Found Deceased SC - Brittanee Drexel, 17, Myrtle Beach, 25 April 2009 - #8

[ilovemew]

Georgetown County Sheriff's Office Spokesman, Lt. Neil Johnson, tells reporters none of the persons of interest have been arrested or charged, but two have been given lie-detector tests.

My guess is that the LDT's are to see if the story these men are telling is true.

 

[ilovemew]

Drexel update story disappointing

http://www.examiner.com/x-15674-Roc...~y2010m4d11-Drexel-update-story-disappointing

Nothing new at the above article just voices our own frustration. Can't imagine being a family member.

 

[SkewedView]

I would assume that if she was held for any amount of time at the destination against her will that would count as abduction, as many abductions start out with a consentual meeting. MOO

 

[LLLindsayy]

Here is a scenario to think about. PB tells Britt my friends are outside in a car go with them and we will meet you at the party. Britt goes with them. This is how "she did not know them directly" the 4th person I keep thinking is PB and they are waiting for evidence to bring him into this.

Just MO but I think the word "directly" means something too. The one thing that keeps bothering me is that Lt. Johnson's interview (that you can listen to from my link a few pages back) he says she was abducted. This was after they asked why BD got into the car, how she got into the car. He simply said she was abducted. This seemed matter of fact. So that is what confuses me if LE believes she was abducted from the start what is with the constant texting.

My other thought is the constant texting was that up to she got into the car. They said there was constant texting up until she disappeared. Not up until an hour after she disappeared. JMO

Speaking towards your theory:

If PB told B to meet friends outside of hotel to head to party and she did, she may have thought they were transporting her to party (hence her comfort), when in reality they had other intentions. This could satisfy the "abduction" classification.

 

[Rochestergirl]

Just saw posted on FB page for BD that DD will be on Issues with Jane Veloz tomorrow, Monday, evening at 7PM

 

[LLLindsayy]

I noticed that there was mention of lie detector tests that had been given.

But it didn't say if they were given to find out if these people were guilty - (which could be the reason) - but the lie det. tests could have been given to see if these people were telling the truth about what they know.

These people are POI's and may not have been directly involved in what happened to BD - these people may have been bystanders who saw what happened and were afraid to speak (come forward) because of threats.

ETA: To me it sounds like these people have info and info only and this is why they have not been arrested. By what info these POI's have given and they know BD was murdered and these people they have spilling info haven't been arrested - speaks to me that it is someone else they are looking for as the murderer and not these POI's.

I will try to write what I want to write without confusing all of you. I don't know how well I will accomplish that, but here goes:

LE says they have given two lie detector tests. I also believe I read that they said they had been given warrants to do those tests.

It seems that someone is talking to LE. I think that if someone is willing to talk that you wouldn't have to get a warrant to test them. Am I coming through clear here?

If someone says they know something, why do you need a warrant to test them to verify that? It seems that if they are volunteering the info then they would willingly take a test.

I also wonder why they haven't been able to test the other POI (possibly two of them).

All of this makes sense in my mind. How well it came out is yet to be determined...

 

[nursebeeme]

LLLinds,
I hear ya loud and clear. And thank you for the neat-in-the-box picture of what has been going on.

 

[MBLover]

I will try to write what I want to write without confusing all of you. I don't know how well I will accomplish that, but here goes:

LE says they have given two lie detector tests. I also believe I read that they said they had been given warrants to do those tests.

It seems that someone is talking to LE. I think that if someone is willing to talk that you wouldn't have to get a warrant to test them. Am I coming through clear here?

If someone says they know something, why do you need a warrant to test them to verify that? It seems that if they are volunteering the info then they would willingly take a test.

I also wonder why they haven't been able to test the other POI (possibly two of them).

All of this makes sense in my mind. How well it came out is yet to be determined...

Lindsay - Thanks for your compliment in your earlier post! Much appreciated! I love your posts too...and yes we do seem to run a lot of the same threads!

