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

[candi123]

I said...



Which sparked...






So, here's the original post:




Bringing this post forward for all the sleuthers wondering about my post.

Thank you so much I looked and looked and couldn't find it in the posts.

 

[waltzingmatilda]

Has anyone read any information about anyone asking the police if they believe that anyone from ROC is involved with these people, or know these people? Surely, someone would have thought to have asked that? You would have to believe that LE has cross-referenced their phone records with the peoples back in ROC.

The whole "directly" thing is driving me nuts. They did not have to say that. They could have just said "we don't believe she knew them." It sounds like their hinting that she was referred to them or put in contact with them via someone else. I said all along that she got into a car within 50 meters of leaving the hotel was to coincidental.

BBM respectfully

I agree with you Doc. The word directly leads me to believe that Britt didn't actually 'know' them but maybe met them or was put in contact with them through someone else.

With Britt being the youngest of the group, she may have been the one 'elected' to do the deal, so to speak. (If indeed drugs were involved)
Please know that I am not bashing Britt or the group she was with about this possible drug connection. I've raised 3 kids and know that their behavior on a spring break trip would be more reckless than their behavior at home. How do I know this? My son received a citation for destruction of personal property once when he punched up a mailbox when his gf took off with another guy. I had never seen him act like this before and wouldn't have believed it as he was a good kid. Luckily he is a pretty up front guy and told me he did it and alcohol was involved. He will be paying me back for his attys fee for quite some time. Not to mention that he was banned from any more out of town trips unless I tagged along. He ditched the gf and is now a college grad thank goodness.

It aint easy raising young ones....and they don't come with a 'how to' book,LOL!

wm

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

The Accused

 

[rd_jfc]

IIRC, she declined a ride back from PB.

Is this true? That is the opposite of what I thought was revealed.

rd

 

[rd_jfc]

Wow, I wasn't aware that it would become so unacceptable to discuss B's potential reasons for accepting a ride from these men.

I think that in any case people are going to discuss the WHYs. WHY she would accept a ride. WHY they would murder her. LE is going to be doing the same exact thing. You can't propose the theory that B got into a car with men she didn't know and was OK traveling an hour south with them without asking the question WHY and providing a possible answer.

Suggesting drugs is in no way besmirching Brittanee's memory -- it is providing possible answers. And since LE have themselves suggested that this case is possibly drug related, it is an angle we need to explore here as well.


As a side note, I think that knowing all the details can possibly lead to more answers.

I'm puzzled here. How does four POI's that were said not to know Brittanee directly lead to Brittanee jumping into a vehicle full of strange men? If someone could help me make that leap I'd appreciate it.

Obviously, once that leap has been made, it's katy-bar-the-door.

I'm also puzzled how there's any basis for Brittannee doing anything but returning to her hotel at the demand of one of her roommates.

rd

 

[Strawberry Fields]

Here I am taking over the thread again!



Anyways, I just want to get a feel for how you folks have interpreted LE's recent statements. When they say they have 3, possibly 4, persons of interest in the case, do you:

a. Assume they mean that this will be a "group" crime
b. Think all were present, but are waiting to find out which ONES did the crime
c. Think all were present, but are waiting to find out which ONE did the crime
d. Think one was present, but has told others who now "have info" (and LE knows who is who)
e. Think one was present, but has told others who now "have info" (but LE does not know who is who)
f. Have 3 or 4 different guys (unconnected) to each other who could have potentially committed the crime

I lean toward c. Also, it is a very vague memory for me, but I keep thinking about one of the rather lengthy radio interviews DD did and seems like I recall her stating that she worked with a private investigator who actually said something about this person he had met that stated he knew what happened to BD but was afraid for his life and would not tell what he knew. Again, this is a very vague memory so cannot provide a quote or link for it. Wondering if anyone else remembers this.

 

[eeyorelrn]

I do not know how this will affect anything to do with this case in particular, but it is something VERY interesting about "age of consent" in SC during my orientation for my new job this week:

In SC, NO ONE under the age of 18 can consent to ANYTHING legally such as purchases, procedures, etc in SC. The ONLY exceptions are 1) if they are LEGALLY emancipated by a court of law or 2) they are providing consent for their own child. The "Romeo Law" as it is affectionately known covers for sexual activity, which sets age for consent for sex at a different age (16), HOWEVER, it would not carry over for ANYTHING else. So, in the eyes of the state of SC, at age 17 Brittanee couldn't give permission for anything otherwise. If she had been injured at some point, she couldn't have given consent for any kind of treatment (granted there are ways around that for emergency purposes with medical treatment.)

