January 16, 2025 • 40 mins
In 2006, Jennifer Kesse went missing after seemingly following her usual routine from her condominium in Orlando, Florida. A graduate from the University of Central Florida, Jennifer had just returned from a trip to St. Croix with her boyfriend before vanishing without a trace.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
D (00:00):
Hey guys, welcome to The Eerie Side Podcast with your
(00:03):
host D, and Sophia.
We appreciate you guyslistening, and I hope you are
ready to get on the Eerie SideBefore we get into the show, we
(00:49):
would appreciate if you allcould give the podcast a follow
and make sure the bellnotification is turned on, so
you'll be notified whenever wedrop an episode.
If you enjoy the show, we wouldlove to have you leave us a
review, and if there's a casesuggestion, or any feedback
(01:09):
you'd like to share, feel freeto send us a message in the text
box below.
Share the podcast with family,friends, co-workers, or really
anyone you think will enjoy it.
Please follow us on Instagram,TikTok, and Facebook.
Okay, today the case I'mcovering is of Jennifer Kesse.
(01:33):
I don't know if any of you knowof Jennifer Kesse's story.
Sophia (01:37):
I don't think so.
D (01:39):
Okay, Jennifer Joyce Kesse was born May 20, 1981.
She was a graduate of VivianGaither High School in Tampa,
Florida.
She attended the University ofCentral Florida in Orlando and
graduated in 2003 with a degreein finance.
In January of 2006, she was 24years old and working as a
(02:04):
finance manager at CentralFlorida Investments Timeshare
Company in Ocoee and hadrecently bought a condominium at
the complex called Mosaic atMillenia The weekend before she
vanished, Jennifer vacationedwith her boyfriend, Rob Allen,
on St.
Croix, U.
(02:25):
S.
Virgin Islands.
After returning on Sunday, shespent that night at her
boyfriend's home and then drovestraight to work on the morning
of Monday, January 23rd, 2006.
Jennifer went to work with noincident on that day.
She was last known to have beenseen when she left work at
(02:45):
approximately 6:00 pm on January23rd, 2006.
She spoke by phone with herfather while driving home around
6:15 pm and then with herboyfriend at around 10:00 pm.
On Tuesday, January 24th, 2006,between 8:00 and 9:00 am,
Jennifer's boyfriend called heron the way to work, but it went
(03:09):
directly to voicemail.
She was in the habit of textingor telephoning her boyfriend
before leaving for work.
So it was unusual when she didnot do either of those things
this morning.
He chalked it up to a meetingshe had mentioned to him.
His subsequent attempts arelikewise unsuccessful.
(03:31):
Co-workers also begin to wonderwhy they hadn't heard from
Jennifer.
It was unlike her not to call inand she had missed an important
morning meeting.
At 11:00 am, alarmed atJennifer's uncharacteristic no
call, no show behavior, heremployer contacts her parents,
(03:51):
Drew and Joyce Kesse, who beginthe drive from Tampa to Orlando.
On the way, they called to askthe manager of her condominium
to check her home with a sparekey.
He reports that everythingappears normal inside and that
her car is missing.
Jennifer's parents call herboyfriend to say that she failed
(04:12):
to show up at work.
Now, at 12:00 pm only 1.
2 miles away, which is 1.
9 kilometers, from Jennifer'shome, surveillance cameras in an
apartment complex record aperson parking her car and
walking away.
The car and footage are notdiscovered until two days later.
Sophia (04:34):
I think I might know this story.
D (04:36):
At 3:00 pm to 3
arrive at her apartment.
They notice that her car wasmissing, saw nothing out of the
ordinary in her home.
They find evidence that she hadbeen home that morning.
A wet towel and cloths laid out,among other things, suggested
(04:57):
that she had showered, dressed,and prepared for work that
morning.
What's more, a particular pairof pumps that Jennifer was
excited to wear was missing fromher closet that morning.
All of the evidence seemed toindicate that Jennifer had left
for work as usual.
They called the police.
Now, as Jennifer was an adult,police initially hold that she
(05:21):
may have left out of her ownvolition.
At 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm, familyand friends saturate the area
with flyers that show Jennifer'spicture.
Then, the police send adetective to her home and begin
interrogations and searches.
Before she vanished, JenniferKesey seemed to have it all.
(05:43):
A loving family, a boyfriend, agreat job, and no reason to drop
everything and run away.
Her loved ones naturally assumedthat something terrible must
have happened to her.
At some point, the OrlandoPolice Department organized
search parties on foot and onhorseback, as well as by boat,
(06:03):
helicopter, car, and ATV.
On Thursday, January 26th at8:10 am seeing Jennifer's car in
the news, a tenant of a nearbycomplex called Huntington on the
Green, informs the police thatit has sat abandoned in front of
their apartment for severaldays.
(06:24):
Police confirmed that it'sJennifer's 2004 Chevy Malibu.
The vehicle is photographed andtaken for forensic examination.
Investigators were excited tolearn that several hidden
cameras at the apartmentssurveyed the part of the lot
where the car had been parked aswell as the exit.
(06:46):
Police believe that from 7:30 to8:00 am the Jennifer was
abducted as she was walking fromher front door to her car,
because there was no sign offorced entry or a struggle.
Remember what they thought.
That there's no forced entry orstruggle.
The surveillance footage showedan unidentified person of
(07:09):
interest dropping Jennifer'svehicle off at approximately
noon the she went missing.
The person of interest whoparked Jennifer's car was
captured by a surveillancecamera that snapped a photo once
every three seconds.
To the dismay of investigators,all three separate snapshots of
(07:29):
the subject in frame had thesuspects face obscured by the
fencing.
Elena (07:34):
Really?
D (07:35):
Yes.
Elena (07:35):
Ugh, that's just bad timing.
D (07:38):
The individual could not be identified due to poor camera
quality, a fence blocking theview, and the absence of any
visible distinguished physicalfeatures.
Elena (07:50):
Oh, I think I know this case too now.
D (07:52):
One journalist called the suspect the luckiest person of
interest ever.
None of her family or friendsrecognized the person whose
physical features were not clearon the video.
The FBI was called in to helpdetermine the person's size and
gender, but could only say thatthe person stood between a 5'3"
(08:15):
and 5'5".
Investigators went so far as totap NASA to enhance the video
footage, but they haven't evenbeen able to determine whether
the suspect was a man or awoman.
It has been stated that he orshe were wearing clothes similar
to what a painter or manualworker would wear.
(08:36):
I personally am not sure.
I've seen the video and thepictures, and I'm not sure if
that's what he or she's wearing.
But they are dressed down.
There's nothing distinguishable.
Sophia (08:49):
I have a question.
Is Jennifer in a safeneighborhood?
D (08:53):
I would get into that.
Sophia (08:54):
Okay.
D (08:54):
There were no signs that a struggle had taken place in or
around the car.
Now this is the important part.
They claim there are no signsthat a struggle had taken place
in or around the car.
Okay?
Sophia (09:08):
Well, what are the signs that some struggle would've
taken place?
D (09:12):
Let me get into it later, but just so you know, that is what
they had said at the beginning.
Elena (09:17):
I would just say like things like thrown around broken
glass stuff like that or justlike things that aren't in their
normal place.
D (09:23):
We're talking around the car.
Elena (09:25):
Oh, yeah.
Sophia (09:26):
Around the car?
D (09:27):
Yeah, but the car is in a place in or around the car they
claim.
Sophia (09:31):
Well, isn't the car is in a different parking lot now.
D (09:33):
Correct, but it's been staying for two days.
There too.
Sophia (09:37):
I'm just curious what they would even expect to be
disturbed at that point.
D (09:41):
Well, let me get into it and you'll see.
Sophia (09:44):
Okay.
D (09:45):
The detectives interpreted the valuables left inside the
car to imply that robbery wasnot a motive in the case.
A search dog tracked a scentthat led from her parked car
back to her apartment complex.
Prompting detectives to believethat the suspect might have
returned to her apartment'sparking lot after abandoning the
(10:07):
car.
No other evidence was foundalong the route.
A forensic examination of thecar yielded little in the way of
evidence, only a latent printdeemed too miniscule to yield
any helpful information and asmall DNA fiber.
Investigators deduced that thecar had been wiped down.
(10:30):
A DVD player remained in thebackseat of the car.
The following items are known tobe missing.
Her cell phone, her iPod, herkeys, her purse, her briefcase,
and the outfit she was wearing.
Authorities were unable to pingher cell phone.
off.
