IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 - #13

[threepisces]

Hi all - I'm new to WS, but live in Bloomington.

Anyways, I can't get over the 3:38 witness. Here are my issues with the whole thing (sorry if this is rehashing an earlier discussion):

BPD acknowledge that the witness may have seen LS, but disagree about the time. They even state that they have LS on video an hour earlier with someone that is already "known" to them, but that at 3:38, she is not on video.

Now this either means that A) Lauren is on camera an hour earlier at 10 & College or B) they are referring to the alley cam footage. Given that option A would go against their own timeline, it seems like they are refuting the witness statement by saying that an hour earlier, LS is seen in a different location. Why would that contradict the witness's statement?

Secondly, the witness is adamant about the time. She works at a local bar (seems like some of you are saying it is Jake's Nightclub). There are a number of ways to verify her timeline given this fact:

-Does she (the witness) show up on any of the cameras? I drove by Jakes and didn't see any that were immediately obvious, but there must be some on this woman's path home or in the club itself. She is walking towards 10 and college in some way, so maybe she passes by a camera?

-Surely there is some way to verify when she left through her employer. If she is hourly, she might have to clock out. Or other employees would at least know if she had left at 2ish or at 3:30ish.

-Lastly, Jake's (and most of these late night bars/clubs) close at 3am, so if she is a manager, she isn't leaving early while the club is still open. It makes perfect sense that she would help close up and leave around 3:30.

Anyways, this witness report is a big deal because it goes against what the boys are saying. Perhaps LS tried to leave but was picked up JR at 3:38 and brought back to 5 North (or somewhere else). Something goes down and JR calls DR at 4:15. Who knows - but it doesn't make sense why this witness statement isn't made a bigger deal.

 

[Blythe]

Thought LE was poised to make a chess move this week but that is seeming less and less likely. Something has to give!

 

[elmomom]

Thought LE was poised to make a chess move this week but that is seeming less and less likely. Something has to give!

Chess can be played in the closet. Maybe they're negotiating a deal.

 

[TonyGatto]

Hi all - I'm new to WS, but live in Bloomington.

Anyways, I can't get over the 3:38 witness. Here are my issues with the whole thing (sorry if this is rehashing an earlier discussion):

BPD acknowledge that the witness may have seen LS, but disagree about the time. They even state that they have LS on video an hour earlier with someone that is already "known" to them, but that at 3:38, she is not on video.

Now this either means that A) Lauren is on camera an hour earlier at 10 & College or B) they are referring to the alley cam footage. Given that option A would go against their own timeline, it seems like they are refuting the witness statement by saying that an hour earlier, LS is seen in a different location. Why would that contradict the witness's statement?

Secondly, the witness is adamant about the time. She works at a local bar (seems like some of you are saying it is Jake's Nightclub). There are a number of ways to verify her timeline given this fact:

-Does she (the witness) show up on any of the cameras? I drove by Jakes and didn't see any that were immediately obvious, but there must be some on this woman's path home or in the club itself. She is walking towards 10 and college in some way, so maybe she passes by a camera?

-Surely there is some way to verify when she left through her employer. If she is hourly, she might have to clock out. Or other employees would at least know if she had left at 2ish or at 3:30ish.

-Lastly, Jake's (and most of these late night bars/clubs) close at 3am, so if she is a manager, she isn't leaving early while the club is still open. It makes perfect sense that she would help close up and leave around 3:30.

Anyways, this witness report is a big deal because it goes against what the boys are saying. Perhaps LS tried to leave but was picked up JR at 3:38 and brought back to 5 North (or somewhere else). Something goes down and JR calls DR at 4:15. Who knows - but it doesn't make sense why this witness statement isn't made a bigger deal.

She does not work at Jake's.

