. It just to be a convenient place to leave jennifer kessie's car like i said i think this dude was like okay i'm driving but i'm not driving far i'm driving like a mile down the road and that's why i don't think that they were all over the place and they were like driving around for five hours with

her car that's why i think it was stowed somewhere at that apartment complex, because why would you drive back towards the apartment complex where people might be looking for her, where the police might literally be like setting up a barrier of a mile or two, or her parents might be driving around looking for her. If you've been driving around for five hours with her and her car, and you're like out there, leave the car out there. Why would you drive back towards the scene of the crime? Well, here's why I believe they either left the apartment and went directly to the place where the car was dropped or why I believe they may have been driving around for several hours or at least away from the Mosaic Millenia complex and then came back towards the scene of the crime.

This is very important, but we're going to talk about it in a minute when we talk about the scent dogs. So Jennifer's parents, Drew and Joyce Cassie, seem to be leaning towards the belief that this is a man who had his hair styled in a bun, a style that they claim was popular at that time. Joyce Cassie even said when she first saw the stills, she was like, it looks like an awkward teenager, kind of like somebody who hasn't come into their own yet, whose like arms are too long and they're just kind of clumsy. But she definitely believes it's a man. And once the police realized that their only lead was this person, they brought in scent dogs and those dogs tracked a scent from Jennifer's car

all the way down the road, not only to her apartment complex or her condo complex, but to the building that she lived in. Okay, so law enforcement believes that the dogs were tracking the perpetrator's scent, not Jennifer's, and this path shows that he left Huntington on the Green Complex on foot and walked all the way back a little bit over a mile to the Mosaic at the Millennia condo complex, which leads the Cassie family and their PI to believe that whoever took Jennifer is affiliated with that condo complex in some way, whether they lived there, worked there, or both. Because like, why after getting rid of Jennifer in her car, would the person return to the scene of the crime if they didn't have to?

Why, after getting rid of Jennifer, would the person drive back towards the complex she was taken from to leave the car if they'd already been driving around with her car and with her body? And why then would they walk back to the apartment complex where they had just kidnapped a woman? So are you saying that they have an affiliation with the apartment complex that Jennifer lived at or the one where the car was dropped off? The apartment complex Jennifer lived at. So the car gets dropped off at the Huntington on the Green, and then they walk back to the Mosaic and Millennia. And that's why I think even if they had been driving around for hours in that five-hour period they returned to close by because they knew they had to walk back to the complex and so they couldn't go that far they couldn't leave the car that far from the complex because they had to get back to the complex they had to be within

walking distance and that's why they left that car so close to the mosaic and millennia complex would you agree at that point then it suggests probably that it's probably one person then? It could be one person then because then you don't have someone to pick you up. I was thinking the same thing. You could just call your buddy and be like, hey, pick me up. I mean, right? Because he definitely walked because they tracked his scent along that road. So it could be one person. And that person would definitely have to be affiliated with that complex then because why would you return there otherwise? Unless maybe they're like a sicko and they want to hide out and wait for the police to come. I don't know.

The only other thing I could think of is that their car was there. They were transported to that complex somehow if they had been stalking her for a while. Now, the contractor angles also just as equally possible but if they're stalking her they're following her their vehicle's there they hop in her car with her they go somewhere to not only create this maybe lack of awareness that people might assume hey she because here's the thing right if her if their if her employer doesn't call dad then nobody really says anything for a while at least to the end of the day, because the car's not there. Nobody's going to assume anything. But because the employer calls

dad, that's when some flags are raised and that's when they went into immediate action. I don't think the offender knew it was going to happen that fast. They think she's alone. She's never with anybody. They think this girl doesn't have anybody who's going to notice. And then they notice. So there is that situation where the offender grabs her, takes her car, goes somewhere nearby. It could be a wooded area, could be near a swamp, or they also could live nearby. They might live in the area, but obviously to go back and get their vehicle, they don't want to drive up in Jennifer's car. So they go to the closest complex that's kind of off the road. They drop the car there,