Her bank account keycard had notbeen used since her
(10:51):
disappearance.
As in customary investigations,first question Jennifer's
immediate family and closefriends to see if any of them
have had a motive to abduct her.
Her ex-boyfriend, recently upsetand wishing to get back together
with her, was also interrogated,but it was concluded that he had
(11:12):
nothing to do with theabduction.
Her current boyfriend was alsoquestioned, but his alibi
checked out, eliminating him asa suspect.
Prior to her disappearance,Jennifer had expressed concern
that her apartment complex wasunsafe.
She had been living on her ownfor only a few months prior to
her disappearance.
(11:32):
And there were few otherresidents in the complex, which
was under major construction,and many of the laborers on site
were non-English speaking.
Furthermore, she had told familymembers on several occasions
that the construction workersconstantly catcalled, whistled
at, and harassed her.
(11:54):
Due to the language barrier,investigators were unable to
interrogate many of them.
I don't know why?
Sophia (12:02):
Right, and you just get an interpreter.
Elena (12:03):
Yeah.
D (12:04):
Yes.
Sophia (12:05):
I assume they just were not going to cooperate.
D (12:07):
I assumed that the police just didn't go that extra mile.
Elena (12:11):
Yeah.
D (12:12):
Okay.
That was my interpretation.
Sophia (12:15):
What's weird though is if that's the case they were not
able to get a translator, butthey were able to reach out to
NASA to see the pictures fromGoogle Earth of that suspect.
To me, that seems more work thangetting an interpreter
D (12:31):
They did not just Google Earth.
What they did was they gave themthe video to see if NASA could
bring more information out ofthe video.
Elena (12:39):
Oh, clear it up?
D (12:40):
Clear it up and see if they can give them some direction and
evidence.
Elena (12:46):
Oh, I see.
Okay.
Sophia (12:47):
Well, reaching out to NASA is.
Elena (12:49):
But still, yeah, if you can reach out to NASA, you can
find an interpreter.
D (12:53):
No other leads regarding them were discovered.
Well, since they didn't askthem, of course not.
Detectives then turned theirfocus on her place of employment
and began questioning herco-workers.
Her computer was taken forforensic examination, which
revealed that a manager whereshe worked desired a
(13:13):
relationship with her, but thatshe had refused his advances
because she opposed workplacerelationships.
times but ultimately ruled himout as a suspect.
Investigators and Jennifer'sfriends and family remain open
to the theory that she fellvictim to human trafficking but
(13:37):
considered it less likely thanothers.
Sophia (13:40):
Wow, I wasn't even thinking that she was taken for
human trafficking.
D (13:45):
I mean it could be you don't know.
Sophia (13:48):
Definitely, I thought people usually take human
traffickers from, I don't know,I thought they find people at
risk and they bring them intohuman trafficking.
Elena (13:58):
High risk, yes, but sometimes that's not always the
case.
I think sometimes it could justbe like opportunity, like maybe
her apartment complex wasn't inthat nice of a neighborhood, and
therefore, was at more of arisk.
D (14:11):
I'm not sure that her apartment complex was unsafe
because of where it was located.
I just think because it wasunder major construction and not
enough people moved in Mmm, Ithink that was what was causing
a problem.
I'm not sure it wasn'tnecessarily in a very unsafe
area.
Sophia (14:30):
What's concerning about being in that apartment complex
where there are not that manyresidents is that if something
were to happen to a residentthere and they were shouting
screaming for help.
It could be nobody would hear itbecause it's so isolated.
D (14:45):
Yes, that's correct.
Sophia (14:46):
Just imagining the laborers.
They probably know that becausethey're doing construction and
they probably feel empowered toharass her.
D (14:55):
In May of 2007, Jennifer's company led by David A.
Siegel offered a$1,000,000reward for information leading
to her whereabouts with a July 4deadline and the stipulation
that she had to be alive.
It was never claimed.
A$5,000 reward for informationleading to her whereabouts of
(15:18):
her remains was availablethrough the Central Florida
Crimeline.
The case received state andnational press attention at the
time of her disappearance.
On May 2nd of 2008, the FloridaHouse of Representatives
unanimously passed Senate Bill502, the Jennifer Kesse and
Tiffany Sessions Missing PersonsAct, to reform how missing
(15:42):
person cases are handled inFlorida.
Sophia (15:46):
Yeah, because when she was first reported missing, the
police, I mean, it's a commontheme, oh, well, they just could
be off on their own volition.
Those first critical hours are,critical.
D (15:57):
If you listen to all the cases that are out there,
there's only a handful, maybethree, four, of where someone
created their own missingperson, or they left on their
own.
Most of these it ends up beingnot true.
So it's interesting how theyused to think.
As of June 10, 2010, the FBI hastaken the case over from the
(16:22):
Orlando Police Department.
It did so at the urging ofPolice Chief Val Demings.
The latest search for her tookplace in February 2014, and
investigators continue toreceive and pursue leads.
In 2018, Jennifer's parentsfiled suit against the Orlando
(16:43):
Police Department to gain accessto police records on the case.
The lawsuit was settled.
In March of 2019, allowing thefamily access to at least 16,000
pages of records.
Now, as Jennifer's uncle, BillGilmore told Fox News in 2023,
(17:05):
The department initially claimedthat there wasn't any evidence
or nothing of consequence withher car.
But after my sister and brothersued them and got the records
from the Orlando PoliceDepartment and had their own
team comb through the records,some 15 to 18,000 records, it's
(17:27):
said that they had collected DNAin the car.
they originally said that theydid not," Gilmore stated.
Police also turned over photosof Jennifer's vehicle that the
family had not seen before.
The images reportedly showeddust from the construction and
(17:49):
signs of a struggle on the hoodof the car.
Sophia (17:53):
Oh, because before they said there was no struggle.
Elena (17:56):
Interesting, so they're changing.
What they're saying now.
D (17:59):
They didn't change.
What happened was the familyfinally got all the documents of
the case and went through it andwhoever was helping them go
through it noticed that therewas a struggle on the hood of
the car and the reason they wereable to see that because the
rest of the car had constructiondust all over it and the hood
didn't, and it looked like therewas a struggle.
Elena (18:23):
Oh, I see.
And this is something that.
The police missed or they justdidn't talk about it.
Sophia (18:28):
We're just not being honest.
Elena (18:29):
They just were being quiet.
D (18:30):
Right.
They just told the family therewas no struggle
Elena (18:34):
So they lied.
Sophia (18:34):
I had a hard time believing that from the
beginning.
D (18:36):
Now only thing I can think of is if they're hiding something,
but whether there's a struggleon the hood of the car, I don't
find it enough of part of thecase that you hide so that only
the perpetrator knows.
Whether there was a struggle ornot is not, evidence that only a
perpetrator knows.
Elena (18:56):
Yeah.
D (18:58):
I don't know how you guys feel.
Elena (19:00):
No, I would definitely agree.
I think it's definitely astrange detail to leave out,
especially since that's a maindetail that shows that something
happened to her and it wasn'tjust like a runaway.
So it should be evidence for thepolice to investigate further.
D (19:15):
Don't forget they didn't figure that out two days after
she was missing when they foundthe car; however, that to me
means she was attacked when shewas at the car.
Not walking to the car; right atthe car.
Because there was a struggle ather car.
Sophia (19:31):
That's a good point.
Elena (19:32):
I mean unless something happened on the way and then
they were like get into the carand she tried to Okay, I mean
it's possible.
D (19:38):
It's possible.
Elena (19:39):
But I think most likely, someone waited until she got
into the car.
Maybe opened the door and thenthat's when they came.
D (19:46):
I don't even know if she got in the car.
Elena (19:48):
That's true.
D (19:49):
You know if there was a struggle on the hood.
Elena (19:51):
I'm guessing then the struggle happened when she was
going to her car wherever shenormally parked it and then the
person drove it to thisdifferent separate location.
D (20:02):
Correct.
That's what it looks like.
And it didn't pass that muchtime.
If she left at eight, then theythink by noon, because that's
when the video picks the guy.
I think it's a gentleman, by theway, looking at the picture,
that the gentleman, I think,parked it there.
So within the four hours, theydid what they had to do.
It didn't take them that long.
(20:23):
I don't know if they put her inanother car, and then they
wanted to hide her car, and Idon't even know why they hid her
car.
Elena (20:29):
Yeah, it's just risky, because I feel like getting into
a car, you risk leaving so muchevidence behind.
D (20:35):
Well, it's interesting because I think, again, the
suspect wiped it down.
