Rochestergirl, you probably want to repost that article here. Very interesting statement from police.
However, all, I just wrote this reading last thread on my reaction and tried to post but the thread closed while I was writing.
So although there are better posts to start this thread off, here's my reaction to thoughts on what happened to Brittanee.
As I read this discussion, there are two items I believe are wrong that are throwing conclusions off. I know the items are based on reporting, but I'm sure the reporting / wording is wrong or misleading.
The first item is a 9:15 text to her boyfriend. I am sure that is an 8:15 text for two reasons: 1) It is just after she left the boys hotel. It was dusk light when she left, the hotel camera has recorded that. There is said to be a text to the roommate saying she is returning, like all of this a matter of phone records, not conjecture. It is logical that she texted her bf at that time.
2) The mother says she was told by bf at 9:30. It is absolutely impossible, I don't care what rationalization is made, that a guy up there at work got a text at 9:15 and 15 minutes later called her mother and said oh btw, your daughter is in Myrtle Beach and missing. Not possible, not even on mind altering drugs.
Now getting a text at 8:15 and trying repeatedly to respond and getting no answer, calling her roommates and getting told she was returning and never made it, we can't find her, then yes, an hour and fifteen minutes later a drastic, responsible decision has to be made and he made it.
So there's an hour off problem somewhere in the reporting, I am certain of that. It's in the records, I know that is not in public domain but unforgiveable in my opinion to allow such important details be handed out by media, seen by the police who have the records, and not corrected for the record. Unless they enjoy or some other word for having everyone confused with false and misleading information.
Note that indeed if an hour had passed and she was in the company of a pack of whatever doing whatever that the pack of whatever managed to let her make a calm non-referential source to kidnapping text to her bf, yet decided at that point not to allow her to respond, ensuring an immediate problem. I'll take the misreporting by an hour (some kind of DST issue or something?) over that, I'm sorry.
The other item I'm sure is wrong is this notion of a reported ping around 9 pm. First of all, ping are continuous, you don't have one reported ping unless the cell phone was off and turned on briefly, then back off. However, accompanying this ping thing is the 9:15 text thing, so pings would have occurred then as well.
In fact, given the steady stream of pings starting around midnight farther south, and the constant ringing from everyone trying to reach her, plus the not secret knowledge that cell phone pinging would in fact have identified where Brittanee was at all times, it's almost assured that the abductor (despite the multiple POI's thing, I am reasonably sure this is a single abductor as is almost always the case and the POI's know about it after the fact) would have turned the cell phone off immediately. And in fact if not there would be a trail of pings throughout.
So that raises the question of why it was turned on four hours later. Well, I assure you it wasn't to alert the police where Brittanee was. It's almost a given that it was to fool the police in investigating who abducted Brittanee and where she was.
Now, I know that among the other things the police asked about a time period of 8:45 to 9:15 I believe, not sure that a solid reason was given, but I just don't believe her phone was on from 8:15 to midnight when the pings were picked up south of Myrtle Beach.
rd