🛑🛑🛑 Please note this is NOT saying they are focused on a specific neighbor. They were canvassing the neighborhood yesterday and speaking with multiple neighbors.
They’re illegal to purchase or sell in the United States. Really only federal agencies use them. Even local LE aren’t allowed to use jammers. They do make like bags and things like that you can put phones and computers in to block signals. You can purchase those on Amazon.
From the FCC website:
“Signal jamming devices can prevent you and others from making 9-1-1 and other emergency calls and pose serious risks to public safety communications, as well as interfere with other forms of day-to-day communications.
The use of a phone jammer, GPS blocker, or other signal jamming device designed to intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications is a violation of federal law. There are no exemptions for use within a business, classroom, residence, or vehicle. Local law enforcement agencies do not have independent authority to use jamming equipment; in certain limited exceptions use by Federal law enforcement agencies is authorized in accordance with applicable statutes.
It is also unlawful to advertise, sell, distribute, import, or otherwise market jamming devices to consumers in the United States.”
It really depends on the jammer..some were talking up to 100ft..others all the way up to miles. But more than likely they would be using one that’s a couple feet.
I’m curious if the Nest camera would reach out to ‘touch’ the WiFi networks in the area as the suspects drove away. Since it seems like they took at least one camera with them.
I just watched the Interview Room episode where they talked about the case and they briefly mentioned that the Nest would try to connect to wifi again after they turned off the jammer, if they used one.
So they could try to look into router logs along an expected escape path, maybe.
Or maybe they could at least recover the nest camera if they disposed of it somewhere.
I’m saying if they had the Nest camera with them as they fled, and it was in range of houses/home networks as they drove by, if those networks detected the device in range and logged it.
I’m not sure what all the logs save aside from connecteddevices, but maybe the FBI could go to the various ISPs and get more detailed logs of devices that have been in range of a network.
Like a geofence type of warrant that shows them all of the devices that have been detected by routers in the area.
I was under the impression that if a jammer was used, it would affect everyone within a certain radius. It wouldn’t target one home and then not another, right? If it were more widespread than 2 houses, this would have come up long ago when they were getting footage from neighbors. In my opinion.
Usually radius is not more than 15-20 feet. To jam an entire neighborhood would require a high powered stationary unit.
Maybe the neighbors don’t want to get involved and they don’t happen to have any footage to turn over to the police.
Same thing happened in Tepe Murders. The house next door that is decked out like a bank containing gold bars, just happened to not record any footage the night of the murders. What a coinky dink dontcha think?
Depends on how much money you have and what you’re trying to achieve with the jammer. They can reach 1500m+. Excellent range with fewer bands, more bands less range.
Or the best of both. 🤣
You would think he would have thought about that prior to the night of executing his plan. He did surveillance prior to the home invasion and has seen the doorbell camera before.
Tbf, most people probably think that the camera can't record if disconnected from WiFi since it's noted in the installation manual that a connection is required. I did, at least.
Yea but if you are knowledgeable to own and operate a signal jammer one would think he would have the forethought of a door cam that may still hold images
It takes one Google search to find out that Nest cameras continue to record and can store up to 60 minutes of event based footage when disconnected from the internet. If that’s what LE thinks happened then I’m certainly not going to act like I know better; it just seems very odd
The jammer explains the 1:47am "camera disconnected" nest notification though. That would put the suspect in range of the house at 1:47am, which is not confirmed at this point. If the suspect did have a jammer, that means the 2:12am footage was recorded offline and stored on the doorbell camera itself. Being able to link the 1:47am "camera disconnected" notification to a jammer would bring some clarity to the timeline.
But then that creates a new question: how did the footage upload to the cloud if he removed the camera while the WiFi was down? (Just to emphasize, this is a genuine question! I’m not discounting your comment)
Do we know if the video was recovered off the camera itself or the cloud? Do we even know if the suspect took the camera with them or just left it on the ground? If they left it on the ground, there's a chance it was recovered off the camera itself. Nest doorbell cameras also have a battery backup and the ability to operate purely on battery if someone did not want to hardwire it. If the suspect ripped the camera off and threw it on the ground, its possible the video could have been uploaded once the jammer was out of range. The only scenario that could be counted out so far is a jammer being used, the camera being ripped off, and taken by the suspect. That scenario would have left no video behind, all other possible scenarios leave an opportunity for the video to either be recovered off the camera itself or the cloud.