And they claimed that it didn'teven have DNA, but it did.
Elena (20:43):
That's weird.
Why, lie about that?
Sophia (20:46):
Considering she was being harassed by these
construction workers andharassment is some form of
violence, I am reallydisappointed that they did not
follow through on theseindividuals who were harassing
her.
And not only did they not evenfind an interpreter, but if
(21:06):
there was DNA left at the scene,to me, it would make sense to, I
don't know how many constructionworkers.
I don't know if it was likethree or twenty.
Twenty is a little bit moredifficult.
But if there were three of them,say, it would be much easier to
follow each of them.
And then when they use some sortof cupware at a restaurant, take
(21:29):
that DNA and see if any of themmatch to the DNA in the car.
D (21:35):
First of all, you need to remember the year.
I don't think they werecollecting DNA in the same way.
The way they do now.
The other thing is, you are notgoing to collect DNA of every
single construction worker.
You have to eliminate who theindividuals you don't think and
you narrow it down.
I don't know how many peoplethere were.
Here's the thing.
Maybe they had constructionworkers.
(21:56):
They came and went.
You don't know.
Maybe it was one individual whosaw her one day he was working
there, never worked again, butthen knew her routine or
whatever followed.
We just don't know at thispoint.
The worst part is not the DNA,in this case it is they didn't
even question them.
Elena (22:12):
Yeah.
D (22:13):
They should have started that process.
Elena (22:14):
Right, but I also think there's a good chance that they
don't even know who wascatcalling her.
Like I'm guessing she wasn'tsaying, Oh this guy named so and
so to my family was harassingme, and he looked like X Y Z
like it's more like issues.
And so I'm guessing there'sprobably more, construction
workers than we would think.
(22:35):
And there's no way to know whichone was catcalling and which one
wasn't.
D (22:39):
Yes, she never stated or gave details of who it was.
Elena (22:43):
Which makes it harder because then it's like you can't
even really narrow down to knowwho even worked while she was
walking or who even had thoseinteractions.
And so it'd be hard to narrow,even that list of construction
workers so that you can evenfind DNA with.
D (22:57):
I think that they didn't take all the steps they should have
is right away a problem.
Her uncle said, We were neveraware of that either, the
struggle in the car."
Elena (23:07):
Right.
D (23:07):
So it's so disheartening.
Sophia (23:08):
It makes you wonder if there's a cover up to some
extent.
D (23:11):
I don't know about a cover up.
I just don't think they took itserious.
Elena (23:15):
Which is crazy to me, because this is the one thing
that shows, there was astruggle, so it shows that this
is serious and not a runaway.
D (23:23):
I just don't know how the police department thought.
Sophia (23:25):
And also cases have been solved, starting with far less
information and evidence that wecurrently have here.
D (23:31):
That's why I think her family went and sued them and won and
got to see all these records.
In, 2020, Jennifer's father saidhe believed Jennifer was the
victim of human trafficking.
Sophia (23:43):
Really?
D (23:44):
Yeah.
And in 2022, he accused theOrlando Police Department of
negligence and incompetence inthe investigation into her
disappearance.
Sophia (23:55):
Good for him.
D (23:56):
He said that more or less the department was incapable of
fulfilling an agreement toprovide the family with a
digital file of Jennifer's case.
So they couldn't even put theinformation they had on a
digital file for them.
Elena (24:09):
Wow.
Which.
Says all.
D (24:11):
Which was a long time ago.
I don't think they could put all15,000 plus documents on a
digital file.
One is, it's financial problemprobably.
The other is manpower.
Elena (24:23):
Yeah.
D (24:23):
Do they have enough manpower?
Do they have a budget to dothat?
I just don't know.
Sophia (24:28):
If they had just done a little bit further digging and
been a little bit more honestwith her parents.
They may have never evenrequested to have all of this on
a digital file.
It was really the lack of thecase being worked that probably
led them into this situation forasking for the digital file in
the first place.
D (24:45):
I wonder if the police force was not used to dealing with
cases like this.
And I think maybe they thoughtshe was leaving on her own
accord.
I really do think they thoughtthat for a long, long time.
So I think if you have peoplewho don't know how to work a
case, and they don't believeshe's gone, I think, things
(25:08):
begin to fall through thecracks.
Sophia (25:10):
I just wish before police forces would make the
assumption that someone is notmissing or in any sort of harm
that they just assume that theycould be and act accordingly,
because during that time frameof when they assumed she
probably just ran away.
They wasted the first criticalamount of hours that could have
(25:30):
potentially, I don't know butpotentially saved her.
D (25:33):
In all true reality.
She may have been dead already.
Sophia (25:37):
True.
D (25:37):
We really don't know.
This is what her father says.
He says,"Now imagine over thattime fighting for the unredacted
copies with the city's lawyers.
And trying to have our privateinvestigators find Jennifer from
all those files.
Then finding out that the leaddetective on Jennifer's case did
(25:59):
not write a single report or anydocument since 2010." And he
said 12 years.
So this is 2022.
Drew Kesse said.
Well, her father.
He said,"We firmly believe thedepartment's negligence and lack
of competency cost Jennifer thechance to be found."
Sophia (26:19):
Is there anything specifically that made her
family think she was trafficked?
D (26:25):
There was no mention as to why he said that, because early
on they thought of less andless.
But now in 2020, he reallythought that it could be that.
I have no idea.
Sophia (26:38):
That's so interesting.
I'm definitely curious aboutthat.
Elena (26:40):
Yeah, I wonder if there's something in the files that they
saw that isn't public that makeshim think.
D (26:45):
That could be, but he didn't say what though.
Elena (26:47):
Yeah.
D (26:48):
So maybe he's smart enough to know what you can and cannot say
to the public.
In November of 2022 the FloridaDepartment of Law Enforcement
took over the investigation.
The Kesse family hopes this willlead to future DNA testing and a
break in the case.
In December of 2022, it wasreported that the investigation
(27:09):
into disappearance had turnedover to the Florida Department
of Law Enforcement, FDLE, ColdCase Unit.
The FDLE intends to interviewpeople Kesse's law enforcement
team has already identified aspossible suspects or people who
may have valuable informationand to retest evidence that
(27:31):
Jennifer's family says has neverbeen retested.
"We have had to put great trustin the FDLE, our state law
enforcement agency.
However, after 14 months of themhaving the case, we really know
very little of their actions orgains in the case.
(27:52):
Pretty crappy place to be,honestly," the Kesses said.
"To the general public and mediawho have never given up on
Jennifer and whom, havesupported her and this family
for 18 years, we are incrediblyhumbled by your caring, sharing,
and continued belief that wewill find Jennifer and bring her
(28:12):
home." Pretty difficult tocomprehend even after 18 years.
To this family, it still feelsvery much like yesterday and to
this day, we continue to fightfor Jennifer's return every day
in every way," Drew and JoyceKesse said in a post online.
"It's almost inconceivable thatwith today's technology, we are
(28:37):
challenged just as much as wewere 18 years ago, mind
baffling, really.
That will not stop us fromfighting for Jennifer until we
find her or pass away ourselves.
No person should be Unfound inour country, no one!"
Elena (28:56):
Wow, that's just so heartbreaking, because it seems
like if they could just test theDNA, maybe that they could have
a break.
It's like they have all thepieces.
It just, can't get put together.
D (29:07):
Correct, and I don't know what is the holdup.
I don't know if it's financial.
Do they have money for DNA?
Or do the DNA.
I don't know if it's corruptedor damaged.
I have no idea.
There's no comments.
Elena (29:23):
Actually I don't know how it would work to get, the DNA
retested.
D (29:26):
It all depends what condition the DNA is.
They can do it if they haveenough.
Many times when departmentsdon't do DNA testing.
It's all because they don't havefinancial support for it.
That's why they sometimes giveit to the FBI to do it, cause
(29:48):
the FBI has more money.
They have small budgets, many ofthese police departments.
So they don't have the money forDNA testing.
Many departments are creatingcold cases for that reason.
And so they budget that inthere, but they can't do every
single one, they do a little ata time.
Elena (30:07):
That's just so unfortunate because it's one of
those cases where it seems likethere's they're close.
I feel that they have apossibility with DNA and yet
they can't get the tests.
D (30:18):
Personally, I don't know in what condition the DNA is.
However, the family feels thatDNA is in good condition.
I don't know if they knowsomething that is not being told
to the public, or they're justhoping.
I have no idea.
Yeah.
