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

[-Doc-]

Lt. Johnson says the persons of interest are local, somewhere in the Georgetown-Charleston county area. But with the renewed attention, he worries they may skip town.


Sounds like there trying to get that last person to give the tip. Telling them these people could skip town call with that 1 more piece of info. Interesting strategy I hope it doesn't backfire

Which further makes me wonder why they released the info now. It could be a public out cry for help, but that is such a calculated risk. I still think there is something that forced them to release the info.

Also, 20 tips, all leading back to the same 3-4 people. Yet, their identities have not leaked to the media.....? :waitasec:

 

[Rochestergirl]

Which further makes me wonder why they released the info now. It could be a public out cry for help, but that is such a calculated risk. I still think there is something that forced them to release the info.

Also, 20 tips, all leading back to the same 3-4 people. Yet, their identities have not leaked to the media.....? :waitasec:

I agree very strange

 

[Hambone1480]

I agree very strange

Now that I really think about it, this is really weird. I am so intrigued by what the deal is here that I could pull my hair out trying to figure out what the heck is going on.

 

[Rochestergirl]

Here is the link to the Issues with Jane Velez show from last night

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2010/04/13/jvm.brittanee.drexel.cnn

 

[rd_jfc]

Thank you. I think I understand what you are saying that certainly if a call is made near that tower then the tower logs it, but just a general ping would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. I don't know - seems worth it to me in cases like this. As remote as the area is, even though I understand it may/probably does cover some amount of the city of Georgetown and there would be a lot of pings, seems simple enough to be able to identify when her phone pinged it and see what others phones pinged it at the same general time frame. You'd have a jump off point instead of waiting a year for a phone to show up through POI's and then hopefully make that connection.

Of course, I understand not every single person in the world has a cell, but most do. And if it is a case of "3 or 4" actually being on scene, certainly one would. Only problems I can see with what I propose/wish would be as mlatta mentioned, people up in arms over their privacy and what would no doubt be seen as 'government tracking'...which, doesnt make sense; it tracks it now, you just have to know the phone you are looking for right now and it has to come to LE to track.

Maybe this sounds stupid but perhaps that could be 'Brittanee's Law', some legislation to require that on towers. No one could argue it would not have helped in this case for them to have concise records of all other phones that pinged that tower around the same time hers did to have a good starting point of who else was in the area at the time...and to take that thought further, remember her phone also pinged a tower in Surfside, I think it was around 9:15PM, having the same cell record of the 'suspect' phone pinging that one, then the one in Georgetown...etcetera.

You raise a lot of interesting and important points, SeaNymph. This actually is a Constitutional level issue which is currently generating court decisions and will probably end up in Supreme Court.

But first the tower is a relay. Call traffic including pings are sent back on the network and logged back at the carrier computers. Each ping is identified with cell phone, time stamp, and cell tower so it's not looking in a haystack. As you move from one cell tower to another in driving the latest ping tells the phone company (carrier) where you are located. If you get a call or text the call or text is routed to the latest cell tower your cell phone pinged.

There is no problem subpeonaiong this information, again how much and how long pings are stored has varied by carrier, things may be changing on that due to secret national security requests/regulations. All that hullaballoo has been dribbling out for a number of years now since 9/11. And that's what's in the courts.

Although it's logical to make a list of all the cell phones that pinged the same tower around that time just as a base point for known cell phones in the area, that is the type of national security data mining that has been going on without warrants, with the carriers supplying information secretly. From that info certain phone numbers (international and national) are looked for and then a matrix of calls from those phones to other phones made to form a web of potential terrorists, as a secret basis. It's secret because it's been unconstitutional and again being revisited in court decisions on the issue.

So to sum up, it's constitutional to subpeona the phone company information about four specific POI's but unconstitutional to demand all the call information involving other citizens without specifying each citizen and the reason why and getting a court approval (the basis being existing wiretap laws/court decisions).