walk back to the complex, hop in their vehicle and they take off. Yeah, that's possible. I mean, you think if they parked at the condo, though, they'd have to have some reason to be there. Like they'd be there for her specifically. Could be. So here's where I think it gets a little lost because I know that we've played it up that she was the first person there. I just don't know how many people were living at that complex. Like my complex it's full, but it's a full apartment complex full of people. So if there was hundreds of people living at that complex, even though it held thousands, you could have 30, 40, 50 cars in there, which still isn't a lot, but enough to hide your car amongst them. Cause you're going to have the workers vehicles and stuff like that. So you

could park your car somewhere there. If there's an, you also have management that's parked there as well. So we can't assume and either way, but I know it's easy to think that maybe just her car was there and it was a completely vacant lot. So any other car would stand out like a sore thumb. There goes my Rhode Island accent again. But it is plausible that there were a couple dozen cars in that lot. So you could park somewhere in the back and it wouldn't really be something that stands out to anybody. Yeah, that's a good point. So basically, like, we're back to where we started. It could be anyone coming from anywhere for any reason.

That's right. That's right. You're always so much help. Well, I just think it's something where there's obviously internally something the police think happened, right? They're not going to say it publicly, but they could be saying it was one of the painters or it was one of the contractors. But they don't have anything. If they had enough, they'd already have charged someone, right? They probably have some ideas of who they think were involved.

Not enough to go after anyone, but that could be the problem too, right? The fact that they're focusing or devoting their attention on the wrong person. So that's why you have to ask yourself the question when you look at these cold cases, why? Why is it unsolved? Is it due to lack of evidence or is it due to tunnel vision, right? I mean, because there may be evidence. In this case, there is evidence. Let's be honest, compared to some of the cases we work, you have a sign of struggle. You have possible DNA in the car that didn't match anyone. You have a person on video, right? You have stuff to go, a blueprint. These are just the things that we know about, that we've heard. So there's more in this case than in many. So there's stuff to go off of here.

I just wonder if they're only focusing on one particular scenario, if that could be why it hasn't been solved. I don't think they're really focusing on any scenario because it didn't seem like they really focused on the it was a worker at the apartment complex because they didn't really like interview any of those people you know they they did like talk to a couple people but it wasn't like they went really deep with anybody and of course you know there's people out there who think that Jennifer Kessy did this to herself, like disappeared herself, gone girl style. And that's why the person looks like the person, the person of interest leaving Jennifer's car looks like everything's too baggy on them and they look like smaller. But keep in mind, those people don't seem to remember that Jennifer Kessy was not like this tiny little petite girl standing at like 5'3".

You know, she's 5'8". So the height doesn't add up. And like, why? You know, why would she have done that? There's no motive to do that. There was no activity on her cell phone afterwards, no activity on her bank cards. She would have just like dropped off the map and known how to do that, how to like change her identity to the point where like nobody ever finds her again. And what reason would she have to do that? She was, everything was going great. She just got her first, you know, purchased her first home. Great job. Boyfriend, things are moving forward with their boyfriend. Why would she gone girl herself? I don't get it.

Wouldn't make a lot of sense. No. We can't rule it out a hundred percent, but I would say it's very low on the totem pole. Like maybe like a 1.5% chance. I'm with you. I don't disagree. So apparently, like we talked about, you know, the police and even Jennifer's family have done a lot to try and get more information about the images showing this person of interest, including having them enhanced by NASA. But they've had no success, even after releasing the photos and the video to the public, hoping that someone somewhere might be able to identify this person.

Additionally, Drew Cassie said that in 2006, Google Earth was in beta. And so they contacted Google Earth and they were like, hey, we know you're in beta. Like, do you happen to have like pictures or images of the time that Jennifer went missing in the place that Jennifer went missing? And they were like, no, Google Earth said no, that was a dead end. Drew even asserts that he has friends in like government and he contacted them to see if there were any satellites or as he called it, Big Brother. He said, we talked to our government friends to see if Big Brother was looking down on Orlando, Florida at the time of Jennifer's disappearance. And that was a dead end as well. Apparently, Big Brother was not looking down, which is a far cry from the 2020s where Big Brother is looking everywhere all the time, constantly. And they say, we don't know where this person went, but you know there's a satellite watching everything. And so many crimes could just be solved if the government would just give us all of their like intel. Yeah.