 

[bessie]

Not being vain quoting my own post but since I saw today's journal article sort of answers my question I thought I would provide the link.
http://www.lohud.com/article/20110629/NEWS02/106290333/Lauren-Spierer-disappearance-Large-scale-searches-called-off?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage
"Contacted Tuesday by The Journal News, Qualters, the police captain, would not comment on Voyles' disclosure or on whether Rosenbaum has been cooperative."
What happened to all the POI have been so cooperative. Suddenly this guy has nothing to say

A couple of thoughts:

-- The LE statements about the POI's cooperating were made by Lt. Parker. Capt. Qualters is the public information officer, and might take a different approach to disseminating information.
-- CR and JW were specifically named by Parker as being cooperative. The others might've been mentioned by name, but at the moment, I only recall those two.
-- Parker did at one time say all of them were cooperating and their apartments had been searched.
-- In the early stages, apparently they were talking to LE. Since then, perhaps LE has tried to approach JR with more questions, and he's been unavailable for a follow-up.

 

[TonyGatto]

A couple of thoughts:

-- The LE statements about the POI's cooperating were made by Lt. Parker. Capt. Qualters is the public information officer, and might take a different approach to disseminating information.
-- CR and JW were specifically named by Parker as being cooperative. The others might've been mentioned by name, but at the moment, I only recall those two.
-- Parker did at one time say all of them were cooperating and their apartments had been searched.
-- In the early stages, apparently they were talking to LE. Since then, perhaps LE has tried to approach JR with more questions, and he's been unavailable for a follow-up.

Qualters said same in his briefing on Friday, June 10. Everyone was cooperating, and he was encouraged by it.

 

[threepisces]

She does not work at Jake's.

Ah. Well I had seen it mentioned earlier here. The logic still applies if it is a different bar/club.

Are you convinced that the witness was mistaken TG?

 

[sueC]

She does not work at Jake's.

Tony, do you know exactly where she saw LS and mystery man? Thanks.

 

[elmomom]

Hi all - I'm new to WS, but live in Bloomington.

Anyways, I can't get over the 3:38 witness. Here are my issues with the whole thing (sorry if this is rehashing an earlier discussion):

BPD acknowledge that the witness may have seen LS, but disagree about the time. They even state that they have LS on video an hour earlier with someone that is already "known" to them, but that at 3:38, she is not on video.

Now this either means that A) Lauren is on camera an hour earlier at 10 & College or B) they are referring to the alley cam footage. Given that option A would go against their own timeline, it seems like they are refuting the witness statement by saying that an hour earlier, LS is seen in a different location. Why would that contradict the witness's statement?

Secondly, the witness is adamant about the time. She works at a local bar (seems like some of you are saying it is Jake's Nightclub). There are a number of ways to verify her timeline given this fact:

-Does she (the witness) show up on any of the cameras? I drove by Jakes and didn't see any that were immediately obvious, but there must be some on this woman's path home or in the club itself. She is walking towards 10 and college in some way, so maybe she passes by a camera?

-Surely there is some way to verify when she left through her employer. If she is hourly, she might have to clock out. Or other employees would at least know if she had left at 2ish or at 3:30ish.

-Lastly, Jake's (and most of these late night bars/clubs) close at 3am, so if she is a manager, she isn't leaving early while the club is still open. It makes perfect sense that she would help close up and leave around 3:30.

Anyways, this witness report is a big deal because it goes against what the boys are saying. Perhaps LS tried to leave but was picked up JR at 3:38 and brought back to 5 North (or somewhere else). Something goes down and JR calls DR at 4:15. Who knows - but it doesn't make sense why this witness statement isn't made a bigger deal.

Let me give you a possible interpretation, based on an analogy

Joe say that he sees a blue alien at place X at 4:01
LE says there was no blue alien at 4:01 on the picture of the vicinity of X
LE says there was a red alien at 3:01 at place Y
LE says there were no unidentified aliens to be seen.

could be: we have seen blue alien on the pictures but not at the time and place given, and it is not someone we are unfamiliar with.

This statement is not being made into a bigger deal because LE has not made it so. And most of the MSM is reporting what LE is telling them.