What does this have to do with anything? Honestly, I have absolutely no idea, I just found it VERY interesting we had to go to a class because this is apparently has been a big issues in SC previously. IT was presented to us from a medical necessity standpoint, but I found it very interesting that the distinction was made that it covers ANY legal decisions for someone under 18, as in like can they decide legally where they can go, what they can do, etc.

Thought I would share.

 

[Strawberry Fields]

I do not know how this will affect anything to do with this case in particular, but it is something VERY interesting about "age of consent" in SC during my orientation for my new job this week:

In SC, NO ONE under the age of 18 can consent to ANYTHING legally such as purchases, procedures, etc in SC. The ONLY exceptions are 1) if they are LEGALLY emancipated by a court of law or 2) they are providing consent for their own child. The "Romeo Law" as it is affectionately known covers for sexual activity, which sets age for consent for sex at a different age (16), HOWEVER, it would not carry over for ANYTHING else. So, in the eyes of the state of SC, at age 17 Brittanee couldn't give permission for anything otherwise. If she had been injured at some point, she couldn't have given consent for any kind of treatment (granted there are ways around that for emergency purposes with medical treatment.)

What does this have to do with anything? Honestly, I have absolutely no idea, I just found it VERY interesting we had to go to a class because this is apparently has been a big issues in SC previously. IT was presented to us from a medical necessity standpoint, but I found it very interesting that the distinction was made that it covers ANY legal decisions for someone under 18, as in like can they decide legally where they can go, what they can do, etc.

Thought I would share.

Curious...Would this mean that if a 16 or 17 year-old girl had sex with say a 23 year-old guy, they could not be charged with statutory rape?

 

[krista]

Yes...16 IS the legal age one can 'consent' to sex in our state...sadly

 

[LLLindsayy]

Has anyone read any information about anyone asking the police if they believe that anyone from ROC is involved with these people, or know these people? Surely, someone would have thought to have asked that? You would have to believe that LE has cross-referenced their phone records with the peoples back in ROC.

The whole "directly" thing is driving me nuts. They did not have to say that. They could have just said "we don't believe she knew them." It sounds like their hinting that she was referred to them or put in contact with them via someone else. I said all along that she got into a car within 50 meters of leaving the hotel was to coincidental.

To answer your question, I have not seen it asked.

I do imagine it has been looked into though.

 

[LLLindsayy]

Is this true? That is the opposite of what I thought was revealed.

rd

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

 

[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.

MB, I love all of your posts. We're on all the same threads it seems. Anyways, I'm unsure what my feelings are about what you've said here. I need to gather my thoughts some more -- I'm still spaced out from working all day. I'm sure I'll come up with something, because I got the feeling from the articles that LE believes these POIs are involved, as opposed to simply having info. Reading your post, though, and going back through my memory, it seems LE really hasn't said anything specifically that would lead me to think that. I'm going to come back to this later tonight...

Thanks for giving me something new to think about :waitasec:

 

[LLLindsayy]

There are 4 guests viewing... I can't help but wonder....!!

 

[LLLindsayy]

Is this true? That is the opposite of what I thought was revealed.

rd

"He said she had walked over to his hotel room and they had just begun watching the Red Sox baseball game when she got a call and began arguing with one of the friends she had went to Myrtle Beach with over taking a pair of shorts that belonged to her friend. He said he asked if she wanted him to drive her home and she declined. Brozowitz said that last time he saw her was when she left the hotel room at a little after 8:00 p.m."
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1740714/brittanee_drexel_case_on_dr_phil_peter.html

"He told Brozowitz that his own actions had gotten him thrown under the bus. Chad Drexel also made the point of the age difference, stating that since Brozowitz new how bad it was (using Brozowitiz own words against him he'd uttered just moments before when he said he'd offered Brittanee a ride or to walk her to her hotel room), how come he still let her go. "
http://www.associatedcontent.com/ar...e_drexel_case_on_dr_phil_peter_pg2.html?cat=9

"Brozowitz said Brittanee did not seem all that mad about turning around and walking back to return them. He offered her a ride, but she said she'd be just fine. The strip didn't bother her and she had walked alone the past few nights."
http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S919264.shtml?cat=572

" 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.“ "
http://www2.counton2.com/cbd/news/local/article/missing_teens_parents_appear_on_dr._phil/24730/



I'm posting this for now, but am still looking for more links for you. I'll post as I find.