Whatever happened to Jennifer,maybe no one even saw, because
(30:38):
no one has ever said a wordabout it.
Sophia (30:41):
There's not many people in those apartment complexes.
D (30:45):
Yes, but then that means also there weren't any workers who
saw anything?
Sophia (30:49):
I know there's laborers there, but there's potential
that they just looked the otherway, especially, if they as a
group are collectively harassingJennifer, and they see one of
them take advantage of her.
They may not even care becausethey just don't see her as
having any rights or respect.
(31:09):
So they may not care if they sawone of their fellow co-workers
doing something to her or maybeit was a group thing.
Elena (31:17):
She looks so sweet.
And the way she smiles, shesmiles with her eyes too.
She's so pretty.
Sophia (31:24):
I don't know what kind of construction they were doing,
but I'm wondering has anyonechecked that construction to see
if maybe they could havedisposed her body in that
construction site.
D (31:32):
From what I understand, what they were doing is building up
the construction site to, buildmore condos.
So I wasn't sure if they wereredoing what was there or if
they were building more, but itwas to bring more people to live
there.
The way I interpreted, and I maybe wrong, it was like she was
one of the first out there tolive.
(31:54):
They maybe built one buildingand they had people move in, but
she was one of the first and itwasn't filled and maybe they
were building more buildings.
Sophia (32:03):
I hate to say this, but that's the perfect scenario for
them to dump a body.
If they're building all thesenew buildings,
Elena (32:09):
I would disagree because if they're building up, they're
not necessarily digging down.
So where would they bury her?
Sophia (32:16):
In the foundation.
D (32:17):
If they had a building available for a foundation.
Sophia (32:19):
Could've put her in a wall, too.
Elena (32:21):
Unless it's behind cement.
Sophia (32:23):
It's sealed.
It's sealed.
Elena (32:24):
No, you hear those stories where I think people are
like there is like a smellcoming in my and it's like a
dead raccoon or something.
D (32:31):
If it's not in cement, it would smell.
Sophia (32:35):
Either of you think she got human trafficked or do you
think she was kidnapped bysomebody we don't know about.
D (32:43):
It's one of two things, I think.
Either she was human trafficked,or some individual kidnapped
her.
And what happened afterwards, Idon't know if he kept her for a
while, or he just killed herafter a while.
It's just that he was very goodat covering his tracks.
Elena (32:59):
I would agree.
I think it seems like those arethe two.
I one hundred and ten percent donot believe she ran away or
anything like that.
I just think something happened.
Someone did something bad.
I just don't know who or what.
Sophia (33:15):
I don't know if she was trafficked or kidnapped and
murdered, but definitelysomething nefarious happened.
And it could have been somebodyrandom, potentially.
Yeah.
D (33:28):
but to me, random at that building complex where not many
people were there doesn't sound.
Sophia (33:36):
In my opinion, I personally think it was probably
one of the men who was harassingher.
Elena (33:43):
I don't know.
I truthfully just don't know.
I don't want to speculate onthings I don't know about but I
think it is possible thatsomeone could have seen how
empty this apartment complex wasor could have been going to hang
out with a friend or whateverand then they see her walk by
and then it's like oh my God!There's no one here.
(34:03):
This is perfect.
She's by herself.
I can take her.
I see her going to her car.
I can literally get in her carand use that.
And then I have my own car hereat the apartment complex.
Because I'm like visiting afriend or family member or
something like that.
So I think it's possible itcould be opportunistic, because
of how like it seems like it waspretty desolate at this complex.
(34:24):
And if an opportunistic killerwas there they could have seen
that it's not very busy and usethat.
And took that opportunity andran with it.
I also do think it's possiblethat it could have been someone
who knew her.
It could have also been like, aneighbor or someone who knew her
routine.
Or something like that.
D (34:43):
Yes.
It could be someone out of theblue.
No one would have Or it could besomeone who was watching her.
Unfortunately she never saidanyone was watching her.
And what she did say, her familytold the police.
Elena (34:56):
I will say just because she didn't say anyone was
watching her, doesn't mean thatno one was watching her.
It's very possible, someonecould have been watching her for
a while and she just had noidea.
D (35:07):
Correct.
I thought about that too.
Elena (35:08):
Even scarier.
D (35:10):
That's true.
If someone knew how to covertheir tracks well enough.
Elena (35:14):
Cause it's crazy.
Cause at any point, someonecould be following you and you'd
have no idea.
Which is a really terrifyingthing to think about.
D (35:19):
And she would drive into work and work in another whole area.
It could be in the building sheworked, someone liked her.
Elena (35:27):
And followed her home, saw where she lived.
D (35:30):
The possibilities are huge.
Elena (35:33):
People are crazy these days.
She could have bumped intosomeone, said,"Oh, I'm sorry,"
and just went on her way.
And that was it for that guy.
It doesn't take much for people.
So, it could have happened atwork, someone followed her home.
Now I see that she lives in apretty like desolate area a
pretty vacant area.
This is perfect, and they tookthat opportunity.
D (35:52):
I just don't feel the police turned all the stones over to
check it out.
I think they left some stonesunturned, and that's what I
think is the problem.
Elena (36:01):
I think that the case should get moved over to like
the FBI if that's a possibility.
D (36:06):
It was.
Elena (36:07):
It was?
Yeah.
Oh, is it still?
D (36:09):
No, they sent it back to Florida.
Elena (36:11):
Oh, okay, never mind.
So when they sent it to the FBI,did the FBI do the DNA test?
D (36:17):
Not that I know of.
Elena (36:18):
Was it because the police didn't tell them?
D (36:20):
The FBI got it in 2010, four years after.
So it could be that, four years,maybe the DNA wasn't where it
is.
Yeah.
So now it's back to Florida.
Elena (36:32):
Yeah.
They may not have had the DNAtechnology because there could
have been something back thenthat wasn't enough of a sample
to do a test, but now it isenough because we are more
technologically advanced withDNA.
So that could be a thing whereat that point it wasn't able to
get tested for some reason.
D (36:50):
I do not know if they even told the that they had DNA.
Considering.
They were telling everybody elsethat it wasn't enough.
Elena (37:00):
Which would be a big issue, I would think, because
that's withholding information.
D (37:04):
It could have been, they just didn't think it was enough, but
the FBI could have, maybe.
I don't know.
I really don't.
Elena (37:09):
I don't think that they were holding onto this, like
these information to bemalicious.
But it could have just beenlike, they just didn't think it
was enough DNA or that
D (37:17):
If I'm not mistaken, in the early two thousands with DNA,
you needed to have.
DNA to compare it to.
So if they didn't have itagainst a database or something,
they didn't have that.
Maybe they didn't think it wasany big deal.
Like maybe they thought we havethe DNA, if the FBI does find
(37:38):
someone, then they know we haveit.
And that's all.
Now, they can take the DNA ifit's not Jennifer's and do the
genealogy.
Elena (37:46):
Right.
D (37:46):
But that wasn't available back then.
Elena (37:48):
Right.
So I'm wondering if they gave itto the FBI.
They did the test.
They said the DNA test.
They said no one in thedatabase.
No one that we know about, butwe matched it.
D (37:57):
Yeah, but I've never heard that.
Elena (38:00):
Maybe they're keeping it, I don't know.
It could be that happened andnow we just have to do genealogy
to get move forward.
Or maybe it hasn't been tested.
I don't know.
D (38:10):
I have no idea.
Elena (38:11):
2010 was a little bit further along.
D (38:14):
But even then, still they needed someone's DNA to compare
it to.
So they didn't do genealogy.
Elena (38:21):
Right.
When did the FBI databasestarted?
I'm gonna look it up.
1998.
But it wasn't where it is now.
That's when it started.
And then I'm assuming it justgot better as time went on.
D (38:33):
Jennifer's still considered a missing and endangered
individual by the Orlando PoliceDepartment, by the FBI, by the
Orange County Sheriff's Office,by the FDLE, by the NCIC, by the
NCMA, and Interpol.
Jennifer also remains on theFBI's most wanted missing list.
Elena (38:55):
Okay, interesting.
D (38:57):
As of 2025, 19 years later, no arrests have been made and
Jennifer's whereabouts remainunknown.
Anyone with information intoJennifer's disappearance can
call the Kesse Family Tip Lineat 941-201-4009 or Crimeline at
1-800-423-TIPS, which is 8477.
(39:22):
I want to thank you forlistening to us this week.
We love our listeners.
And because of you, we do thispodcast.
Your help and engagement reallyhelps the podcast grow.