On the other hand, there is the possibility that the ping and even call data will be judged to be third party info willingly given by customers and therefore constitutional for carriers to provide to LE without warrants. Terms of Service signed by cell phone customers sort of say that and imply that permission. But my guess is the laws will in the end support the majority's belief that they should not be subject to LE dragnets. On the other other hand, similar arguments were unsuccessfully made against police checkpoints for drunk drivers, seabelts, drivers license and registration, etc. Analysis of ping data may be decided to fall into that type of category.

rd

 

[rd_jfc]

Re: mlatta thoughts...

problem Matt is that having a confrontational phone call with a demand to bring your roomate's shorts back is pretty straightforward, no mystery.

It's be one thing for a conspiracy among the males that that's what happened but they for some reason just made it up, but the females surely provided some cooroberation as to the nature of the call. Plus there would be an actual record of the phone call.

Plus she texted she was returning to hotel after the phone call.

rd

 

[-Doc-]

Does anyone have any recent articles quoting Sgt. Crosby at all?

 

[Debbie Miller]

One more question comes to mind. The detective says they cannot stop the POI from leaving the area, but can a POI leave the country? Just wondering "out loud" because it would be so horrible if they finally find the key evidence they need to make arrests and the POI have skipped the country. Gosh this sounds more and more like the NH case in Aruba.

If they leave the country they can be extradited back here to the states, only when "beyond a shadow of a doubt" there is proof.

 

[Debbie Miller]

My answers in red.

I keep 'rewalking' Brittanee's last steps.....away from the BWR back towards BH. Ever done that with Google maps? http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=blue water resort&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl
It's incredibly depressing and difficult to do. Not only does she exit the hotel in somewhat of an alleyway... the alley way you speak of is the sidewalk of BW which will look more narrow than it is. There is a hotel sitting right next to it on the left (if you are coming out of BW) that from some angles almost seems that it is attached to BW. she then had to either go through or around a parking garage in front of the hotel.... this is across the street from BW.at dusk, alone. Then she had to walk by a rather seedy area, with older, more run-down hotels...passes the main parking area for every nearby beachgoer. It's just shocking that she walked all the way there and tried to walk all the way back alone that late. It's shocking to see--in hindsight--just how many dangerous areas there are just steps from the BWR doors.
And to think that she 'allegedly' said she had walked around by herself on several occasions....it all just makes me think she was a sitting duck for any nut job out there.
I still believe this was someone she 'knew'....at least on a 'partying level'....but I will never get over the utter lack of interest or concern among her 'friends'. I know there's no legal recourse for being complete a$$es, but I confess that I secretly hope that these POI's aren't random strangers and are somehow connected to her Roc 'friends'....that the Roc 'friends' knew or had info that they didn't turn over to LE. I confess that there's some sick part of me that wants them to pay for being such self-interested people. I'm sorry, but I just can't see any other reason for them to be so utterly disinterested in her life and basic safety.

 

[LLLindsayy]

I read an article that stated that the POIs are from North Santee.

For the person interested in the location of the POIs.

"Bailey told reporters Friday, the persons of interest are from the North Santee area and, he said, they know what happened to Drexel."

http://www.gtowntimes.com/Local/Joh...--gets-hot--as-persons-of-interest-identified

 

[LLLindsayy]

I also read an article that said that the sunglasses ARE believed to be Brittanee's... for the person stating facts about the glasses.


ETA: My mistake -- it was said within a video.

Here's the link: http://www2.scnow.com/scp/news/loca..._of_evidence_in_brittanee_drexel_case/118048/

 

[LLLindsayy]

Does anyone have any recent articles quoting Sgt. Crosby at all?

If you do a Google News search for Brittanee's name and then the name of the sergeant, there are no results. Not in the past month, at least.

 

[MBLover]

ATT: MBLOVER

do you travel near NC when coming to MB ? i mapped out ,from MB,SC to Greensboro NC takes about 4hrs 30 min,,,do you go threw that way? didnt one friends of bd live in NC few years ago? whats your take on this news? of body found in NC ?