 

[LLLindsayy]

I'm puzzled here. How does four POI's that were said not to know Brittanee directly lead to Brittanee jumping into a vehicle full of strange men? If someone could help me make that leap I'd appreciate it.

Obviously, once that leap has been made, it's katy-bar-the-door.

I'm also puzzled how there's any basis for Brittannee doing anything but returning to her hotel at the demand of one of her roommates.

rd

I'm puzzled that you're puzzled.

What do you mean?

It seems to me that Brittanee was in a vehicle for an hour immediately following her disappearance, because how else does she get one hour south of Myrtle Beach in a one hour time period? By process of elimination, it seems to me that she was in a car.

As for the "strange men" phrase you used... well, LE has stated that the POIs are men. We are assuming that she was in the car with the men, because LE has stated that the POIs are "suspected of being with her on the night of her disappearance" and also because the POIs have been said to live right where B's phone last pinged (one hr south of MB).

All we are trying to do here is come up with a reason that B would be enticed to get into a car with men. Also, it was said that B was texting for an hour after she left the hotel, which means she was texting while on the drive to Georgetown/Charleston/North Santee (which would indicate that she was comfortable with them).

 

[-Doc-]

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.

The problem with the lie detectors are they won't hold up in court. They got something on these guys to issue them the test and it sure sounds like they are failing them. Which is probably why the police believe they "know" something. But they still need someone to confess to something.

You have 3 or 4 people who probably all know each other and have had over a year to figure out their stories. Now in the heat of the moment, everything is slowly unraveling and were going to figure out who is going down for what. I don't believe the 3 or 4 people have spoken enough to decide that yet.

 

[Rochestergirl]

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

Has anyone read any information about anyone asking the police if they believe that anyone from ROC is involved with these people, or know these people? Surely, someone would have thought to have asked that? You would have to believe that LE has cross-referenced their phone records with the peoples back in ROC.

The whole "directly" thing is driving me nuts. They did not have to say that. They could have just said "we don't believe she knew them." It sounds like their hinting that she was referred to them or put in contact with them via someone else. I said all along that she got into a car within 50 meters of leaving the hotel was to coincidental.

 

[-Doc-]

To answer your question, I have not seen it asked.

I do imagine it has been looked into though.

It could tie everything together, I am amazed it was not asked publically or that it has not appeared in any of the recent articles. It certainly has to be addressed.

If they believe someone from ROC knows them, then the drug runner situation may be plausible.

If they believe the people in ROC do not know them, then it may be an isolated situation where she encountered a group of guys in a car.

 

[-Doc-]

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

This comment spooked me because I also believe the 4th person is not present in SC.

As far as the abduction comment I wonder in what context he meant. If she was taken to point B and as it turned out things went bad for her there, I wonder if they would rule that an abduction vs. the traditional taken abduction. There are a lot of cops involved and everyone is kinda interjecting their own versions right now.

 

[rd_jfc]

I'm puzzled that you're puzzled.

What do you mean?

It seems to me that Brittanee was in a vehicle for an hour immediately following her disappearance, because how else does she get one hour south of Myrtle Beach in a one hour time period? By process of elimination, it seems to me that she was in a car.

As for the "strange men" phrase you used... well, LE has stated that the POIs are men. We are assuming that she was in the car with the men, because LE has stated that the POIs are "suspected of being with her on the night of her disappearance" and also because the POIs have been said to live right where B's phone last pinged (one hr south of MB).

All we are trying to do here is come up with a reason that B would be enticed to get into a car with men. Also, it was said that B was texting for an hour after she left the hotel, which means she was texting while on the drive to Georgetown/Charleston/North Santee (which would indicate that she was comfortable with them).

I saw your other post that you're going to rethink your thoughts on the POI's. The only thing I saw was that the POI's did not know Brittanee directly. I will wait to see what more you post on this.

thanks
rd