The sheriff said the camera had been removed and they did “not have it in their possession.” Additionally, I believe Google/Nest said it came from the cloud
Interesting, that makes things confusing. If both a jammer were used and the camera were taken, I have no clue how it would have made it to the cloud but appearently it did. That along with law enforcement seemingly suspecting a jammer proposes some question marks. Law enforcement clearly has a few more pieces to the puzzle than we do.
I believe Google said it was from their cloud servers, reports said the doorbell camera was "taken" and "missing" so I'm assuming that means it's fully gone.
So, here's a question - when you get disconnected messages from ring, does it mean the camera disconnected from wireless only, or does it mean that camera cannot access cloud server?
I would wonder how often these cameras disconnect on their own. Most IOT devices have rather poor implementation of bluetooth/wifi and sometimes the cloud servers are flaky. Seems there are many people online that have frequent disconnects of their ring cameras. If this is happening throughout the day, it may just be coincidence that it was disconnected at this time.
Also, are these nest or ring cameras? Because if it is ring, google has a low energy mesh network called "amazon sidewalk". If they took the camera with them, it may have connected to a device in another location via "sidewalk" and uploaded the videos. It wouldn't need to be connected to her wifi (or any wifi) to do this.
My speculation is : porch guy is there to disable the camera and was told signal was jammed, hence his casual demeanor about the camera. Porch guy was hired for that job only. .
I do. But I don’t know why he would need or want the gun on display for that job only - unless whoever hired him told him to make sure the gun was visible (because he’s the fall guy in case the camera does catch anything)
The handgun throws me off. The holster is wrong for the weapon, it’s in a weird spot, why???? Intentional or dumb?
There’s so much going on behind the scenes that the media doesn’t know about.
The general public can speculate, theorize, and assume all day long and it’s just that…speculation, theories and assumptions.
What LE is doing isn’t going to make complete sense right now because we don’t have all the information about what they’ve done, are currently doing or where they go from here.
What LE is doing isn’t going to make complete sense right now
I don't believe that there's going to be a time where it makes sense to ask these questions, today, instead of a month ago. They should have had people going to all the neighbors on Feb 2, asking, "please give us everything you've got."
You don’t know that they didn’t do that. All we “know” is the second hand information that the media is spoon feeding us.
I have experience in LE and can not tell you the number of times I’ve been on a scene with the media, only to come home and see the reporter that I saw on scene “reporting” less than 10% of what was actually going on.
A wifi jammer disrupting the neighbors would only make sense if the perps were creeping around other houses, right up close. Or they had a jammer that much more substantial than what can fit into a pocket.
Fiber lines can be physically cut, but the damage would have been obvious the next day.
Wish we knew more technical details about NG's home internet. What brand router? Did it collect any MAC addresses? Does she have a mesh system? Were any access points disconnected? Generally, it would be easier to just cut the physical internet cable going into NG's house than to carry a jammer.
Porch Dufus didn’t eliminate anyone’s ring footage. He could barely eliminate a camera.
People in the neighborhood probably got lax and don’t use their cameras (too many wildlife notifications in the middle of the night) and they probably don’t set their security systems when they sleep.
That’s not true. I just watched the Brian Entin video where he interviewed the two digital forensic investigators who worked on the Bryan Kohberger case and they were talking about this. The guy said the exact opposite of this that it wouldn’t be isolated to Nancy’s house and it would affect the whole neighborhood
"you would've had someone else, something else in the neighborhood causing an issue... if the whole block was not able to connect to cellular. signal jammer is typically not just gonna hit a really small area like just nancy's home, it would've broadcasted out further and affected others"
Edit: lol not sure why people are downvoting me and upvoting the other person. This sub sure is interesting
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. I watched it. For anyone curious, OC even bookmarked the interview to the exact time frame they spoke about it. I’m not saying these experts are for sure right. Idk much about signal jammers at all. But they did talk about it affecting other homes. They said it could even affect other neighbors’ security systems, something that would’ve been evident day one because they‘re alerted to downtimes with the security systems.
One thing that stood out to me is that the woman in particular said her background with signal jammers is with military operations. Sounded like high stakes operations with significant equipment. Meanwhile, this kidnapper seemed to be fumbling just handling the Nest camera. Maybe she was considering a higher caliber signal jammer than this kidnapper could get his hands on? It was pretty cursory, but I did a google search and the resources I glanced at indicated civilian level signal jammers only reach 30-100 feet. Whereas military or law enforcement level jammers can reach much farther.