 

[bessie]

Maybe it's me... but I think all the "pressure" on JR seems strange, and it isn't like I am used to seeing LE behave in other cases. Sometimes I think that it is a red herring. Maybe it is an indirect way to put pressure on the "JR friend" that was visiting?

In what way do you see LE putting pressure on JR?

 

[bessie]

Qualters said same in his briefing on Friday, June 10. Everyone was cooperating, and he was encouraged by it.

And it was probably true at the time. But still, that was in the early stages of the investigation when LE was gathering preliminary information. I'm still left with the impression that LE isn't getting answers to follow-up questions that have arisen later in the investigation.

 

[epiphany]

IU President:

I have met with the parents, as has Provost Karen Hanson, and we both have pledged to them that IU will do all that we can to support them and to help find out what has happened to Lauren.

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/

 

[elmomom]

In what way do you see LE putting pressure on JR?

yes, I was getting ahead of myself there. I am tinkering with the idea that they are. It does seem they are trying to pressure someone - I am thinking that at the last press conference they came out and called the lack of cooperation "... perplexing disturbing... etc". It was really the first time we've heard them echo the apparent sentiments of the family regarding cooperation. So first, I might assume its JR, since he is the person most people seem to be focused on. Then, we know about that website calling JR out (J R Needs to talk.com). That site seems to be a fishing expedition, if you ask me. Maybe LE driven? Even if it isn't, perhaps just LE sanctioned?

And last, but not least, in the past I have seen LE come out and downplay the media's speculation of a perp as they build a case about him. That has not happened here.

So, let me re-phrase. I think it is possible that LE is putting a lot of pressure on JR, it's just a theory I'm working with right now

 

[Arnold Palmer]

Summer Session II technically started June 18, but most students classes wouldn't have begun until Monday June 21. What I meant to say is that it was "between" summer sessions.

I graduated from IU and spent time there during the summer both taking classes and just visiting those that were staying taking classes. It is definitely quiet, but I think the "between" weekend would be even more quiet.

Just my opinion.

 

[dodie20]

Hi all - I'm new to WS, but live in Bloomington.

Anyways, I can't get over the 3:38 witness. Here are my issues with the whole thing (sorry if this is rehashing an earlier discussion):

BPD acknowledge that the witness may have seen LS, but disagree about the time. They even state that they have LS on video an hour earlier with someone that is already "known" to them, but that at 3:38, she is not on video.

Now this either means that A) Lauren is on camera an hour earlier at 10 & College or B) they are referring to the alley cam footage. Given that option A would go against their own timeline, it seems like they are refuting the witness statement by saying that an hour earlier, LS is seen in a different location. Why would that contradict the witness's statement?

Secondly, the witness is adamant about the time. She works at a local bar (seems like some of you are saying it is Jake's Nightclub). There are a number of ways to verify her timeline given this fact:

-Does she (the witness) show up on any of the cameras? I drove by Jakes and didn't see any that were immediately obvious, but there must be some on this woman's path home or in the club itself. She is walking towards 10 and college in some way, so maybe she passes by a camera?

-Surely there is some way to verify when she left through her employer. If she is hourly, she might have to clock out. Or other employees would at least know if she had left at 2ish or at 3:30ish.

-Lastly, Jake's (and most of these late night bars/clubs) close at 3am, so if she is a manager, she isn't leaving early while the club is still open. It makes perfect sense that she would help close up and leave around 3:30.

Anyways, this witness report is a big deal because it goes against what the boys are saying. Perhaps LS tried to leave but was picked up JR at 3:38 and brought back to 5 North (or somewhere else). Something goes down and JR calls DR at 4:15. Who knows - but it doesn't make sense why this witness statement isn't made a bigger deal.

This whole incident bothers me too. The witness seems so vivid with her details, so what she saw must have been unordinary...and what are the odds of 2 unrelated unordinary events happening in the same area, on the same night, to 2 different blond females? Also, IMO, this particular female didn't sound just wasted, she sounded like she might have been been drugged and was almost comotose. Another thing that disturbed me, was that nobody intervened when she hit her head and the guy slung her over his shoulder. This could have been a drugged girl trying to escape, only to be snatched back up. I know the odds of that are are almost nil, but a person who bangs her head might need 911. moo.