Who knows what they have at their disposal? Well, that is where we're going to end today. But we are going to pick up next week with the theories. Theories and suspects. One of my favorite parts of Crime Weekly. Yeah, I'm excited about that. I have seen a couple names floating around. Some people have done some deep investigating as far as possible scenarios

based on the geographical location, bodies of water, that there are people who are suspected of other crimes, who live in the area, et cetera. So there's a lot to explore. We started to scratch the surface today, but more so just, hey, it's a person who works at the complex or it's someone who was stalking her, who had followed her one day back to the complex and

decided that day to act. So we're scratching the surface. There's a lot to talk about. And I think it's important because as I've said numerous times in this episode, I do think there's a lot of people who automatically assume it's got to be a worker. It's got to be a worker from the complex. And I would just caution that. I would just caution that and say, yeah, it's possible, but it's also possible that it was absolutely no one connected to the apartment other than the fact that one day someone spotted Jennifer, thought she was attractive or whatever the reason might be, followed her back to the complex, started to realize that there weren't a lot of people around and saw an opportunity to take advantage of the situation and did. So we're

going to explore all of that. And I like how we're doing it this week. There have been a couple people, not the majority. So we're not changing it for you. Don't think we are. Some people like, oh, you know, you're speculating a lot. You're giving a lot of theories. We want just the facts. Well, we're here to talk about the case because nobody said that stop there are people there are people very few so dumb it is it's you know at the end of the day we're going to do what what we want to do with the show and i do like the idea of kind of covering it we hit a little bit on some theories because it's impossible not to and we'll close out this series with some more detailed uh information about the potential theories with this case and who knows,

maybe there's something within that that jogs the memory of somebody out there. That's always the hope. It's a long shot, but you won't know unless you try. Yeah. I'm still like, literally my mind's blown that people are like, you're speculating. That's what podcasts do. We don't have police. Like they're not saying that. Are you exaggerating? Yes. I'm making it up. Okay. Good. Okay, good. I'm good to know. Cause that would be ludicrous. You can never please anyone.

We're at the end of the episode now. So if you want to click off, you can, but you can never, for anybody out there who's starting anything, YouTube podcast, you just have to know. It's not that we're not reading the comments or we don't consider feedback, but there are a lot of people who are just going to have an opinion to have it. And some of y'all are just grumpy. And so it's one of those things where when you're having a lot of people listening or watching your show, you're not, not everyone's going to agree with you. I'm just grumpy.

Yeah. Some of them are just grumpy. They're just miserable, but we, we have to do the show that we think is best because that's what allows us to come back each week. And I'm not, I don't want to use the word enjoy, but I will. We enjoy talking to each other about these cases. We don't like the content that we're covering necessarily. We'd prefer there not to be these cases and we'd have to talk about something else. But for us to come back and do this week after week for hours at a time, we have to be allowed to voice our opinions, especially Stephanie's investigated thousands and thousands of hours of cases. And I've done it for a little bit of time as far as investigating. So we do have a little bit more experience than just a normal person off the street.

So we like to do that. And I think most of you do. So we're going to continue to do it because otherwise, what's the point of us? Exactly. If you just want the facts, then look it up online and get the facts in a five minute like right like post you know like a news article like what are you doing wasting two hours listening to us talk if you expect no opinion or speculation at all that's bananas to me yeah you want i was telling stephanie my pet peeve before we started you get some people in the comments where they're like, and if you're watching this and you it's you, then I'm calling you out.