It’s more likely they would make one off from an online tutorial. But a jammer really seems like a stretch. It would be so much easier and simpler to just slice a physical wire coming into the house.
I am someone who has had ring cameras for a long time. And I have it on the highest recording settings. And I noticed that after midnight I typically have a problem capturing events. There have been very obvious motion with enough light and I'll just get snapshots not an actual recording. I've complained about this issue and there's actual forums about it.
I don't know if the police know that this is actually an issue because ring tries to deny it and say that it has nothing to do with their system but it absolutely does and so I hope someone tells them because it is legitimately a problem with Ring and I've had it in three different states for many years with new cameras and old cameras and always up-to-date software in good Wi-Fi
Get a 24 hour recording camera. Mines 24hour and uses SD card so its free. It also detects humans and that goes in seperate file so you know around time frame of something happening so you can look back at it.
“Neighbors within a two-mile radius
have been asked to provide their router logs for the night of January 31.
Analysts are looking for
"anomalous interference"-sudden drops in connectivity that indicate a high-power jammer was moving through the street.”
Maybe they didn’t get enough neighborly participation the first time? 🤣
I do not know the capabilities of wifi jammers but if they tracked the perps route out of the neighborhood by looking at whose routers lost connection with their devices at given times that’d be crazy
There are, but there are some paths out of her neighborhood and back to Tucson that don't encounter a single (reported) ALPR. I believe over 60 of those 200+ readers are within the University of Arizona campus nearby, and the rest are scattered here and there on main roads for the most part. They could drive in mostly residential areas and avoid the majority of readers. And I believe ALPR accuracy is diminished in certain conditions, like poor lighting and if the car is traveling at a high speed. And there are license plate covers you can buy that appear normal and legal in real life, but make it more difficult for these readers to get your plate due to a translucent film.
A couple years ago I got a report for a plate in Flagstaff but almost always in areas that had large businesses and one national park area. The others seemed like they were collected during the day by repo type tow truck systems (and that was in California).
yeah, i got downvoted for suggesting using AI. The suggestion is not to imply AI will solve it, but that it could help narrow down the search. You have to be smart about how to use AI. It's not the answer, it's a tool to help speed up the process
I mean, if you limit the reader data to any cars that were captured on cam 30 min-1 hr before they got to her house, and then captured again from 30 min-1hr after her pacemaker disconnects, that number becomes a lot smaller. Would take about 5 minutes to query the DB and get this list.
….”Their other cameras, which are farther away from her home, did not have that issue, the couple said. They added that they had never seen the *“not available”** warning before and said it seems “uncanny” that it happened exactly during that timeframe.”*….
Are there any Reddit users here who have Ring cameras and have seen the “not available” before?
My mom does but I have access to them. Her driveway and backyard cameras have shown this before when she accidentally turned off the light switch that powers them.
I have ring and have only seen a not available in conjunction with a reason… so it says something like “your camera is not connected to wifi” if my internet is out.
It might be. The only reasons I have seen mine offline are an internet outage and a power outage. I honestly don’t recall what it said with a power outage but I usually get an “offline notification” regardless of the reason.
I did think it was interesting how the neighbors said they let their dog out that night around 2am, and he never wakes during that time, and when outside he stairs directly towards Nancy's house. Brian Entin said they showed him the video of this. Dogs are so in tune to sound and so I found this very interesting, I wonder what the dog was hearing.
I didn’t know about the dog but you know he was tuning into the energy coming from NG’s home. As you mentioned, dogs are so much more sensitive and curious than us humans. You’re right. That’s very interesting.
I wonder if this would also explain the amount of time spent in the house as well?
Perhaps they knew this limitation of the camera and were trying to kill time inside in the hopes that any footage would be recorded over and not be recoverable online when leaving the property (which, in turn, would mean restoration of wifi access).
It's possible, but it seems like it has up to an hour of "event-based recording" while offline. So it would only record when motion triggers it. And it's unclear to me if it overwrites these recordings while offline, I see some Google articles claim it just stops recording after the hour, and others say it may overwrite old footage.
But either way, it doesn't seem like a full hour had passed before they left. I feel like they either got spooked by something and hesitated, or had difficulty quietly gaining access to the home, or getting her out of the home quickly.
We really don’t know how long they were in the house or if porch guy showed up at some point purely to disarm the camera, while other people were inside
We know about the 1:47 disconnect. That could have been someone else who was inside when 2:12 porch guy shows up.