The only reason I can come up with LE obtaining warrants for the lie det. testing - is to make sure they have done everything by the book.

Even though as another poster stated...lie det. tests are not admissable in a court of law...I'm guessing that LE is making sure they are dotting every i and crossing every t so that nothing comes back to bite them in any way...KWIM?

Then again...as we have seen with a lot of reporting on this case - it has been sloppy... (getting names of hotels mixed up...how far the BH is from the BWR...etc.)...so the "warrant" could have been taken out of context...or someone slipped up in giving info to the press starting to say a warrant for something else - maybe a computer hard drive...and they knew they couldn 't say that so instead used the lie det.

 

[Rochestergirl]

Lindsay and MBLover

I took the press that said they had enough to get search warrants to possibly mean that they will be searching these POIs homes, cars, etc for physical evidence. That's how I took it at least. Then I thought thats why they said they only need 1 more thing. Which they hope to get from a search.

Also, this could be to put the fear of God into the POIs that search warrants are issued and possibly get someone to starting talking. JMO

Lindsay - Thanks for your compliment in your earlier post! Much appreciated! I love your posts too...and yes we do seem to run a lot of the same threads!

The only reason I can come up with LE obtaining warrants for the lie det. testing - is to make sure they have done everything by the book.

Even though as another poster stated...lie det. tests are not admissable in a court of law...I'm guessing that LE is making sure they are dotting every i and crossing every t so that nothing comes back to bite them in any way...KWIM?

Then again...as we have seen with a lot of reporting on this case - it has been sloppy... (getting names of hotels mixed up...how far the BH is from the BWR...etc.)...so the "warrant" could have been taken out of context...or someone slipped up in giving info to the press starting to say a warrant for something else - maybe a computer hard drive...and they knew they couldn 't say that so instead used the lie det.

 

[krista]

Do we have a complete list somewhere of WHAT Brittanee texted to others in that last hour?
I've always felt like this was someone she knew...at least a little...but I also have always felt like the timeline was WAY off given the texts. She would be traveling with her abductors WHILE she was still texting calmly. Clearly, either she knew and was comfortable with them, or she was no longer in posession of her phone and someone else was texting Brittanee's family/friends using her phone.

 

[Rochestergirl]

Krista,

I don't believe anyone ever knew what the texts said. Only that she placed texts to JG, and I believe some of the girls. Hopefully someone else has this info.

 

[LogicalMinds]

I didn't think that they can force anyone to take a lie detector test

I think they would get a "warrant' in order to get an official lie detector test
for someone who has given info and agrees to take the lie detector test...they need the warrant to make it official JMO

My personal take on all this is that in most of these "group" deals there is a ringleader/s and followers...often there is a person who "goes along" but has some 2nd thoughts, doesn't participate..maybe even tries to talk others out..has regrets/fears...or just decides to cut a deal

I think that is what happened here....maybe they will cut a deal with one or two of them...in order the get the ones who instigated this

Britanee may have met one or more of these guys at the club, beach or ??
LE has put out the idea of drug connections....they may be guys who come to the clubs....may have offered her a ride to ? party or someplace....and then it all went wrong

that would explain her texting , she didn't realize that they had other bad plans for her

 

[Autumndreams]

Lindsay and MBLover

I took the press that said they had enough to get search warrants to possibly mean that they will be searching these POIs homes, cars, etc for physical evidence. That's how I took it at least. Then I thought thats why they said they only need 1 more thing. Which they hope to get from a search.

Also, this could be to put the fear of God into the POIs that search warrants are issued and possibly get someone to starting talking. JMO

That's the same way i understood it too.

 

[rd_jfc]

I'll look it up for you in a couple minutes.