If you enjoyed this episode,please text a friend and family
member to podcast.
Until next time, make sure youstay on the Eerie Side.
(39:45):
Bye! Bye.
And be safe.
Hey guys, welcome to The Eerie Side Podcast with your
(00:03):
host D, and Sophia.
We appreciate you guyslistening, and I hope you are
ready to get on the Eerie SideBefore we get into the show, we
(00:49):
would appreciate if you allcould give the podcast a follow
and make sure the bellnotification is turned on, so
you'll be notified whenever wedrop an episode.
If you enjoy the show, we wouldlove to have you leave us a
review, and if there's a casesuggestion, or any feedback
(01:09):
you'd like to share, feel freeto send us a message in the text
box below.
Share the podcast with family,friends, co-workers, or really
anyone you think will enjoy it.
Please follow us on Instagram,TikTok, and Facebook.
Okay, today the case I'mcovering is of Jennifer Kesse.
(01:33):
I don't know if any of you knowof Jennifer Kesse's story.
Sophia (01:37):
I don't think so.
D (01:39):
Okay, Jennifer Joyce Kesse was born May 20, 1981.
She was a graduate of VivianGaither High School in Tampa,
Florida.
She attended the University ofCentral Florida in Orlando and
graduated in 2003 with a degreein finance.
In January of 2006, she was 24years old and working as a
(02:04):
finance manager at CentralFlorida Investments Timeshare
Company in Ocoee and hadrecently bought a condominium at
the complex called Mosaic atMillenia The weekend before she
vanished, Jennifer vacationedwith her boyfriend, Rob Allen,
on St.
Croix, U.
(02:25):
S.
Virgin Islands.
After returning on Sunday, shespent that night at her
boyfriend's home and then drovestraight to work on the morning
of Monday, January 23rd, 2006.
Jennifer went to work with noincident on that day.
She was last known to have beenseen when she left work at
(02:45):
approximately 6:00 pm on January23rd, 2006.
She spoke by phone with herfather while driving home around
6:15 pm and then with herboyfriend at around 10:00 pm.
On Tuesday, January 24th, 2006,between 8:00 and 9:00 am,
Jennifer's boyfriend called heron the way to work, but it went
(03:09):
directly to voicemail.
She was in the habit of textingor telephoning her boyfriend
before leaving for work.
So it was unusual when she didnot do either of those things
this morning.
He chalked it up to a meetingshe had mentioned to him.
His subsequent attempts arelikewise unsuccessful.
(03:31):
Co-workers also begin to wonderwhy they hadn't heard from
Jennifer.
It was unlike her not to call inand she had missed an important
morning meeting.
At 11:00 am, alarmed atJennifer's uncharacteristic no
call, no show behavior, heremployer contacts her parents,
(03:51):
Drew and Joyce Kesse, who beginthe drive from Tampa to Orlando.
On the way, they called to askthe manager of her condominium
to check her home with a sparekey.
He reports that everythingappears normal inside and that
her car is missing.
Jennifer's parents call herboyfriend to say that she failed
(04:12):
to show up at work.
Now, at 12:00 pm only 1.
2 miles away, which is 1.
9 kilometers, from Jennifer'shome, surveillance cameras in an
apartment complex record aperson parking her car and
walking away.
The car and footage are notdiscovered until two days later.
Sophia (04:34):
I think I might know this story.
D (04:36):
At 3:00 pm to 3
arrive at her apartment.
They notice that her car wasmissing, saw nothing out of the
ordinary in her home.
They find evidence that she hadbeen home that morning.
A wet towel and cloths laid out,among other things, suggested
(04:57):
that she had showered, dressed,and prepared for work that
morning.
What's more, a particular pairof pumps that Jennifer was
excited to wear was missing fromher closet that morning.
All of the evidence seemed toindicate that Jennifer had left
for work as usual.
They called the police.
Now, as Jennifer was an adult,police initially hold that she
(05:21):
may have left out of her ownvolition.
At 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm, familyand friends saturate the area
with flyers that show Jennifer'spicture.
Then, the police send adetective to her home and begin
interrogations and searches.
Before she vanished, JenniferKesey seemed to have it all.
(05:43):
A loving family, a boyfriend, agreat job, and no reason to drop
everything and run away.
Her loved ones naturally assumedthat something terrible must
have happened to her.
At some point, the OrlandoPolice Department organized
search parties on foot and onhorseback, as well as by boat,
(06:03):
helicopter, car, and ATV.
On Thursday, January 26th at8:10 am seeing Jennifer's car in
the news, a tenant of a nearbycomplex called Huntington on the
Green, informs the police thatit has sat abandoned in front of
their apartment for severaldays.
(06:24):
Police confirmed that it'sJennifer's 2004 Chevy Malibu.
The vehicle is photographed andtaken for forensic examination.
Investigators were excited tolearn that several hidden
cameras at the apartmentssurveyed the part of the lot
where the car had been parked aswell as the exit.
(06:46):
Police believe that from 7:30 to8:00 am the Jennifer was
abducted as she was walking fromher front door to her car,
because there was no sign offorced entry or a struggle.
Remember what they thought.
That there's no forced entry orstruggle.
The surveillance footage showedan unidentified person of
(07:09):
interest dropping Jennifer'svehicle off at approximately
noon the she went missing.
The person of interest whoparked Jennifer's car was
captured by a surveillancecamera that snapped a photo once
every three seconds.
To the dismay of investigators,all three separate snapshots of
(07:29):
the subject in frame had thesuspects face obscured by the
fencing.
Elena (07:34):
Really?
D (07:35):
Yes.
Elena (07:35):
Ugh, that's just bad timing.
D (07:38):
The individual could not be identified due to poor camera
quality, a fence blocking theview, and the absence of any
visible distinguished physicalfeatures.
Elena (07:50):
Oh, I think I know this case too now.
D (07:52):
One journalist called the suspect the luckiest person of
interest ever.
None of her family or friendsrecognized the person whose
physical features were not clearon the video.
The FBI was called in to helpdetermine the person's size and
gender, but could only say thatthe person stood between a 5'3"
(08:15):
and 5'5".
Investigators went so far as totap NASA to enhance the video
footage, but they haven't evenbeen able to determine whether
the suspect was a man or awoman.
It has been stated that he orshe were wearing clothes similar
to what a painter or manualworker would wear.
(08:36):
I personally am not sure.
I've seen the video and thepictures, and I'm not sure if
that's what he or she's wearing.
But they are dressed down.
There's nothing distinguishable.
Sophia (08:49):
I have a question.
Is Jennifer in a safeneighborhood?
D (08:53):
I would get into that.
Sophia (08:54):
Okay.
D (08:54):
There were no signs that a struggle had taken place in or
around the car.
Now this is the important part.
They claim there are no signsthat a struggle had taken place
in or around the car.
Okay?
Sophia (09:08):
Well, what are the signs that some struggle would've
taken place?
D (09:12):
Let me get into it later, but just so you know, that is what
they had said at the beginning.
Elena (09:17):
I would just say like things like thrown around broken
glass stuff like that or justlike things that aren't in their
normal place.
D (09:23):
We're talking around the car.
Elena (09:25):
Oh, yeah.
Sophia (09:26):
Around the car?
D (09:27):
Yeah, but the car is in a place in or around the car they
claim.
Sophia (09:31):
Well, isn't the car is in a different parking lot now.
D (09:33):
Correct, but it's been staying for two days.
There too.
Sophia (09:37):
I'm just curious what they would even expect to be
disturbed at that point.
D (09:41):
Well, let me get into it and you'll see.
Sophia (09:44):
Okay.
D (09:45):
The detectives interpreted the valuables left inside the
car to imply that robbery wasnot a motive in the case.
A search dog tracked a scentthat led from her parked car
back to her apartment complex.
Prompting detectives to believethat the suspect might have
returned to her apartment'sparking lot after abandoning the
(10:07):
car.
No other evidence was foundalong the route.
A forensic examination of thecar yielded little in the way of
evidence, only a latent printdeemed too miniscule to yield
any helpful information and asmall DNA fiber.
Investigators deduced that thecar had been wiped down.
(10:30):
A DVD player remained in thebackseat of the car.
The following items are known tobe missing.
Her cell phone, her iPod, herkeys, her purse, her briefcase,
and the outfit she was wearing.
Authorities were unable to pingher cell phone.
off.
Her bank account keycard had notbeen used since her
(10:51):
disappearance.
As in customary investigations,first question Jennifer's
immediate family and closefriends to see if any of them
have had a motive to abduct her.