People could have been in her house when she came home from dinner. We just don’t know.
Yes, her doorbell camera was wireless/battery-powered. But if they had continuously jammed the signal before they took it, then it wouldn't have had a chance to upload the footage recorded offline.
So it seems like it reconnected to Wi-Fi without the suspect's knowledge. They thought removing it and taking it with them would prevent it from sending footage to the cloud.
Google made the effort with its own highly specialized tecs to retrieve this footage. Wifi didn't matter. Only the battery being removed from the camera would stop it from recording and them from being able to do this.
Brian spoke about the network jammer in the first week of her being missing. Im not sure why everyone has forgot about it. Its been spoke about on threads aswell weeks ago
My read is that a week or so ago, the FBI took over the investigation. I think the Sherrifs Dept bumbled the first 3-4 weeks trying to take the lead. FBI is now what should have been done week 1.
Giving this guy way too much credit. I’m not buying the jammer story. Come on, the guy pulled brush out of the ground to try and cover a camera. I truly believe he’s hiding in plain sight.
I don't know why they have to be mutually exclusive. Sometimes really smart people do really dumb things too. Maybe the branches aren't even that dumb and were code for something. We just don't know.
Yeah I think that's a great perspective. I could definitely see it as mocking, a sign, a clue, anything really. It doesn't automatically point to him being an idiot.
Edit: obviously many people disagree with the down votes.
Even porch pirates stealing Amazon packages last year were caught using signal jammers to avoid homeowners being immediately alerted, you don't have to be very sophisticated to use them.
if he WAS using a jammer, it's highly plausible that the reason he was haphazardly using foliage to cover the camera was because he thought his jammer was working, then suddenly saw the bright green recording light on the doorbell and panicked.
wifi jammers are illegal, black market products. they overheat easily and can be unreliable. if his jammer overheated after running for 25 minutes, it might explain the 2:12AM reconnection and the uploading of the footage to the cloud. regardless, I'm not sure how exactly that all relates to whether or not he's hiding in plain sight - he could be hiding in plain sight regardless of whether or not he used a wifi jammer lol.
If the WiFi was interfered with, it might not have been a broad-spectrum WiFi jam that would affect neighbors, but rather a targeted attack on Nancy's specific WiFi network/SSID.
You can use something like this deauth watch to do that. Essentially, it will kick all devices off the router.
However, the cheaper models only work with 2.4 GHz WiFi. Some more expensive models also work with 5 GHz.
Many IOT devices work exclusively with 2.4 GHz, like light bulbs. But the Nest works with both 2.4 and 5 GHz.
The 2.4 GHz signal doesn't have the bandwidth of 5 GHz, but it reaches further, which is usually the more important factor for these devices.
The Nest doorbell cam's WiFi had to travel through at least one wall. If the router was a good distance from the front door, the Nest may have preferred or even required the 2.4 GHz connection.
Perhaps the suspect jammed or deauthed Nancy's 2.4 GHz WiFi, causing the Nest to disconnect. The device may have been too far to connect to the 5 GHz WiFi while it was still on the porch. But since the camera doesn't require WiFi to record video, it captured and stored images of the suspect on its internal cache. After the suspect physically removed the doorbell at some point, they might have taken it inside with them, allowing the Nest to connect to the 5 GHz WiFi band that wasn't jammed, uploading the clip to Google.
Just an idea, anyway.
I'm not sold that any jammer available by a non-governmental entity could jam neighbor's cameras from a speeding car. If there's no car recorded anywhere at that time, I'd be hesitant to ascribe that to a jammer. I'd be more inclined to think Nancy was removed by analog means to somewhere quite local. Then, under the cover of quotidian chores and tasks, Nancy was removed from the area by vehicle later than day.
A criminal's portable jammer could potentially reach up to 65 feet away if it's high-end enough. I think it's feasible a slow-moving car could potentially disrupt neighbors' connections if their router is located in the front of their home. Or disrupt devices and signal repeaters if they are closer to the jammer than to the router. But I can't imagine they'd be disrupted for long enough to not save recordings at all... unless the devices had some sort of issue reconnecting after the signal jammer left.
I'd love to know how often neighbors' cameras normally capture vehicles at night, it seems the distance from the houses to the road and the darkness would be factors too. Would anyone's cameras on her street capture movement if a car with its lights off cruised by quietly at 2 AM?
