www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index www.justiceforchandra.com
Justice for Chandra Levy and missing women
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Brittanee Drexel NY- 4/26/09-FBI - ALERT Update/horrible
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Jennifer Kesse and similar disappearances
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9233
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Re: the comments about Brittanee hanging out with a different group of men after leaving the other men's hotel, she had just had a tiff in a phonecall with one of the girls she was staying with who wanted her shorts back I believe, and I do not think there is any basis that Brittanee was doing anything but returning to her hotel per her friend's request. She also asked for a ride back, IIRC.

Also the wording would indicate that the POI's know something about her abduction and murder after the fact. Basically there's no basis whatsoever for smearing a murdered young girl with scenes of drugs and being picked up by a gang of strangers as she headed back to her hotel on foot at dusk with refusal of the friends she went to see to help her get back safely.

They apparently didn't care whether she was alive or dead, so that aspect of it is taken care for them. That was bad enough. It'd be nice if there were some basis to besmirch her memory with drugs and gangs of strange men to add insult to injury, or death in this case.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
trigger



Joined: 19 Jun 2009
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Could not get over 3 to 4 POI might be involved.either I wonder if she while walking was approached by these creeps and she somehow got into their car? Poor Brittany.

Praying for her to be found.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9233
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heavy on my thoughts too, trigger. The LE statement by saying the POI's didn't know Brittanee directly indicates they know something about her death after the fact, that is, the murderer told them, imo.

She shouldn't have had to be walking back alone at dusk, but all we can do now is hope for closure fo her family and loved ones. She paid a steep price for running off to spring break with friends who used her. Too much lesson to learn for a 17 year old.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9233
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

from websleuths, LLLindsayy wrote:
IIRC, she declined a ride back from PB.

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, ďFirst 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 doesnít bother me, Iím fine. Iím like I didnít go anywhere by myself because itís 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, itís ok, itís ok, and she acted like thereís no worry at all for her to walk again.ď Brozowitz also said he did not go to Myrtle Beach to babysit Brittanee.

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

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9233
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

from websleuths, krista wrote:
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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9233
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

from websleuths, SeaNymph wrote:
Interesting. I'd like to repeat what I posted at the very beginning of this case.

If GPS/cell phone tracking has come so far...ok, fine, Britt's cell phone pinged that tower, we know that. But why don't these towers log ALL pings they get? If those towers logged ALL pings, then it could go a long way in cases such as this for investigators to track, for instance, who ELSE'S phone pinged that same exact tower around the same time Britt's did. Follow me?


It's a network. The pings go back to central servers, which tells them where to send a call if one is made to the cell phone, where what is stored (pings versus calls, etc.) and how long they are stored are highly dependent on the carrier, from what I have gathered through the years checking into various cell phone locating situations for various missing women. (Plus I cut my teeth on long distance telephony software back when digital was first invented and also on first PC based calling. Am not an EE though and haven't written telephony software for 25 years so have background to understand but this cell stuff varied by carrier far more than I expected, especially the various pseudo-GPS schemes.)

I posted at the time that I commended Myrtle Beach LE on this on how quickly they got the information about Brittanee's pings. You may have seen various comments in news articles about the difficulty in determining location in the sparse and linear layout of the cell towers in that area. Same thing was true in the 911 operator Theresa Parker's disappearance in remote NW Georgia. So location from the tower is not known due to no triangulation data from other cell towers but of course the cell tower is known especially due to their quick action.

And yes, of course, they should know all cell phones that pinged that tower in same time frame. However, calls/texts attempted are actually recorded while pings only are kept much less in general as far as I can tell. It's lots of data, if you can imagine eveyone's cell phones blinking on and off if you will pinging.

Still, lots of that data is kept for some time, and due to national security laws stemming from 9/11 probably have been asked to keep more longer. In general the only real disappointment I can recall off the top of my head has been Jennifer Kesse where nothing has been revealed if they have any ping data, and I'm assuming they don't have any because of that.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9233
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SeaNymph wrote:
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 subpeonaing 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, seatbelts, drivers license and registration, etc. Analysis of ping data may be decided to fall into that type of category.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9233
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 corroberation 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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9233
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mlatta wrote:
I hope this doesn't sound rude, but I have no idea as to which of my posts you were quoting... 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.


The theory I was referring to was your drug (running) theory. 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 constitute knowing the men, so to speak.

I agree with others, Matt, your actions and FOIA request concerning the sunglasses were at the very least extremely opportune timing. Great work.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9233
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RocNYchick wrote:
rd, I could totally see them coordinating efforts. Teenage girls can be nasty, nasty, nasty. Esp when there are boys involved. She was the young chick, maybe getting too much attention, or being a drag to them. I could totally see them setting up something, possibly thinking it was "innocent" just to piss BD off or to see her running back and forth just for the sake of it. Not to mention the nasty crap they were saying on FB when they got back. And PB not being a "babysitter" ? I mean everything we've seen, these are NOT nice kids, so I could totally see it.

We're talking conspiracy level coordination here, as I outlined in my post. All to skirt a way around Britt leaving as soon as she arrived based on a roommate demanding she return her shorts and Britt walking back to her hotel.