Ok, I re-read my posts on this LLLindsayy and what I posted was that I believe PB is lying about that. Utter lie in my opinion. I posted and bolded his crap:

Peter Brozowitz says, “First of all, I did talk to Brittanee, as to why she was walking the strip by herself. Earlier that day she said oh for the last three nights I walk by myself. It doesn’t bother me, I’m fine. I’m like I didn’t go anywhere by myself because it’s pretty bad down there. Second of all, when she left the hotel, the sun was still up, and I offered, I offered her a ride and she was like no, it’s ok, it’s ok, and she acted like there’s no worry at all for her to walk again.“ Brozowitz also said he did not go to Myrtle Beach to babysit Brittanee.

I have no use for this person. That's the only thing I can say about him that can stay posted.

rd

 

[nursebeeme]

could it be that perhaps "P" was in the same company at some time with the perps? (along with other people on the trip?) perhaps it has taken this long to dig up the locals they may have been 'rubbing noses' with??? Just a thought

 

[Autumndreams]

bolded and cloroed by me.

I didn't think that they can force anyone to take a lie detector test

I think they would get a "warrant' in order to get an official lie detector test
for someone who has given info and agrees to take the lie detector test...they need the warrant to make it official JMO

My personal take on all this is that in most of these "group" deals there is a ringleader/s and followers...often there is a person who "goes along" but has some 2nd thoughts, doesn't participate..maybe even tries to talk others out..has regrets/fears...or just decides to cut a deal

I think that is what happened here....maybe they will cut a deal with one or two of them...in order the get the ones who instigated this

Britanee may have met one or more of these guys at the club, beach or ??
LE has put out the idea of drug connections....they may be guys who come to the clubs....may have offered her a ride to ? party or someplace....and then it all went wrong

that would explain her texting , she didn't realize that they had other bad plans for her

This is what i fear happened too.. she somehow knew these ppl and went with them that's why she was able to vanish off the street without anyone noticing.

 

[rd_jfc]

I will try to write what I want to write without confusing all of you. I don't know how well I will accomplish that, but here goes:

LE says they have given two lie detector tests. I also believe I read that they said they had been given warrants to do those tests.

It seems that someone is talking to LE. I think that if someone is willing to talk that you wouldn't have to get a warrant to test them. Am I coming through clear here?

If someone says they know something, why do you need a warrant to test them to verify that? It seems that if they are volunteering the info then they would willingly take a test.

I also wonder why they haven't been able to test the other POI (possibly two of them).

All of this makes sense in my mind. How well it came out is yet to be determined...

Lie detector tests are taken voluntarily. I agree that the two who took them likely told the police something. The lie detector tests are used to confirm information given.

The other PO's undoubtedly refused to take one.

rd

 

[rd_jfc]

Do we have a complete list somewhere of WHAT Brittanee texted to others in that last hour?
I've always felt like this was someone she knew...at least a little...but I also have always felt like the timeline was WAY off given the texts. She would be traveling with her abductors WHILE she was still texting calmly. Clearly, either she knew and was comfortable with them, or she was no longer in posession of her phone and someone else was texting Brittanee's family/friends using her phone.

I was wondering same thing with this talk now of calmly texting while she was in a vehicle with strange men?????? Holy cow, what is this world coming to.

Checking my posts, I saw that I posted that she texted (her bf, I believe) she was returning to hotel and there were no answers to phone calls or texts after that. Given the lack of hard timings and these weird conclusions based on I know not what that make Brittanee basically crazy I hope the answer to your question is clarified, although I doubt it if it hasn't been released yet.

rd

 

[RoseC]

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs085/1100400094553/archive/1103294064650.html

 

[MBLover]

This was posted on Brittanee's Aunt's FB page (her Dad's sister - Keri)

TOMM NIGHTAPRIL 12TH 7PM EST MY BROTHER CHAD DREXEL AND DAWN DREXEL WILL BE ON JANE VELEZ (HLN)ABOUT THERE DAUGHTER BRITTANEE DREXEL . MORE DETAILS COMING SOON... BRITTANEE WE LOVE AND MISS YOU SO VERY MUCH!! LOVE, AUNT KERI XOXOX EVERYONE PLEASE WATCH THIS!!!