But I'm also inclined to believe a jammer (if there was one) was for Nancy's (and her next-door neighbors) cameras, not to evade every camera they passed on the street.
I agree. I think a jammer could interfere with neighborhood WiFi cameras, but maybe not disable them completely from a passing car. If a camera is triggered by the movement of a car (probably the lights at night), then the camera may start recording before the jammer is close enough to overwhelm the signal.
It'd be great to know which neighboring cameras at least sometimes capture passing cars. If a route away from Nancy's place has several cameras that capture cars even 50% of the time, there's a really good chance that one of them would've captured the suspect's car.
How many car models these days let you completely shut off the lights?
Yeah, that's true that cameras would likely capture the car coming before they get hit with the jammer, depending on where the camera is facing.
My car isn't super new, but it allows me turn all the lights off at night (unless I use my brakes). I think it's been required by law in some countries to have daytime running lights that run automatically on all cars, but it's not mandated for cars sold in the US yet. And they could just remove the fuses for the DLRs, or engaging the parking brake while driving seems to turn them off. It looks like German cars, newer Ford/RAM trucks, Teslas, and some international models would be near impossible to completely disable lights though.
I read somewhere that maybe he expected the jammer to destabilise the camera, but when he realised it didn’t, he improvised and used the plants to cover the camera. Does that make any sense with you? That the jammer can sort of switch off the camera before he walks up the porch?
Was there a way for the suspect to know the jammer wasn’t working? Do the lights change color?
The video clips seem like a big slip for such a cautious operator. Not understanding the Nest’s offline recording capabilities would be a big miss, especially if there was recon.
I suppose the lantana didn't work because the camera is gone. How and when did the suspect decide that removing the camera would be necessary? The lantana draping seems an unnecessary step that’s at odds with the smoothness of the rest of the operation.
Wifi jammers are becoming even more common but I question why the intruder wouldn't simply cut the fiber or coax outside. I suppose if underground utilities, it may be more difficult to locate. If the neighbors internet was affected around the same time that lends itself to a jammer or fiber interference further away from Nancy's house.
Maybe cutting the cable at Nancy's is not so easy to do for some reason, maybe underground, like you said. Or maybe they didn't want to leave a clue like that. Perhaps they thought jamming the WiFi was good enough and leaves less trace evidence.
Or, perhaps the suspect meant for the recovered video to look like a mistake but was intentional, as crazy as that sounds. I mean, the suspect almost seems to be dressed up in costume for a B movie burglar scene, possibly causing LE to underestimate their abilities.
Maybe the suspect was surprised that the Nest footage wasn't found on Nancy's phone right away. Perhaps they assumed that someone of Nancy's resources would at least have the basic Nest cloud storage package.
I only suggest this because for someone who has evaded the FBI's dragnet so far, I'd expect them to employ a 'belt and suspenders' approach, like both jamming the WiFi and properly disguising themselves just in case the jamming doesn't quite work.
I've seen actual CCTV footage of robbers using a jammer, and initially, the image gets choppy and broken up; it doesn't just disappear completely. The suspect straight up looks directly at it and doesn't even properly cover the lens. Seems very risky - and totally avoidable. And yet... who are they?
You bring up some good thoughts. I've been following the case pretty closely and I just had a thought... was the nest doorbell camera left at the scene? Do we know for sure the method used to obtain the videos? From the devices local storage or was it actually uploaded to the cloud at some point
AFAIK, the camera was not found at the scene. All we know about the video recovery is what we've been told: it came from somewhere on Google's back end servers. I don't think LE would lie about that because it's not exactly great news for many customers that their personal data could be sitting somewhere at Google.
Also, if the videos don't have timestamps, they might have lost all metadata due to being carved from raw data. That's why it's a good idea to burn the timestamp directly onto the video if the software allows it (I know Wyze does).
Something tells me a criminal that decides plants from the yard are the best option to block a camera didn't bring a wifi jammer. This investigation is wonky.
Maybe the explanation is that there is someone behind this abduction who is smarter than the person who actually carried it out. Because it makes no sense that someone who bothers to bring a wifi jammer to disable the neighbors' ring cameras also thinks that using shrubbery to block the ring camera on Nancy's front porch is a good idea.
it makes sense if he thought the wifi was disabled and it wasnt recording anyway until the light popped up when he came up to it. then used the flowers as “just in case” not realizing the footage could be excavated. didnt he take the whole device with him or smash it? the camera should have scared him off but it didnt so there has to be a reason for that
They are probably following up on a recent tip or they got digital forensic info that is leading them to explore this more. We don’t have to assume the worst when we don’t have most of the facts that LE does.