The not here to babysit her is the only thing I believe in what he said. The direct quote from him about an alleged discussion of him bringing her back and her declining have all the hallmarks of a bald-faced, self-serving lie. He stutters while he makes the crap up.

And yes, I totally agree, none of the behavior of these kids from either group following Brittanee's disappearance is nice.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9233
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9233
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

from websleuths, hlnoftry wrote:

There has been so much head-scratching info from the get-go. There are a few I just can't seem to shake. One of them is the 9:16 text to JG. I just wonder...not as much about the timeline, but what this text could possibly have said if indeed he became frantic so quickly thereafter. Could she have sent him something to give him some sort of inclination that peril was lurking?


The bf called Briittanee's roommates and asked about her, was told she hadn't returned and they couldn't find her.

He immediately called her mother and told her Brittanee was in Myrtle Beach and missing.

According to this 9:16 stuff, he had just received a text from her. If you have just received a text from someone, they are not missing.

If the text is alarming, that is not referred to as missing. If I get an alarming text from someone, I don't call their mother and tell her her daughter is missing. I would tell her she seems to be in trouble and we'd better get hold of the police, etc.

If I get a text from someone, respond, and don't get an answer within a couple of minutes, I don't start calling her friends and asking where she is. If I did call and was told they can't find her, I would say I just got a text from her. Let me ask her where she is.

A 9:16 text and the reactions of her bf and roommates culminating in a call to her mother at 9:30 cannot be reconciled. It is impossible.

Only an 8:15 text can be reconciled.

As to whether any call or text was made, from where to where and at what time, is all recorded. I can't imagine the pain and frustration of her family in dealing with a police force responsible for protecting their daughter before she disappeared and for finding her now that she's gone, but if even her family are witheld vital infomation about their missing daughter...

I know the Myrtle Beach police think they know best and that it is their perogative to mislead at best, but it should come as no surprise that little to no help can come from the public to a police force acting like that.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9233
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

from websleuths, Doc wrote:
<snip>
PB still may know something. We are missing a critical piece of info still.. with her not knowing them (the Saturday night guys 3-4 POI's) "directly" who did she know them through? As soon as this comes out we will be able to connect a few more dots.


My opinion is that means that they know the abductor and know something about her murder, as in they found out from the abductor. Standard stuff that police count on, getting info from acquaintances of the criminal.

That's just an opinion, but I don't see any other reasonable way to interpret it.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9233
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In my opinion if they knew that much there would have been an arrest already. It is very frusterating. It's like they have all these tips but it seems like the tips are just saying something like "hey we saw these guys with her late that night." Then they gave a few of them lie detectors and they probably failed them badly. They don't have the smoking gun though.

I understand your point, but I think if seen with her that is knowing her directly. Knowing her indirectly is knowing of her through someone else, in this case, the abductor.

Think about what the charges are for some potential "accessory after the fact" type thing. This is true of any crime. You have some people that think something happened and don't really want to be involved in testifying against someone they know for multiple reasons, but word keeps getting leaked until someone tips the police, maybe even anonymously. This situation happens at all levels, even for school kids.

So the police start questioning people who were said to know something, a couple take lie deteector tests, a couple don't, but out of that the police confirm that the rumored information is substantive.

But if a person found out through some drunken bragging or something that the bragger murdered Brittannee, what are you going to charge anyone with?

You can't at this point. That's why they are asking for someone to reach into the goodness of their heart and tell tell them something they know that will allow them to find Brittanee or what happened to her.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9233
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I understand your point as well. But even if they were seen with her, which it sure sounds like they were, that doesn't mean she knew them directly. I think it was more indirectly. More of a friend of a friend thing. Let's hope we find out more info soon.

It took me awhile, but I see where all this drug stuff is coming from, as in no, Brittanee didn't know them directly, she was just doing a drug deal with them after they were introduced to her by someone she knew directly.

Yeah, I see how the wording is confusing. For example, it's unusual to say that people that heard of a crime knew the victim indirectly.

I attribute it to deliberately obscure wording from Myrtle Beach police which succeeded magnificantly. I also understand the need for them to be obscure though.

It was clear to me their intent was to say that these POI's weren't involved with Brittannee directly and by extent not involved with the perpetration of the crime, but I'm apparently the only one that understood it that way.

In my opinion, the POI's being seen with Brittanee is a huge deal and everything said would have been dramatically different. Instead of Brittanee disappearing without a trace it would have become Brittanee was last seen with these POI's, questioning and investigation would be substantially different as in investigating a murderer and the kind of police statements involved with that.

This is the usual fare for trying to get statements from witnesses after the fact, in my opinion.

But there are more substantive issues as well. If Brittanee really was in the presence of these POI's after she left the hotel her cell phone pings would have recorded her whereabouts.

Also, instead of the POI's being the witnesses then we have at least one witness who reported that Brittanee was seen with these POI's. And this witness reported that only in December? I don't think so.

Plus, being introduced by someone you know "directly" is not knowing another person "indirectly". Once introduced, you know them "directly" as well. Indirectly is you have spoken directly, friend of a friend type thing.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Jennifer Kesse and similar disappearances All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group