Her ex-boyfriend, recently upsetand wishing to get back together
with her, was also interrogated,but it was concluded that he had
(11:12):
nothing to do with theabduction.
Her current boyfriend was alsoquestioned, but his alibi
checked out, eliminating him asa suspect.
Prior to her disappearance,Jennifer had expressed concern
that her apartment complex wasunsafe.
She had been living on her ownfor only a few months prior to
her disappearance.
(11:32):
And there were few otherresidents in the complex, which
was under major construction,and many of the laborers on site
were non-English speaking.
Furthermore, she had told familymembers on several occasions
that the construction workersconstantly catcalled, whistled
at, and harassed her.
(11:54):
Due to the language barrier,investigators were unable to
interrogate many of them.
I don't know why?
Sophia (12:02):
Right, and you just get an interpreter.
Elena (12:03):
Yeah.
D (12:04):
Yes.
Sophia (12:05):
I assume they just were not going to cooperate.
D (12:07):
I assumed that the police just didn't go that extra mile.
Elena (12:11):
Yeah.
D (12:12):
Okay.
That was my interpretation.
Sophia (12:15):
What's weird though is if that's the case they were not
able to get a translator, butthey were able to reach out to
NASA to see the pictures fromGoogle Earth of that suspect.
To me, that seems more work thangetting an interpreter
D (12:31):
They did not just Google Earth.
What they did was they gave themthe video to see if NASA could
bring more information out ofthe video.
Elena (12:39):
Oh, clear it up?
D (12:40):
Clear it up and see if they can give them some direction and
evidence.
Elena (12:46):
Oh, I see.
Okay.
Sophia (12:47):
Well, reaching out to NASA is.
Elena (12:49):
But still, yeah, if you can reach out to NASA, you can
find an interpreter.
D (12:53):
No other leads regarding them were discovered.
Well, since they didn't askthem, of course not.
Detectives then turned theirfocus on her place of employment
and began questioning herco-workers.
Her computer was taken forforensic examination, which
revealed that a manager whereshe worked desired a
(13:13):
relationship with her, but thatshe had refused his advances
because she opposed workplacerelationships.
times but ultimately ruled himout as a suspect.
Investigators and Jennifer'sfriends and family remain open
to the theory that she fellvictim to human trafficking but
(13:37):
considered it less likely thanothers.
Sophia (13:40):
Wow, I wasn't even thinking that she was taken for
human trafficking.
D (13:45):
I mean it could be you don't know.
Sophia (13:48):
Definitely, I thought people usually take human
traffickers from, I don't know,I thought they find people at
risk and they bring them intohuman trafficking.
Elena (13:58):
High risk, yes, but sometimes that's not always the
case.
I think sometimes it could justbe like opportunity, like maybe
her apartment complex wasn't inthat nice of a neighborhood, and
therefore, was at more of arisk.
D (14:11):
I'm not sure that her apartment complex was unsafe
because of where it was located.
I just think because it wasunder major construction and not
enough people moved in Mmm, Ithink that was what was causing
a problem.
I'm not sure it wasn'tnecessarily in a very unsafe
area.
Sophia (14:30):
What's concerning about being in that apartment complex
where there are not that manyresidents is that if something
were to happen to a residentthere and they were shouting
screaming for help.
It could be nobody would hear itbecause it's so isolated.
D (14:45):
Yes, that's correct.
Sophia (14:46):
Just imagining the laborers.
They probably know that becausethey're doing construction and
they probably feel empowered toharass her.
D (14:55):
In May of 2007, Jennifer's company led by David A.
Siegel offered a$1,000,000reward for information leading
to her whereabouts with a July 4deadline and the stipulation
that she had to be alive.
It was never claimed.
A$5,000 reward for informationleading to her whereabouts of
(15:18):
her remains was availablethrough the Central Florida
Crimeline.
The case received state andnational press attention at the
time of her disappearance.
On May 2nd of 2008, the FloridaHouse of Representatives
unanimously passed Senate Bill502, the Jennifer Kesse and
Tiffany Sessions Missing PersonsAct, to reform how missing
(15:42):
person cases are handled inFlorida.
Sophia (15:46):
Yeah, because when she was first reported missing, the
police, I mean, it's a commontheme, oh, well, they just could
be off on their own volition.
Those first critical hours are,critical.
D (15:57):
If you listen to all the cases that are out there,
there's only a handful, maybethree, four, of where someone
created their own missingperson, or they left on their
own.
Most of these it ends up beingnot true.
So it's interesting how theyused to think.
As of June 10, 2010, the FBI hastaken the case over from the
(16:22):
Orlando Police Department.
It did so at the urging ofPolice Chief Val Demings.
The latest search for her tookplace in February 2014, and
investigators continue toreceive and pursue leads.
In 2018, Jennifer's parentsfiled suit against the Orlando
(16:43):
Police Department to gain accessto police records on the case.
The lawsuit was settled.
In March of 2019, allowing thefamily access to at least 16,000
pages of records.
Now, as Jennifer's uncle, BillGilmore told Fox News in 2023,
(17:05):
The department initially claimedthat there wasn't any evidence
or nothing of consequence withher car.
But after my sister and brothersued them and got the records
from the Orlando PoliceDepartment and had their own
team comb through the records,some 15 to 18,000 records, it's
(17:27):
said that they had collected DNAin the car.
they originally said that theydid not," Gilmore stated.
Police also turned over photosof Jennifer's vehicle that the
family had not seen before.
The images reportedly showeddust from the construction and
(17:49):
signs of a struggle on the hoodof the car.
Sophia (17:53):
Oh, because before they said there was no struggle.
Elena (17:56):
Interesting, so they're changing.
What they're saying now.
D (17:59):
They didn't change.
What happened was the familyfinally got all the documents of
the case and went through it andwhoever was helping them go
through it noticed that therewas a struggle on the hood of
the car and the reason they wereable to see that because the
rest of the car had constructiondust all over it and the hood
didn't, and it looked like therewas a struggle.
Elena (18:23):
Oh, I see.
And this is something that.
The police missed or they justdidn't talk about it.
Sophia (18:28):
We're just not being honest.
Elena (18:29):
They just were being quiet.
D (18:30):
Right.
They just told the family therewas no struggle
Elena (18:34):
So they lied.
Sophia (18:34):
I had a hard time believing that from the
beginning.
D (18:36):
Now only thing I can think of is if they're hiding something,
but whether there's a struggleon the hood of the car, I don't
find it enough of part of thecase that you hide so that only
the perpetrator knows.
Whether there was a struggle ornot is not, evidence that only a
perpetrator knows.
Elena (18:56):
Yeah.
D (18:58):
I don't know how you guys feel.
Elena (19:00):
No, I would definitely agree.
I think it's definitely astrange detail to leave out,
especially since that's a maindetail that shows that something
happened to her and it wasn'tjust like a runaway.
So it should be evidence for thepolice to investigate further.
D (19:15):
Don't forget they didn't figure that out two days after
she was missing when they foundthe car; however, that to me
means she was attacked when shewas at the car.
Not walking to the car; right atthe car.
Because there was a struggle ather car.
Sophia (19:31):
That's a good point.
Elena (19:32):
I mean unless something happened on the way and then
they were like get into the carand she tried to Okay, I mean
it's possible.
D (19:38):
It's possible.
Elena (19:39):
But I think most likely, someone waited until she got
into the car.
Maybe opened the door and thenthat's when they came.
D (19:46):
I don't even know if she got in the car.
Elena (19:48):
That's true.
D (19:49):
You know if there was a struggle on the hood.
Elena (19:51):
I'm guessing then the struggle happened when she was
going to her car wherever shenormally parked it and then the
person drove it to thisdifferent separate location.
D (20:02):
Correct.
That's what it looks like.
And it didn't pass that muchtime.
If she left at eight, then theythink by noon, because that's
when the video picks the guy.
I think it's a gentleman, by theway, looking at the picture,
that the gentleman, I think,parked it there.
So within the four hours, theydid what they had to do.
It didn't take them that long.
(20:23):
I don't know if they put her inanother car, and then they
wanted to hide her car, and Idon't even know why they hid her
car.
Elena (20:29):
Yeah, it's just risky, because I feel like getting into
a car, you risk leaving so muchevidence behind.
D (20:35):
Well, it's interesting because I think, again, the
suspect wiped it down.
And they claimed that it didn'teven have DNA, but it did.
Elena (20:43):
That's weird.
Why, lie about that?
