IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 - #23

[Gabby66]

I recant what I said about it appearing to be an ear in BTown's pic. I was looking at an odd angle (kinda like that one photo where at times you see a woman, while others you see a witch). Now, I realize that the "ear" could actually be an eye socket and I clearly see a face, as though it's a girl/woman looking out the window. I see two eyes, nose, and two downward lines (where the lines are going down from a person's nose, to the outer corners of the mouth.

Another detail to point out.....in the one photo with the reflection, the object appears to me to be circular but with a hole in the middle (almost like a bike tire rim or hoola hoop. I just enlarged the photo on my phone. The area where people think may be her hair, I believe is still this same round object. It's NOT solid b/c I can see the top of the bed rail running behind it. However, there is clearly something solid laying in front of it (not visible in the reflection). If that round object is not solid, then why wouldn't we be able to see the solid object shown through the center of it (through the hole) in the reflection? It appears to me that it should be visible.

 

[akh]

Curious....how do you explain that in one photo in the refelection (the one where I think there's no cover), you can see the black clearly (on top of bed rail), yet in the other photo, the black is overlapped by something clear around (a cover would do this!) ?

The glare and pixelation are obscuring the black trim. But on some of these 'enhanced' photos the black trim starts to become visible even then.

There is no bed cover.

 

[JeannieC]

Compare the pictures of the bed of the truck

I think it is confusing in part because one picture is of the driver's side and the other is of the passenger's side. Neither shows the entire bed. jmo

 

[cluciano63]

And another major point... It's 2011, most people seek their 15 minutes of fame.. Why hasn't the media tried to find this truck driver and get a statement from them.. Or why hasn't the driver stepped forward get their 15 minutes, and truly clear their name so us suspicious people can rest on the white truck theory...

If he has managed to stay out of it thus far, more power to him...coming forward would not clear him...50% of the folks would still think he was suspicious and have his name, to boot.

 

[elmorejames]

Has anyone else been looking at the photo in photoshop.. If so, anyone have any suggestions as to what the text on the decal could possibly read? I have some thoughts but wanted others opinions before I posted them.

 

[akh]

Hmmmm Btown, I can see a mouth open on the bottom green picture. WTF?

The closeup/zoom is one thing but the same look from farther back looks too small to be an actual adult human head/face. There's no reference in the zoomed photo but the other photo you see more of the truck door, it's window, and the door handle. Compare those things to the 'face'.

I'm sorry but most of the truck discussion is like looking at inkspots and people seeing what they want to see. Some of it can be debunked like the bed cover issue and some of it will continue to be just random pixels and a bad photo that could be made out to be anything if you use your imagination.

None of that means that LE can't be wrong about the truck or it's involvement in LS' disappearance.... but once police found the truck it had to be one of the easiest things in this case for them to inspect it and talk to the driver (and passenger... and other's they might've interacted with that morning) and come to the conclusion this person is not involved and especially that whatever is in the back of the truck isn't LS. I'm sure they had to answer questions to LE's satisfaction about "what's in the back of the truck?". I can't imagine they didn't see it firsthand with their own eyes even.

Plus, for all we know they checked other video from surrounding days and saw that same truck and determined that was his normal work routine and each time the same unidentifiable blob was in the back of the truck.

 

[mamamia54]

Has anyone else been looking at the photo in photoshop.. If so, anyone have any suggestions as to what the text on the decal could possibly read? I have some thoughts but wanted others opinions before I posted them.

I've tried to clear up the writing from the beginning and I just can't see what it says.

 

[elmorejames]

I've tried to clear up the writing from the beginning and I just can't see what it says.

The most I can make out is "ZER" or "EZER" at the end of the top line. I did a google search for EZER in Bloomington, IN and got Cheathem EBENEZER located at 1405 College Ave.

I could be stretching far on this one though!

 

[JeannieC]

They are prohibited from starting before 8 a.m. around here.

Is that within the city limits or everywhere?

 

[Pedrosmom]

They originally believed it circled the block, but it didn't. LE clearly stated the truck had been eliminated. Unless people think LE is completely incompetent the truck clearly had nothing to do with it. The owner of the truck has been very cooperative and I presume his alibi checked out completely for LE to be able to eliminate it quickly. If it was going to work it must have shown at work at appropriate time.

His alibi is that he was in the same location that LS should have been on the night she went missing. That's the only alibi I can think of. Whether he was going to work or picking someone up doesn't matter. He was there.