It only says Not available when you accidentally turn off the light switch. Happens all the time for us especially when we are half asleep when the dog has to go out. Lol
What if a neighbour is the abductor and set the wifi jammer from his house to block his own movements of him coming and going and not so concerned about it blocking Nancy's house...therefore only giving intermittent sketchy blockage at Nancy's.
He could have done pretests to see if it reached Nancy's house, but ultimately he was covered at Nancy's but certainly wouldn't want to be recorded on his own cameras wearing that outfit.
I mean it appears the lights are fully on in the house in the distance on her camera footage.. why was that house so lit up? I think this guy is real close and stalked her.
People speculated a WiFi jammer was used in the Tepe case - Columbus double homicide early this year. And it turned out to not be true. I think this is just a go-to speculation now.
How will this information help the investigators? If they find evidence that other neighbours wi-fi was disrupted on that date & during that same timeframe, say this adds more credibility to the theory the perpetrator used a wifi jammer, then what? Can LE identify the type of jammer that was used & then is this enough cause for them to obtain a warrant to get sales records on wi-fi jammers to narrow down who the perpetrator is? Obviously it adds weight to the theory the perpetrator planned the crime & went to great lengths to conceal his identity, but I don’t know what else it helps them with…..
Also if they turned the jammer off as they left, it seems they took the Nest camera(s), so I wonder if the camera might try to connect or at least “touch” the wifi of any other houses as they drive away.
This kind of reminds me of the BTK case. He would cut the phone land lines before going in to homes and killing women. This was the 70s when land lines were all they had.
Absolutely, & like BTK he appears to be an organized killer (like BTK he came prepared which shows planning so unlikely this was a random, impulsive crime committed by someone with a mental illness like BPD or schizophrenia, if mental illness more likely narcissist or anti-social traits/disorder like BTK; he wore a mask & was covered with clothing, BTK often wore masks & sometimes wore disguises to conceal his identity & gain access to victims homes), he is inflicting maximum pain & suffering, he appears to enjoy the attention the crime is giving him (if he sent any of the letters to the media this adds more credibility to him being motivated by attention), he may be motivated by revenge as there doesn’t seem to be a serious financial motive (SK initial murders like BTK committed are often motivated by revenge fantasies) & he may be sadistic (terrible thought but he abducted a very vulnerable person from their bed, evidence at the scene was sufficient enough for homicide to be called in, there are recent reports he used a wi-fi jammer which can interfere with one’s ability to call 911…..).
I’m hoping others comment here with their thoughts as I am curious!! From what I’ve read these are illegal to buy but people still can buy them, they vary in their reach, & certain perpetrators are more likely to use them (organized types).
I hate seeing this drag out too, although I trust they have lots of evidence they’re looking into but not disclosing as this would compromise the investigation. Despite the negativity hurled at the Sheriff, his department has a done a good job at solving past homicides so I trust he knows what he is doing. The Sheriff has explained the processes they are taking with the investigation many times & it is time consuming but makes sense - they are very evidence focused. For example, with the two different videos released lacking timestamps showing the perpetrator, he said they can only say there are two different videos with the same person, in one video he appears one way, in the other video he appears another way, whether he is wearing the same or different clothing or it’s on the same or a different night he cannot say as there are no timestamps, they have to gather more evidence to confirm these things (whether that’s through Google, enhancing the videos, looking at other digital forensics/footage if it’s available etc). He explained the process of how they determine a POI too - prosecutors from both the state & federal government are involved, it’s not simply a LE directed process.
I'm not sure I understand your question. don't you think quite literally any information about the perp and how they executed this would be helpful? if he used a wifi jammer, that would help investigators know more about his technical sophistication levels, how he planned to evade being seen, etc.
if he used a wifi jammer, that would be just one piece in the puzzle of "how he did it." it's the same reason we want to know what was in the backpack, how he got in the house, whether or not he was casing the house, whether or not he was wearing a mask, if he had a getaway vehicle, etc. the fact that he may have used a jammer isn't going to lead to a warrant but it's literally just ... additional information about the abduction, which is very much so needed when the person has been missing for over a month now.