Sophia (20:46):
Considering she was being harassed by these
construction workers andharassment is some form of
violence, I am reallydisappointed that they did not
follow through on theseindividuals who were harassing
her.
And not only did they not evenfind an interpreter, but if
(21:06):
there was DNA left at the scene,to me, it would make sense to, I
don't know how many constructionworkers.
I don't know if it was likethree or twenty.
Twenty is a little bit moredifficult.
But if there were three of them,say, it would be much easier to
follow each of them.
And then when they use some sortof cupware at a restaurant, take
(21:29):
that DNA and see if any of themmatch to the DNA in the car.
D (21:35):
First of all, you need to remember the year.
I don't think they werecollecting DNA in the same way.
The way they do now.
The other thing is, you are notgoing to collect DNA of every
single construction worker.
You have to eliminate who theindividuals you don't think and
you narrow it down.
I don't know how many peoplethere were.
Here's the thing.
Maybe they had constructionworkers.
(21:56):
They came and went.
You don't know.
Maybe it was one individual whosaw her one day he was working
there, never worked again, butthen knew her routine or
whatever followed.
We just don't know at thispoint.
The worst part is not the DNA,in this case it is they didn't
even question them.
Elena (22:12):
Yeah.
D (22:13):
They should have started that process.
Elena (22:14):
Right, but I also think there's a good chance that they
don't even know who wascatcalling her.
Like I'm guessing she wasn'tsaying, Oh this guy named so and
so to my family was harassingme, and he looked like X Y Z
like it's more like issues.
And so I'm guessing there'sprobably more, construction
workers than we would think.
(22:35):
And there's no way to know whichone was catcalling and which one
wasn't.
D (22:39):
Yes, she never stated or gave details of who it was.
Elena (22:43):
Which makes it harder because then it's like you can't
even really narrow down to knowwho even worked while she was
walking or who even had thoseinteractions.
And so it'd be hard to narrow,even that list of construction
workers so that you can evenfind DNA with.
D (22:57):
I think that they didn't take all the steps they should have
is right away a problem.
Her uncle said, We were neveraware of that either, the
struggle in the car."
Elena (23:07):
Right.
D (23:07):
So it's so disheartening.
Sophia (23:08):
It makes you wonder if there's a cover up to some
extent.
D (23:11):
I don't know about a cover up.
I just don't think they took itserious.
Elena (23:15):
Which is crazy to me, because this is the one thing
that shows, there was astruggle, so it shows that this
is serious and not a runaway.
D (23:23):
I just don't know how the police department thought.
Sophia (23:25):
And also cases have been solved, starting with far less
information and evidence that wecurrently have here.
D (23:31):
That's why I think her family went and sued them and won and
got to see all these records.
In, 2020, Jennifer's father saidhe believed Jennifer was the
victim of human trafficking.
Sophia (23:43):
Really?
D (23:44):
Yeah.
And in 2022, he accused theOrlando Police Department of
negligence and incompetence inthe investigation into her
disappearance.
Sophia (23:55):
Good for him.
D (23:56):
He said that more or less the department was incapable of
fulfilling an agreement toprovide the family with a
digital file of Jennifer's case.
So they couldn't even put theinformation they had on a
digital file for them.
Elena (24:09):
Wow.
Which.
Says all.
D (24:11):
Which was a long time ago.
I don't think they could put all15,000 plus documents on a
digital file.
One is, it's financial problemprobably.
The other is manpower.
Elena (24:23):
Yeah.
D (24:23):
Do they have enough manpower?
Do they have a budget to dothat?
I just don't know.
Sophia (24:28):
If they had just done a little bit further digging and
been a little bit more honestwith her parents.
They may have never evenrequested to have all of this on
a digital file.
It was really the lack of thecase being worked that probably
led them into this situation forasking for the digital file in
the first place.
D (24:45):
I wonder if the police force was not used to dealing with
cases like this.
And I think maybe they thoughtshe was leaving on her own
accord.
I really do think they thoughtthat for a long, long time.
So I think if you have peoplewho don't know how to work a
case, and they don't believeshe's gone, I think, things
(25:08):
begin to fall through thecracks.
Sophia (25:10):
I just wish before police forces would make the
assumption that someone is notmissing or in any sort of harm
that they just assume that theycould be and act accordingly,
because during that time frameof when they assumed she
probably just ran away.
They wasted the first criticalamount of hours that could have
(25:30):
potentially, I don't know butpotentially saved her.
D (25:33):
In all true reality.
She may have been dead already.
Sophia (25:37):
True.
D (25:37):
We really don't know.
This is what her father says.
He says,"Now imagine over thattime fighting for the unredacted
copies with the city's lawyers.
And trying to have our privateinvestigators find Jennifer from
all those files.
Then finding out that the leaddetective on Jennifer's case did
(25:59):
not write a single report or anydocument since 2010." And he
said 12 years.
So this is 2022.
Drew Kesse said.
Well, her father.
He said,"We firmly believe thedepartment's negligence and lack
of competency cost Jennifer thechance to be found."
Sophia (26:19):
Is there anything specifically that made her
family think she was trafficked?
D (26:25):
There was no mention as to why he said that, because early
on they thought of less andless.
But now in 2020, he reallythought that it could be that.
I have no idea.
Sophia (26:38):
That's so interesting.
I'm definitely curious aboutthat.
Elena (26:40):
Yeah, I wonder if there's something in the files that they
saw that isn't public that makeshim think.
D (26:45):
That could be, but he didn't say what though.
Elena (26:47):
Yeah.
D (26:48):
So maybe he's smart enough to know what you can and cannot say
to the public.
In November of 2022 the FloridaDepartment of Law Enforcement
took over the investigation.
The Kesse family hopes this willlead to future DNA testing and a
break in the case.
In December of 2022, it wasreported that the investigation
(27:09):
into disappearance had turnedover to the Florida Department
of Law Enforcement, FDLE, ColdCase Unit.
The FDLE intends to interviewpeople Kesse's law enforcement
team has already identified aspossible suspects or people who
may have valuable informationand to retest evidence that
(27:31):
Jennifer's family says has neverbeen retested.
"We have had to put great trustin the FDLE, our state law
enforcement agency.
However, after 14 months of themhaving the case, we really know
very little of their actions orgains in the case.
(27:52):
Pretty crappy place to be,honestly," the Kesses said.
"To the general public and mediawho have never given up on
Jennifer and whom, havesupported her and this family
for 18 years, we are incrediblyhumbled by your caring, sharing,
and continued belief that wewill find Jennifer and bring her
(28:12):
home." Pretty difficult tocomprehend even after 18 years.
To this family, it still feelsvery much like yesterday and to
this day, we continue to fightfor Jennifer's return every day
in every way," Drew and JoyceKesse said in a post online.
"It's almost inconceivable thatwith today's technology, we are
(28:37):
challenged just as much as wewere 18 years ago, mind
baffling, really.
That will not stop us fromfighting for Jennifer until we
find her or pass away ourselves.
No person should be Unfound inour country, no one!"
Elena (28:56):
Wow, that's just so heartbreaking, because it seems
like if they could just test theDNA, maybe that they could have
a break.
It's like they have all thepieces.
It just, can't get put together.
D (29:07):
Correct, and I don't know what is the holdup.
I don't know if it's financial.
Do they have money for DNA?
Or do the DNA.
I don't know if it's corruptedor damaged.
I have no idea.
There's no comments.
Elena (29:23):
Actually I don't know how it would work to get, the DNA
retested.
D (29:26):
It all depends what condition the DNA is.
They can do it if they haveenough.
Many times when departmentsdon't do DNA testing.
It's all because they don't havefinancial support for it.
That's why they sometimes giveit to the FBI to do it, cause
(29:48):
the FBI has more money.
They have small budgets, many ofthese police departments.
So they don't have the money forDNA testing.
Many departments are creatingcold cases for that reason.
And so they budget that inthere, but they can't do every
single one, they do a little ata time.
Elena (30:07):
That's just so unfortunate because it's one of
those cases where it seems likethere's they're close.
I feel that they have apossibility with DNA and yet
they can't get the tests.
D (30:18):
Personally, I don't know in what condition the DNA is.
However, the family feels thatDNA is in good condition.
I don't know if they knowsomething that is not being told
to the public, or they're justhoping.
I have no idea.
Yeah.
Whatever happened to Jennifer,maybe no one even saw, because
(30:38):
no one has ever said a wordabout it.
Sophia (30:41):
There's not many people in those apartment complexes.
