Debbie Miller
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2006
- Messages
- 853
- Reaction score
- 94
If anything can be certain from what the media reported it would be that Brittanee was in trouble when she didn't answer JG's last text message at 9:16pm.
If anything can be certain from what the media reported it would be that Brittanee was in trouble when she didn't answer JG's last text message at 9:16pm.
Exactly!
If the later times were correct with the DST coming into play - (within a few minutes or so of the times being correct - the time line flows a lot better.
8:55 enter BWR 9:13 leave BWR - texts with JG til 9:15/9:16
LE says BD goes missing within 7 minutes - would mean she possibly walked (or hung around BWR) for 2 to 3 minutes before being abducted/taken/picked up/willingly gets into vehicle
Surfside ping would be approx 9:30 +/- a couple minutes (depending upon traffic)
But none of that jives with what PB & JP (lawyer) have said regarding when BD was in PB 's room...
IMO if PB was scared enough to run straight into the hands of a lawyer, he was scared enough to be mixed up on the exact times anything occurred but maybe was grasping at straws to come up with some times and once he and his lawyer state those times, they stick by them.
True...LOL...but didn't they take into consideration that cell phones, cams and other things may tell a different story.
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.
""Let me clarify to you: These are not guys that just popped up last week," Lt. Neil Johnson, a Georgetown County Sheriff's Office spokesman, told AOL News. "We've been looking at these guys since about the first of the year, and we're not fixing to make an arrest."
This quote from AOL News' article leaves me unhopeless (I've turned that into a word).
The theory I was referring to was your drug (running) theory on previous page. Only theory I saw you post recently.
She was only there 10-20 minutes because she got the phone call demanding she bring the shorts back. I don't understand why that's difficult to believe or why two groups of people from Rochester would coordinate such a preposterous made up story, coordinate a phone call, and instruct Brittanee to text her bf that she was returning to her hotel all to camaflauge whatever you all think Brittanee was actually doing rather than walking back to her hotel.
If you come back to your room, especially if you're a girl, to get dressed to go out and find out a roommate took the clothes you were going to wear what the heck do you think the girl is going to do? Of course she's going to ring up the roommate and tell her to return her clothes pronto. I would have a hard time believing anything otherwise, unless of course this multi-group conspiracy to mask the actions of someone none of them wanted around included an elaboration of Brittanee walking out with her roommates shorts on to justify the phone call, instructed text to her bf, and some secret mission during the pretense of walking back to her hotel.
The only thing driving all this as far as I can tell is an attempt to place her willingly in a vehicle with multiple strange men based on four POI's who police said didn't know her directly. Granted, there is a statement referring to knowing her whereabouts or something, but I would think that sitting in a vehicle with a bunch of men (while allegedly calmly texting to bf) would consitute knowing the men, so to speak.
I agree with others, Matt, you actions and FOIA request concerning the sunglasses were at the very least extremely opportune timing. Great work.
rd
OMG I thought the same freakin thing! WTF is going on? Are LE making these contradictory statements or is this another example of bad reporting? ("Fixing????? sorry but that made me giggle).
The theory I was referring to was your drug (running) theory on previous page. Only theory I saw you post recently.
She was only there 10-20 minutes because she got the phone call demanding she bring the shorts back. I don't understand why that's difficult to believe or why two groups of people from Rochester would coordinate such a preposterous made up story, coordinate a phone call, and instruct Brittanee to text her bf that she was returning to her hotel all to camaflauge whatever you all think Brittanee was actually doing rather than walking back to her hotel.
If you come back to your room, especially if you're a girl, to get dressed to go out and find out a roommate took the clothes you were going to wear what the heck do you think the girl is going to do? Of course she's going to ring up the roommate and tell her to return her clothes pronto. I would have a hard time believing anything otherwise, unless of course this multi-group conspiracy to mask the actions of someone none of them wanted around included an elaboration of Brittanee walking out with her roommates shorts on to justify the phone call, instructed text to her bf, and some secret mission during the pretense of walking back to her hotel.
The only thing driving all this as far as I can tell is an attempt to place her willingly in a vehicle with multiple strange men based on four POI's who police said didn't know her directly. Granted, there is a statement referring to knowing her whereabouts or something, but I would think that sitting in a vehicle with a bunch of men (while allegedly calmly texting to bf) would consitute knowing the men, so to speak.
I agree with others, Matt, you actions and FOIA request concerning the sunglasses were at the very least extremely opportune timing. Great work.
rd
OMG ("Fixing????? sorry but that made me giggle).
OMG I thought the same freakin thing! WTF is going on? Are LE making these contradictory statements or is this another example of bad reporting? ("Fixing????? sorry but that made me giggle).
That is the South for you. LOL Ya'll come back, ya hear!
This article, though 4 months old now, seems to confirm that the glasses are Brittanee's. I don't know how reliable it is, or if it's ANOTHER reporting error.
Here is it nonetheless.
"Searchers say that a pair of sunglasses they found earlier this week belong to Drexel."
http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/local/Small-break-in-search-for-missing-teen
lol. I shouldn't laugh though with the Roc accents we have up here!
""Let me clarify to you: These are not guys that just popped up last week," Lt. Neil Johnson, a Georgetown County Sheriff's Office spokesman, told AOL News. "We've been looking at these guys since about the first of the year, and we're not fixing to make an arrest."
This quote from AOL News' article leaves me unhopeless (I've turned that into a word).