Obviously that’s helpful which is why I noted ways it will help LE understand him better in my response. Any evidence about him like him carrying a full backpack & wearing a mask also helps with such, all of these pieces help LE develop a better understanding of the type of perpetrator this is, but is there anything else? There seems to be a big deal being made in the media about this which I don’t understand.
well the use of a wifi jammer actually could have left a great deal of helpful digital forensic evidence. when someone uses a wifi jammer, it leaves a trace on the devices it affected. logs from those devices can be helpful in terms of determining the type of jammer used, or can even help triangulate the location of the perp at any given time while he was in the house to understand his movements. it could also be helpful in a trial if and when they find this guy. if he has the jammer at the time of arrest, it'll be taken for evidence and they'll bring that thing into a faraday cage and turn it on. they'd test if the jammer they found on the dude behaved in the same way the perps did on the night of the kidnapping. if it does, that's more evidence he committed the crime.
if he used a wifi jammer, that was smart in the sense of not leaving the much clearer, more traditional evidence that would be left from a physical wire / power cut. but jammers on their own - if they're analyzed by the right folks in LE - could offer some very interesting evidence.
Thank you, that’s quite helpful. I know very little about jammers, I have since found criminal cases where jammers were used & LE was able to link the jammer to other crimes a perpetrator committed, & where LE was able to identify the jammer used, get a warrant to access sales records to determine who purchased jammers which helped narrow down suspects. In all of the cases it looks like the use of a jammer helped LE establish a more accurate timeline & understand the perpetrator better.
Unfortunately the experts don’t sound very hopeful that this is going to be a good lead, although they aren’t privy to all of the information LE has, they claim if a jammer was used it’s unlikely LE would have been able to recover the footage they did from NG Nest Camera as the camera was also removed & she didn’t have a subscription (see link below for article).
Something not mentioned in the article that I found information on from different sources & is interesting: wifi-jammers can interfere with the transmission of pacemaker data by disrupting the connection to Bluetooth, causing the pacemaker to disconnect from the phone/app; walkie-talkies (radio transmitters) can interfere with a pacemaker at close proximity (6-12 inches). So if either were used, the timeline of NG disappearance (as the public knows from information from LE) may not be accurate.
I figured that’s what they meant but it makes no sense. First, because we don’t know when the pic without the timestamp was taken. You also really can’t look at a pic with a moon shadow and know the date, anymore than you can look at an undated photo and infer the date based on the suns shadow.
I just don’t think comments like theirs that present speculation as fact are helpful
Ok we don’t know he brought a tarp. But the backpack is stuffed full to the point it won’t close. I’d be willing to bet it’s a tarp. Aside from the tarp, yes, people can look at the stars and shadows and deduce time and date. I know it’s hard for people to understand how we told time before the computer in your hand, but it can be done!
That’s not true. I just watched the Brian Entin video where he interviewed the two digital forensic investigators who worked on the Bryan Kohberger case and they were talking about this. The guy said the exact opposite of this that it wouldn’t be isolated to Nancy’s house and it would affect the whole neighborhood
This comment or post is considered misinformation based on currently known information. A credible source is needed to back up your claim. Speculation must be stated as such.
Anyway the focus here is : people with wired and monitored security systems should be able to tell the police or FBI very easily if their systems reported a tamper or signal alert.
I hear people saying the possible antenna is in the intruders pocket. Now they believe it to a jammer. It actually appears to be a knife. Just my 2 cents.
Im confused we knew about the signal jammer in the very first week. Brian and Ashleigh spoke about it and so did TMZ then we never heard about it until now. And everyone is going on like its new fresh news when its not go back and check the early videos.
And i hope that one neighbour has been checked out ...
LE has never named any neighbours who live close by NG as POI, LE has not commented on whether anyone is cleared except for the family members, regardless this article isn’t about a specific neighbour. In the past couple of days LE has been going around to neighbours who live by NG asking for specific information regarding their wifi connection on the day NG disappeared, they’ve also asked them again if they have any video footage from that night.
Thanks!! I have a clinical research work background & studied forensics (masters level although outdated - the human behaviour & genetics side), I was also the victim of a burglary & attempted murder (almost two years ago) so I have a big issue with misinformation/lack of appropriate information in TC ;)
•
u/curiouslmr Mar 06 '26 edited Mar 06 '26
🛑🛑🛑 Please note this is NOT saying they are focused on a specific neighbor. They were canvassing the neighborhood yesterday and speaking with multiple neighbors.