 

[Missing Budweiser]

I have to admit that I came into this story late, but it has my full interest now. I tend not to get emotionally invested in missing person investigations where there seems to be obvious suspect(s) and/or appears to be able to be solved quickly. Man, was I wrong on the latter. Never did I think it would be this long without a recovery or arrest. I haven't felt this way about a case since Beth Bentley, and I pray it doesn't go that long without closure. I know it's been mentioned a few times on this thread, but the thread over at the "PT Phish" forum is worth the read for those that are really intrigued. Definitley a different mind set over there, but extremely interesting for what it's worth.

 

[bessie]

Hi all - I'm new to WS, but live in Bloomington.

Anyways, I can't get over the 3:38 witness. Here are my issues with the whole thing (sorry if this is rehashing an earlier discussion):

BPD acknowledge that the witness may have seen LS, but disagree about the time. They even state that they have LS on video an hour earlier with someone that is already "known" to them, but that at 3:38, she is not on video.

Now this either means that A) Lauren is on camera an hour earlier at 10 & College or B) they are referring to the alley cam footage. Given that option A would go against their own timeline, it seems like they are refuting the witness statement by saying that an hour earlier, LS is seen in a different location. Why would that contradict the witness's statement?

Secondly, the witness is adamant about the time. She works at a local bar (seems like some of you are saying it is Jake's Nightclub). There are a number of ways to verify her timeline given this fact:

-Does she (the witness) show up on any of the cameras? I drove by Jakes and didn't see any that were immediately obvious, but there must be some on this woman's path home or in the club itself. She is walking towards 10 and college in some way, so maybe she passes by a camera?

-Surely there is some way to verify when she left through her employer. If she is hourly, she might have to clock out. Or other employees would at least know if she had left at 2ish or at 3:30ish.

-Lastly, Jake's (and most of these late night bars/clubs) close at 3am, so if she is a manager, she isn't leaving early while the club is still open. It makes perfect sense that she would help close up and leave around 3:30.

Anyways, this witness report is a big deal because it goes against what the boys are saying. Perhaps LS tried to leave but was picked up JR at 3:38 and brought back to 5 North (or somewhere else). Something goes down and JR calls DR at 4:15. Who knows - but it doesn't make sense why this witness statement isn't made a bigger deal.

Welcome to Websleuths, Threepisces.

To me, the answer's simple: no solid evidence, i.e, video, to corroborate the witness's report. And in fact, her statement is contradictory to evidence in their possession, meaning the time-stamped alley video, and MB's and JR's statements, which narrows the window of opportunity necessary to make the statement work.

Qualters did point out that they've considered her reported sighting within the timeline that includes JR's 4:15 statement, and a timeline without it. But if nothing supports it, then there's nothing they can release to the public. Behind the scenes, however, I'm confident they'll investigate it until the possibilities are exhausted.

:welcome5:

 

[epiphany]

Does the community college where LS was taking her summer course have many students attending during the time she went missing?

 

[Berk13]

Summer Session II technically started June 18, but most students classes wouldn't have begun until Monday June 21. What I meant to say is that it was "between" summer sessions.

I graduated from IU and spent time there during the summer both taking classes and just visiting those that were staying taking classes. It is definitely quiet, but I think the "between" weekend would be even more quiet.

Just my opinion.

Not that it matters all that much, but I know that summer session II classes actually started on a Friday (the 17th) and most professors held classes that day. I believe the reasoning behind starting SSII on a Friday was to make up for the upcoming Monday, July 4, which is a holiday and classes aren't held. Therefore, anyone in SSII classes could have already been assigned homework and might've stayed in town that weekend. Just a thought.

 

[cluciano63]

I think that LE knows more than they are willing to say which allows them to discount at least the timing of what the witness say she saw at 3:38AM. They may have the indentical incident on tape at 2:51AM, just as an example.