But yeah, now they're going to do a more because you said this. No, I won't. I'll hide them, too. But basically what they'll do is they'll say, like, oh, episode starts at, you know, 820. Because in the beginning of the episode, sometimes we talk about our personal lives or things that we have going on. Criminal coffee, whatever it might be, or just some small talk to get into it. episode sometimes we talk about our personal lives or things that we have going on criminal coffee whatever it might be or just some small talk to get into it because it is usually the first time we're talking for the day we use we try to save that for you guys if it and people

who think you're doing a favor by telling them when the episode starts it's like so basically what you're saying is you could give a shit about us you just want us to entertain you so it's one of those things where i'm not gonna lie to you. See, I don't care about that stuff. I do. Well, not that I care. That's the wrong thing. I'm not going through all my day thinking about it,

but it does give me some joy to delete your comment. I'm gonna be honest with you. It does that little like, oh, when you write, video starts at so-and-so. You're welcome. I'm like, no, thank you. Click, you're gone. Deleting out of there.

It gives me everyone yo everyone thinks that like i'm the mean person in the comments you are blocking people and no i'm not i don't talk to people i talk to people in the comments if you're talking to me and you expect me not to see it or talk back trust i'm going to talk back if i see it i'm going to talk back so to me that's fun like that discourse. Let's go back and forth. I'll win. But like, Derek be blocking people, man. Like deleting them. Yeah. If you, I mean, it's pretty simple for me. If you say like, Derek's an idiot or I don't agree with his opinion, I don't delete that. Like, that's fine. What about if they say Stephanie's an idiot and I don't agree with her opinion?

I don't delete it. I don't delete it. I'll delete it if it's like there's some disrespectful stuff when they'll comment about how we parent our kids or something like that. Oh, no, they don't do that? Yeah. To your, yeah, as far as you know, they don't. Yo, I would be blocking your asses too. Don't ever talk about my kids. Get my kids out of your mouth. Yeah, so those things go and i don't do it for

all of them but there are times where i'm like we put so much hard work into everything we do and people are like video starts at 10 minutes it's like well clearly that person has no connection to us they're just like hey i want to know about this case i don't give a shit about you which is perfectly fine and i i don't go through every comment of the leader of them but i'm not gonna lie to you i'm be straight up with you if you if you're no if afterwards you do that and you're like Why is nobody seeing my comments? It's because you're hidden. So you know Therapeutic it feels good. Yeah, you like care but it's like this is you know, very like cathartic It does feel good. So there's probably a few of you who are still commenting

Every week like here's where the video starts.'s seeing your comment but that's petty i know you guys can do it on on my youtube channel i don't care do it on stephanie's but that's that's really all we have i mean most of those people have already clicked off at this point because we finished the episode but yeah overall video ends at time stamp you're welcome i'll leave that up this week i'll leave that up this week just because it'd be funny because that means you got to the end of the video. So I appreciate you. But no, overall, it's all in good fun. Honestly, some of the issues I hear about from you and also other YouTubers, other true crime people, we have a great, great fan base, a great support group of supporters who are awesome. And 99.9% of the comments are constructive.

There's been so many people who have backgrounds and things that we've discussed that you go on there and you leave this elaborate thing to like explain it. And I'm like, oh shit. Okay. Now that makes sense. So you guys have contributed way more than those. Again, it's very, very minimum, the amount of people that do something stupid. And honestly, it's not that serious. But overall, we appreciate it. We'll be back with part number three. There's really nothing else to say except, listen, stay safe out there. That's what we're taking from this case.

It can happen to anyone, even if you're very well prepared. You never know who's around you or who's been watching you. So just try to be aware of your surroundings because more than likely you're fine, but you just never know. So play it safe. There's nothing to lose by being a little bit more cautious. Any final words? No, man, you nailed it.

Thank you guys so much for being here. Derek, tell them where they can find us on social media. Crime Weekly Pod on Twitter and Instagram. If you want to check out our coffee, you can go to Drink Criminal on Twitter and you can go to Drink Criminal Coffee on Instagram. We appreciate you guys. Have a good night. Stay safe out there.

Bye.