Found Deceased SC - Brittanee Drexel, 17, Myrtle Beach, 25 April 2009 - #18

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regarding the issue of whether Brittanee went willingly with her kidnappers, here is an account of a 2010 case LE speculates is linked:

The interest comes in the wake of Wednesday's arrest of a 37-year-old McClellanville man accused of trying to kidnap a woman July 21 on Ocean Boulevard in Myrtle Beach. The 20-year-old victim told police Timothy Shaun Taylor was one of three men who grabbed her and tried to drag her into a van, according to arrest affidavits. She managed to break free and escaped.
The incident occurred just a couple of blocks from the hotel where 17-year-old Brittanee Drexel was last seen before she vanished on a spring break trip in April 2009, Myrtle Beach police Capt. David Knipes said. She has not been found.
Click to expand...

Brittanee was petite. She would have had a tough time fighting off two or three men attempting to kidnap her. Note in this case, no one saw or reported the attempted kidnapping, but the victim "managed to break free and escape." As to the question of when the texting stopped, the comment that
“She was constantly on the phone texting. Then it all stopped when she went missing,” he said. “It was like someone took the phone.” (linked above
Click to expand...
refers to her general habit of "constantly" texting. She "went missing" after leaving the hotel. I think there is no way she would have willingly got into a car or van with the suspects. They grabbed her, took her phone, and left the area.
)

 
Thanks for the recognition you guys! It means a lot and it helps keep me motivated to actually finish this review. I thought it important because, similar to LE agencies having a "meeting of the minds" and reviewing facts, we may have forgotten about certain tidbits of info from over the years (I know I have). Also, there may be some newer sleuths here who haven't heard everything. Bits & pieces of information came out through the media over the years which fit together to create a bigger picture of what happened.

It's clear to me that LE has had their eyes on these people and have been watching them like hawks. They've just been waiting for someone to either come forward or to find a big glaring piece of evidence in order to bring these people in. It sounds like the PC was strategic and, IMO, it sounds like they may have someone in custody on unrelated charges that is feeding them information. IMO, they need someone to come forward and corroborate the story they're being told (so that it holds up in court).

lonetraveler, if the same people involved in SM's murder are not the same ones involved in B's, I'm willing to bet that they "run in the same circles." I do feel that at least one of the perps is the same but I have not heard that stated anywhere.
 
What makes people think she wouldn't willingly have gone with someone to a party, club, or even just someone's room? She had already lied to get to MB in the first place and had hung out in a room with a guy she just met. I know that sounds harsh but I think there's evidence she didn't have the best judgement in the world. The cell phone evidence may point to abduction but I don't think we can say she wouldn't have gone willingly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
pittsburghgirl said:
Regarding the issue of whether Brittanee went willingly with her kidnappers, here is an account of a 2010 case LE speculates is linked:



Brittanee was petite. She would have had a tough time fighting off two or three men attempting to kidnap her. Note in this case, no one saw or reported the attempted kidnapping, but the victim "managed to break free and escape." As to the question of when the texting stopped, the comment that refers to her general habit of "constantly" texting. She "went missing" after leaving the hotel. I think there is no way she would have willingly got into a car or van with the suspects. They grabbed her, took her phone, and left the area.
)

Click to expand...

Thanks for your logical and blunt input. What you've said in your last paragraph is also my theory on what has happened. The quote you quoted was posted in 2010 -- early on in this case when there was lots of news in the media and we were dissecting every word said. I cannot ignore the fact that things have been said very carefully.

Pittsburghgirl, please give your input on what LE may have meant when they said that B was held captive for a "portion" of the time. Also, please give your thoughts on LE saying B did not know these people "directly." TIA.
 
LLLindsayy said:
Thanks for the recognition you guys! It means a lot and it helps keep me motivated to actually finish this review. I thought it important because, similar to LE agencies having a "meeting of the minds" and reviewing facts, we may have forgotten about certain tidbits of info from over the years (I know I have). Also, there may be some newer sleuths here who haven't heard everything. Bits & pieces of information came out through the media over the years which fit together to create a bigger picture of what happened.

It's clear to me that LE has had their eyes on these people and have been watching them like hawks. They've just been waiting for someone to either come forward or to find a big glaring piece of evidence in order to bring these people in. It sounds like the PC was strategic and, IMO, it sounds like they may have someone in custody on unrelated charges that is feeding them information. IMO, they need someone to come forward and corroborate the story they're being told (so that it holds up in court).

lonetraveler, if the same people involved in SM's murder are not the same ones involved in B's, I'm willing to bet that they "run in the same circles." I do feel that at least one of the perps is the same but I have not heard that stated anywhere.
Click to expand...
Ive been receiving Google updates on this case since the Summer or fall of 2009. I wish I had saved them. I received one toward the end of 2015 or beginning of 2016 that I've waited on the follow up. It was regarding a bone found that was going to be sent off for DNA testing. It was speculated as a possibility of B. In the past there would always be a follow up, "Bone found not belonging to B" or "bone found not being human remains", etc. This time there's been no follow up. I've been thinking they found her, or just a small bone of hers.
 