Rose:

This report of finding someone who matches a basic description of BD (and at this time) is odd to say the least. But the distance has me holding back that this is actually BD. Of course, though, anything is possible.

I haven't taken the time to check any of the missing databases to see if there are others fitting this description.

On my route to MB - I bypass Greensboro. The roads I take send me around that area and not thru it.

Many posts ago (and maybe threads ago) I posted 2 different (and plausible) routes from SC back to NY. I'm not sure - I know one route (going up the coast) would not have taken anyone from NY near Greensboro. I'm not sure about the other route but believe (if memory serves me correctly) that one would have gone near Charlotte, NC and not Greensboro as well (would have been on I-77 (NC/VA) to I-81 (VA and thru several states).

If any of the NY kids went back thru the Greensboro area way - I think they would be going very far out of their way to get back home - but then again...

I'll have to see if I can find that post.

My personal opinion... I wouldn't think that kids would drive around for hours with a body in their vehicle. I won't say it couldn't happen, but think it's unlikely

 

[RocNYchick]

Now that I really think about it, this is really weird. I am so intrigued by what the deal is here that I could pull my hair out trying to figure out what the heck is going on.

I agree. I've had this feeling since last Friday.

 

[mlatta]

problem Matt is that having a confrontational phone call with a demand to bring your roomate's shorts back is pretty straightforward, no mystery.

It's be one thing for a conspiracy among the males that that's what happened but they for some reason just made it up, but the females surely provided some cooroberation as to the nature of the call. Plus there would be an actual record of the phone call.

Plus she texted she was returning to hotel after the phone call.

rd

I hope this doesn't sound rude, but I have no idea as to which of my posts you were quoting... :waitasec: or what I was stating at the time.. please refresh me

On another note

I still have a gut feeling that the phone call about the shorts is BS. 1) It's a simple story, that is rather easy to stick to, even for several people.. 2) iirc, she had just left BH not long ago, walked to BW and was only there for 10-20 minutes?... I use "gut feeling" because other than those 2 reasons I listed, I have no other reason to disbelieve it, yet I still do.

 

[waltzingmatilda]

You raise a lot of interesting and important points, SeaNymph. This actually is a Constitutional level issue which is currently generating court decisions and will probably end up in Supreme Court.

But first the tower is a relay. Call traffic including pings are sent back on the network and logged back at the carrier computers. Each ping is identified with cell phone, time stamp, and cell tower so it's not looking in a haystack. As you move from one cell tower to another in driving the latest ping tells the phone company (carrier) where you are located. If you get a call or text the call or text is routed to the latest cell tower your cell phone pinged.

There is no problem subpeonaiong this information, again how much and how long pings are stored has varied by carrier, things may be changing on that due to secret national security requests/regulations. All that hullaballoo has been dribbling out for a number of years now since 9/11. And that's what's in the courts.

Although it's logical to make a list of all the cell phones that pinged the same tower around that time just as a base point for known cell phones in the area, that is the type of national security data mining that has been going on without warrants, with the carriers supplying information secretly. From that info certain phone numbers (international and national) are looked for and then a matrix of calls from those phones to other phones made to form a web of potential terrorists, as a secret basis. It's secret because it's been unconstitutional and again being revisited in court decisions on the issue.

So to sum up, it's constitutional to subpeona the phone company information about four specific POI's but unconstitutional to demand all the call information involving other citizens without specifying each citizen and the reason why and getting a court approval (the basis being existing wiretap laws/court decisions).

On the other hand, there is the possibility that the ping and even call data will be judged to be third party info willingly given by customers and therefore constitutional for carriers to provide to LE without warrants. Terms of Service signed by cell phone customers sort of say that and imply that permission. But my guess is the laws will in the end support the majority's belief that they should not be subject to LE dragnets. On the other other hand, similar arguments were unsuccessfully made against police checkpoints for drunk drivers, seabelts, drivers license and registration, etc. Analysis of ping data may be decided to fall into that type of category.

rd

rd, Love your thoughtful and informative posts. Thought I'd share this NewsWeek article with you all regarding the FBI tracking cell phone pings. Very interesting.....

http://www.newsweek.com/id/233916

wm

 

[mlatta]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hambone1480
Now that I really think about it, this is really weird. I am so intrigued by what the deal is here that I could pull my hair out trying to figure out what the heck is going on.