D (30:45):
Yes, but then that means also there weren't any workers who
saw anything?
Sophia (30:49):
I know there's laborers there, but there's potential
that they just looked the otherway, especially, if they as a
group are collectively harassingJennifer, and they see one of
them take advantage of her.
They may not even care becausethey just don't see her as
having any rights or respect.
(31:09):
So they may not care if they sawone of their fellow co-workers
doing something to her or maybeit was a group thing.
Elena (31:17):
She looks so sweet.
And the way she smiles, shesmiles with her eyes too.
She's so pretty.
Sophia (31:24):
I don't know what kind of construction they were doing,
but I'm wondering has anyonechecked that construction to see
if maybe they could havedisposed her body in that
construction site.
D (31:32):
From what I understand, what they were doing is building up
the construction site to, buildmore condos.
So I wasn't sure if they wereredoing what was there or if
they were building more, but itwas to bring more people to live
there.
The way I interpreted, and I maybe wrong, it was like she was
one of the first out there tolive.
(31:54):
They maybe built one buildingand they had people move in, but
she was one of the first and itwasn't filled and maybe they
were building more buildings.
Sophia (32:03):
I hate to say this, but that's the perfect scenario for
them to dump a body.
If they're building all thesenew buildings,
Elena (32:09):
I would disagree because if they're building up, they're
not necessarily digging down.
So where would they bury her?
Sophia (32:16):
In the foundation.
D (32:17):
If they had a building available for a foundation.
Sophia (32:19):
Could've put her in a wall, too.
Elena (32:21):
Unless it's behind cement.
Sophia (32:23):
It's sealed.
It's sealed.
Elena (32:24):
No, you hear those stories where I think people are
like there is like a smellcoming in my and it's like a
dead raccoon or something.
D (32:31):
If it's not in cement, it would smell.
Sophia (32:35):
Either of you think she got human trafficked or do you
think she was kidnapped bysomebody we don't know about.
D (32:43):
It's one of two things, I think.
Either she was human trafficked,or some individual kidnapped
her.
And what happened afterwards, Idon't know if he kept her for a
while, or he just killed herafter a while.
It's just that he was very goodat covering his tracks.
Elena (32:59):
I would agree.
I think it seems like those arethe two.
I one hundred and ten percent donot believe she ran away or
anything like that.
I just think something happened.
Someone did something bad.
I just don't know who or what.
Sophia (33:15):
I don't know if she was trafficked or kidnapped and
murdered, but definitelysomething nefarious happened.
And it could have been somebodyrandom, potentially.
Yeah.
D (33:28):
but to me, random at that building complex where not many
people were there doesn't sound.
Sophia (33:36):
In my opinion, I personally think it was probably
one of the men who was harassingher.
Elena (33:43):
I don't know.
I truthfully just don't know.
I don't want to speculate onthings I don't know about but I
think it is possible thatsomeone could have seen how
empty this apartment complex wasor could have been going to hang
out with a friend or whateverand then they see her walk by
and then it's like oh my God!There's no one here.
(34:03):
This is perfect.
She's by herself.
I can take her.
I see her going to her car.
I can literally get in her carand use that.
And then I have my own car hereat the apartment complex.
Because I'm like visiting afriend or family member or
something like that.
So I think it's possible itcould be opportunistic, because
of how like it seems like it waspretty desolate at this complex.
(34:24):
And if an opportunistic killerwas there they could have seen
that it's not very busy and usethat.
And took that opportunity andran with it.
I also do think it's possiblethat it could have been someone
who knew her.
It could have also been like, aneighbor or someone who knew her
routine.
Or something like that.
D (34:43):
Yes.
It could be someone out of theblue.
No one would have Or it could besomeone who was watching her.
Unfortunately she never saidanyone was watching her.
And what she did say, her familytold the police.
Elena (34:56):
I will say just because she didn't say anyone was
watching her, doesn't mean thatno one was watching her.
It's very possible, someonecould have been watching her for
a while and she just had noidea.
D (35:07):
Correct.
I thought about that too.
Elena (35:08):
Even scarier.
D (35:10):
That's true.
If someone knew how to covertheir tracks well enough.
Elena (35:14):
Cause it's crazy.
Cause at any point, someonecould be following you and you'd
have no idea.
Which is a really terrifyingthing to think about.
D (35:19):
And she would drive into work and work in another whole area.
It could be in the building sheworked, someone liked her.
Elena (35:27):
And followed her home, saw where she lived.
D (35:30):
The possibilities are huge.
Elena (35:33):
People are crazy these days.
She could have bumped intosomeone, said,"Oh, I'm sorry,"
and just went on her way.
And that was it for that guy.
It doesn't take much for people.
So, it could have happened atwork, someone followed her home.
Now I see that she lives in apretty like desolate area a
pretty vacant area.
This is perfect, and they tookthat opportunity.
D (35:52):
I just don't feel the police turned all the stones over to
check it out.
I think they left some stonesunturned, and that's what I
think is the problem.
Elena (36:01):
I think that the case should get moved over to like
the FBI if that's a possibility.
D (36:06):
It was.
Elena (36:07):
It was?
Yeah.
Oh, is it still?
D (36:09):
No, they sent it back to Florida.
Elena (36:11):
Oh, okay, never mind.
So when they sent it to the FBI,did the FBI do the DNA test?
D (36:17):
Not that I know of.
Elena (36:18):
Was it because the police didn't tell them?
D (36:20):
The FBI got it in 2010, four years after.
So it could be that, four years,maybe the DNA wasn't where it
is.
Yeah.
So now it's back to Florida.
Elena (36:32):
Yeah.
They may not have had the DNAtechnology because there could
have been something back thenthat wasn't enough of a sample
to do a test, but now it isenough because we are more
technologically advanced withDNA.
So that could be a thing whereat that point it wasn't able to
get tested for some reason.
D (36:50):
I do not know if they even told the that they had DNA.
Considering.
They were telling everybody elsethat it wasn't enough.
Elena (37:00):
Which would be a big issue, I would think, because
that's withholding information.
D (37:04):
It could have been, they just didn't think it was enough, but
the FBI could have, maybe.
I don't know.
I really don't.
Elena (37:09):
I don't think that they were holding onto this, like
these information to bemalicious.
But it could have just beenlike, they just didn't think it
was enough DNA or that
D (37:17):
If I'm not mistaken, in the early two thousands with DNA,
you needed to have.
DNA to compare it to.
So if they didn't have itagainst a database or something,
they didn't have that.
Maybe they didn't think it wasany big deal.
Like maybe they thought we havethe DNA, if the FBI does find
(37:38):
someone, then they know we haveit.
And that's all.
Now, they can take the DNA ifit's not Jennifer's and do the
genealogy.
Elena (37:46):
Right.
D (37:46):
But that wasn't available back then.
Elena (37:48):
Right.
So I'm wondering if they gave itto the FBI.
They did the test.
They said the DNA test.
They said no one in thedatabase.
No one that we know about, butwe matched it.
D (37:57):
Yeah, but I've never heard that.
Elena (38:00):
Maybe they're keeping it, I don't know.
It could be that happened andnow we just have to do genealogy
to get move forward.
Or maybe it hasn't been tested.
I don't know.
D (38:10):
I have no idea.
Elena (38:11):
2010 was a little bit further along.
D (38:14):
But even then, still they needed someone's DNA to compare
it to.
So they didn't do genealogy.
Elena (38:21):
Right.
When did the FBI databasestarted?
I'm gonna look it up.
1998.
But it wasn't where it is now.
That's when it started.
And then I'm assuming it justgot better as time went on.
D (38:33):
Jennifer's still considered a missing and endangered
individual by the Orlando PoliceDepartment, by the FBI, by the
Orange County Sheriff's Office,by the FDLE, by the NCIC, by the
NCMA, and Interpol.
Jennifer also remains on theFBI's most wanted missing list.
Elena (38:55):
Okay, interesting.
D (38:57):
As of 2025, 19 years later, no arrests have been made and
Jennifer's whereabouts remainunknown.
Anyone with information intoJennifer's disappearance can
call the Kesse Family Tip Lineat 941-201-4009 or Crimeline at
1-800-423-TIPS, which is 8477.
(39:22):
I want to thank you forlistening to us this week.
We love our listeners.
And because of you, we do thispodcast.
Your help and engagement reallyhelps the podcast grow.
If you enjoyed this episode,please text a friend and family
member to podcast.
Until next time, make sure youstay on the Eerie Side.
(39:45):
Bye! Bye.
And be safe.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!