Marc said:
Ive been receiving Google updates on this case since the Summer or fall of 2009. I wish I had saved them. I received one toward the end of 2015 or beginning of 2016 that I've waited on the follow up. It was regarding a bone found that was going to be sent off for DNA testing. It was speculated as a possibility of B. In the past there would always be a follow up, "Bone found not belonging to B" or "bone found not being human remains", etc. This time there's been no follow up. I've been thinking they found her, or just a small bone of hers.
Click to expand...

Marc - I did find an article from Dec. 2009 where divers found a "hard material" in the river and sent it in for testing (results were it was not bone at all from any species), but to my knowledge that is the only time I've heard of anything of that nature. Are you able to locate this article anywhere? I'd be interested in seeing it. This timeframe is of interest to me.

ETA: do you recall the location of the discovery?
 
Marc said:
Ive been receiving Google updates on this case since the Summer or fall of 2009. I wish I had saved them. I received one toward the end of 2015 or beginning of 2016 that I've waited on the follow up. It was regarding a bone found that was going to be sent off for DNA testing. It was speculated as a possibility of B. In the past there would always be a follow up, "Bone found not belonging to B" or "bone found not being human remains", etc. This time there's been no follow up. I've been thinking they found her, or just a small bone of hers.
Click to expand...

The timeframe would fit with the recent announcements.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I have always thought that whoever it was that tried to kidnap that girl after Brittannee disappeard was involved with Britannees disappearance as well, as if they have done this before. I sure hope there is some closure on this case soon and some people get the punishment they deserve for harming this little girl. I do think she was taken against her will and did not get into any vehicle willingly. JMO
 
Thread 8 page 21ish (and going forward) there is chatter about some of the wording LE used -- wording that makes several WSers believe they are looking at young people. All links I can find are broken but I do find these quotes:

April 2010

"What we’re also hoping for is these individuals that are responsible. that think they’re men and claim to men need prove theirselves and just come forward and tell us what they did and tell us where britanee is so we can put closure to this case.“
Honestly, this reminds me of what fathers say to their teen sons. I'm betting that he's talking about teens, young adults....someone from Brittanee's peer group....people who THINK they are men, but who are still acting like children. IMHO.
Click to expand...

These are YOUNG men, maybe gang members, trying to prove themselves.
Click to expand...

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Drexel-17-Myrtle-Beach-25-April-2009-8/page21
 
FWIW, DD just posted a link to CS missing on her Facebook. Probably means nothing -- it makes sense she advocates for all those missing. Just thought an interesting coincidence in light of recent posts.
 
LLLindsayy said:
FWIW, DD just posted a link to CS missing on her Facebook. Probably means nothing -- it makes sense she advocates for all those missing. Just thought an interesting coincidence in light of recent posts.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but she posted what? And it probably means nothing? <mod snip>
 
Well, first, I am a rank amateur on this case compared to those of you who follow it carefully. I can see the POV of those who think Brittanee was naive enough to get in a car or van with strangers, given that she ran off to the beach without permission and may have been pushing a lot of boundaries. It's impossible to know her state of mind, especially if the trip was as disappointing to her as it appears it might have been. It's one thing to go off to the beach with your bf, say, or your best female friends. It's another to be there with people who are actively unkind to you. That is what I recall from the early coverage of the case. It's hard, then, to figure where her boundaries might have been. But if she had willingly gotten in a vehicle with the people who ended up killing her, and they never tipped their hands as to their motives, she would have had her cell phone and probably texted someone in MB or at home that she was on the road and who her companions were. She would have been an easy target for predators of this calibre, given her small body frame, evident youth, and likely engrossment in her phone as she walked.

I think a "portion of the time" means they kept her alive for "a portion of the time" that she has been missing and then killed her, as happened in the Holly Bobo case.

As to the point of Brittanee not knowing these people "directly," that might indicate that someone she knew or someone she met in MB has a connection to one or more of the POIs, maybe through a drug deal. Someone in this heinous group may have seen Brittanee in a group that included a mutual acquaintance. I think it is very meaningful that they have stated that Brittanee herself has no connection "directly" to the POIs; that suggests she did not go willingly with people who are in fact strangers to her. I think LE is being very careful because they want to take this dangerous group of people out of circulation.
 
RoChEsTeR Paul said:
I'm sorry but she posted what? And it probably means nothing? <mod snip>
Click to expand...

<mod snip> In recent posts, users have been exploring a possible connection between the cases of Brittanee Drexel and Crystal Soles. Crystal is a young woman who disappeared very nearby to where the persons if interest in Brittanee's case live. For that reason, it's possible the two cases are connected. THAT SAID, Brittanee's mother just posted an article about Crystal Soles on her Facebook page. I said perhaps it's unrelated because I don't know that it is. But also perhaps it IS related in which case it might be of interest to those exploring the connection here.

Thanks for your concern, but as far as I'm concerned, it might be helpful in solving this case.
 