I agree. I've had this feeling since last Friday.

I have a distinct feeling more news is going to be released soon. possibly (and hopefully) before 4-25

 

[RocNYchick]

ITA MLatta. I think LE is under intense scrunity & pressure at this point, especially since DD is saying she is "appalled" by LE (Finally! imo) and the fact that she is all over the national news and appearing on Today Friday morning. I think they have some explaining to do, if not to the public, at least I hope they are releasing info to DD.

Like me and others have said in the last few days......something about this isn't right.

 

[mlatta]

I would like to touch on something if I may. Would appreciate feedback

We all know there has basically been 2 time lines almost since the beginning of BD being missing.

There are very obvious time stamps on the BWR vids and the OB street cam (and this is where some confusion started with BD going towards or having left BWR).

In half of the news articles I've read through today - they use the times as recorded on the cams. In the other half of the articles the times have been adjusted. Someone brought up the point that possibly they hadn 't been adjusted for DST, which is a good point.

If the cams were not set for DST then that means the times were 1 hr off and 7:55 / 8:13 should have been 8:55 / 9:13. These times make the time line flow much better. (BWR cam times)

The street cam, however, has a time stamp of 20:15 - which is 8:15

Okay - now which cams have the wrong time? BWR or street?

If the street cam is correct and BD is still walking at 20:15 (8:15) and hasn't yet reached the BWR, then this goes to the theory that the later times are the correct ones...right?

But yet - we have PB & his lawyer locked into the early times. I noticed that in all of the articles that quoted these 2 that the early times of 8:00 figured very prominently into their accounts. Even PB stated on Dr. Phil that the sun was still up... (At 8 PM the sun was not up but there was minimal daylight).

With those early times being locked in by PB and JP - (but the later times looking better as far as fluidity of events) - then that leaves gaping holes of time as to where BD would have been and what she was doing during that time.

So what times do you all lean towards? The early time line? Or the later time line?

Before I make an educated guess, please help me make sure I got these right:

1) PB+lawyer are sticking to the "about 8:00 she left"

If that were true, then the BW camera times are correct, and so is the other other street cam. (which is thought to be from the "Quality Inn", although that was never officially released ?)

2) It was reported that the last text sent from BD's phone was at 9:16PM, to JG ?

As far as tuning this time line, do we have any other times that we can base things off? i.e. - Last time she sent a text to JO or AL ?


Grrrr... I'm lost and confused again!!! :banghead:

 

[mlatta]

ITA MLatta. I think LE is under intense scrunity & pressure at this point, especially since DD is saying she is "appalled" by LE (Finally! imo) and the fact that she is all over the national news and appearing on Today Friday morning. I think they have some explaining to do, if not to the public, at least I hope they are releasing info to DD.

Like me and others have said in the last few days......something about this isn't right.

LE releasing that statement before informing DD is very negligent on their part. There's no excuse for that. Those LE officials knew what they were going to say, the day before, and they could have / should have prepared BD, and given her AT LEAST a day to tell her children, and some extended family to be prepared. Again, that is irritating. Not something that is going to jeopardize the case.

That being said, I can't see where LE has made any other mistakes in this case. IMO they are doing the best they can. I wish they could have questioned and interrogated the Chili gang a little more, but its not their fault all those kids hauled a$$, and there's nothing more they could do.. For the most part, I stand behind SC Law enforcment..

We all certainly hope that LE has a lot going on behind closed doors. I hate not being "in the know" but it is necessary for a proper investigation. Even keeping the family out of the loop is needed, to a slightly lesser extent that the general public.