LLLindsayy said:
<mod snip> In recent posts, users have been exploring a possible connection between the cases of Brittanee Drexel and Crystal Soles. Crystal is a young woman who disappeared very nearby to where the persons if interest in Brittanee's case live. For that reason, it's possible the two cases are connected. THAT SAID, Brittanee's mother just posted an article about Crystal Soles on her Facebook page. I said perhaps it's unrelated because I don't know that it is. But also perhaps it IS related in which case it might be of interest to those exploring the connection here.

Thanks for your concern, but as far as I'm concerned, it might be helpful in solving this case.
Click to expand...

Ok, well I'm definitely not ever going to criticize anything that Dawn posts. And I didn't see it so.. but I do think the connection between Crystal Soles, Randa Massey and Brittanee are absolutely linked to the same aging gangster ****s from the McClellanville area. I believe LE has DNA evidence, a witness who was there and saw it with his own eyes and a crime scene. What they don't have is someone who will testify against his friends or family.
When I say we should kick back, what I mean is rather than going back and repeating ourselves and rehashing all of the old theories from the past, let's go forward with what we do know. I think we all, including the FBI and locals, know who did it. Let's do what we can to help them solidify their case.
It seems that lately these posts have been more about thanking people than solving this crime!
 
LLLindsayy said:
Thanks for your logical and blunt input. What you've said in your last paragraph is also my theory on what has happened. The quote you quoted was posted in 2010 -- early on in this case when there was lots of news in the media and we were dissecting every word said. I cannot ignore the fact that things have been said very carefully.

Pittsburghgirl, please give your input on what LE may have meant when they said that B was held captive for a "portion" of the time. Also, please give your thoughts on LE saying B did not know these people "directly." TIA.
Click to expand...

I posted most of my thoughts above. But it also occurs to me that this is an investigation involving FBI and local LE of more than one jurisdiction, from where Brittanee was last seen to where they suspect she was taken--that alone covering a fairly large area. This case also has implications back to a 1998 apparent abduction and murder of a young woman from that area. So by now, 17 years? Several murders? Attempted abductions? Often 4-5 people said to be involved? And what else? It may well be that Brittanee's case is part of a much larger investigation attempting to break up what amounts to a gang involved in a number of criminal enterprises. LE has arrested and tried to charge several of these people but nothing sticks. One thing the press conference does is turn up the heat in McClellanville, lets the killer(s) know that LE knows Brittanee is dead and that there is evidence. We are of course here focused on the one murder, but it is likely that in this case there is a much bigger focus for LE. We don't know what the FBI knows but it seems apparent to me that abduction and murder is only a part of the picture
 
pittsburghgirl said:
Well, first, I am a rank amateur on this case compared to those of you who follow it carefully. I can see the POV of those who think Brittanee was naive enough to get in a car or van with strangers, given that she ran off to the beach without permission and may have been pushing a lot of boundaries. It's impossible to know her state of mind, especially if the trip was as disappointing to her as it appears it might have been. It's one thing to go off to the beach with your bf, say, or your best female friends. It's another to be there with people who are actively unkind to you. That is what I recall from the early coverage of the case. It's hard, then, to figure where her boundaries might have been. But if she had willingly gotten in a vehicle with the people who ended up killing her, and they never tipped their hands as to their motives, she would have had her cell phone and probably texted someone in MB or at home that she was on the road and who her companions were. She would have been an easy target for predators of this calibre, given her small body frame, evident youth, and likely engrossment in her phone as she walked.

I think a "portion of the time" means they kept her alive for "a portion of the time" that she has been missing and then killed her, as happened in the Holly Bobo case.

As to the point of Brittanee not knowing these people "directly," that might indicate that someone she knew or someone she met in MB has a connection to one or more of the POIs, maybe through a drug deal. Someone in this heinous group may have seen Brittanee in a group that included a mutual acquaintance. I think it is very meaningful that they have stated that Brittanee herself has no connection "directly" to the POIs; that suggests she did not go willingly with people who are in fact strangers to her. I think LE is being very careful because they want to take this dangerous group of people out of circulation.
Click to expand...

Very well thought out post. Thank you.
 
RoChEsTeR Paul said:
Ok, well I'm definitely not ever going to criticize anything that Dawn posts. And I didn't see it so.. but I do think the connection between Crystal Soles, Randa Massey and Brittanee are absolutely linked to the same aging gangster ****s from the McClellanville area. I believe LE has DNA evidence, a witness who was there and saw it with his own eyes and a crime scene. What they don't have is someone who will testify against his friends or family.
When I say we should kick back, what I mean is rather than going back and repeating ourselves and rehashing all of the old theories from the past, let's go forward with what we do know. I think we all, including the FBI and locals, know who did it. Let's do what we can to help them solidify their case.
It seems that lately these posts have been more about thanking people than solving this crime!
Click to expand...

No one criticized Dawn's post.
 
[LLLindsayy, again I have to say Thank You! You are fantastic! omg go spoil yourself
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 95 more.
Total: 261 (members: 96, guests: 165)

Online statistics

Members online
96
Guests online
165
Total visitors
261
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,559
Messages
18,241,240
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top