 

[Darcyline]

I think his alibi was probably picking someone else and then being elsewhere in a reasonable time period. LE would have confirmed with the person being picked up and, later, people at the job. This person literally wouldn't have much time to snatch and do something with a girl IF the story LE is telling us is true. Some people do think they are lying about it or think there was a second white truck LE is missing.


And holy CRAP I wish I lived somewhere where no one was allowed to do any outside/manual labor before 8am. We have landscapers, painters, various other workers starting really, really early. I hate it. Then I feel bad because I know they choose to do that because of how hot it is any later. I suppose if I was doing some sort of manual labor in really hot weather a 4-5am start time may seem nicer to me.

 

[Gabby66]

The glare and pixelation are obscuring the black trim. But on some of these 'enhanced' photos the black trim starts to become visible even then.

There is no bed cover.

In all due respect, I believe you meant that you don't SEE a bed cover. I will not dispute the fact that there could be equipment in that truck. It's a high possibility and yes, as someone said, it's like looking at ink spots. However, there's no mistaking that MY eyes see a bed cover in the second pic in mammia54's post today at 12:15 - top photo. If you look towards the rear driver's side of that truck, you'll see something white that is attached to the top of the black. It's above the black, as it casts a shadow. I even see it folded back, and the underside. That's what MY eyes see.

 

[Walker]

Maybe somebody at Sports was a supplier ... risky but risk goes with the business. (Or a creeper.) And the gravel lot might have been the way out of town. I'm not so good at following where the cameras are/aren't, but it's possible that someone knew how to avoid them for a reason other than taking LS. For instance, if you were dealing, you'd probably avoid cameras, too. BTW, I always thought LS and CR went to Sports rather late ... maybe just because JR had run out of alcohol (or whatever)?

Let's imagine CR wss carrying a lot of cash that morning. He might be a target for a robbery. Plus, LS may have been wearing several pieces of expensive jewelery, which searchers have combed the lawns around Smallwood to find. The robbers may have put some substance into CR's drink, or both LS's and CR's drinks. They know the bar so well that they know how to avoid cameras. The reason LS leaves behind her cell & shoes is that they escaped in a hurry.

CR went straight to someone at Smallwood to get help, but maybe this person was angry that now something was lost; hence, the altercation.

Maybe the altercation has been misconstrued. Perhaps the person CR went to for help expressed rage at CR, but the "punch" wasn't intended to significantly harm him. (Apparently, no charges were filed.) Then, maybe he (or some other person present) said that they will provide assistance.

That's why they may have told LS to stay at Smallwood, they were afraid that she would be in danger in the event of confrontation.

Again CR & LS flee; this time through the alley to 5 North. CR explains the situation as best he now can to MB, who understands that the perps may stop by and further threaten CR. MB assures CR that he will be awake all night guarding their place, and he sends LS to JR's where she will be safer.

At JR's, LS may have called people she trusted for help. Was the 4:15 am call to DR the only call made from any phone at JR's place during the time period roughly 3:30 am to 4:30 am?

Could be that she was abducted from JR's place? OR that JR was threatened, and so he told her to leave quickly for her own safety? OR that she left with intentions of going to someone else's place on College Avenue? OR that the group associated with the robbery was watching 5 North & abducted her on College Avenue?

Maybe JR didn't trust HT to be discrete, and therefore later claimed only to her that he tried to persuade LS to stay at his place.

 

[imkeylime]

In all due respect, I believe you meant that you don't SEE a bed cover. I will not dispute the fact that there could be equipment in that truck. It's a high possibility and yes, as someone said, it's like looking at ink spots. However, there's no mistaking that MY eyes see a bed cover in the second pic in mammia54's post today at 12:15 - top photo. If you look towards the rear driver's side of that truck, you'll see something white that is attached to the top of the black. It's above the black, as it casts a shadow. I even see it folded back, and the underside. That's what MY eyes see.

You know, there's so much good in today's discussion, even if we don't agree on what we see/don't see. It reminds me of when my neighbor's garage caught fire ... another neighbor thought he saw a flash of flame through the side door, then thought it was reflected fall color, then went closer and saw it was indeed fire. He saved that neighbor's life! I'm glad we're questioning everything ... someday we will see the missing piece to this puzzle.

 

[akh]

In all due respect, I believe you meant that you don't SEE a bed cover. I will not dispute the fact that there could be equipment in that truck. It's a high possibility and yes, as someone said, it's like looking at ink spots. However, there's no mistaking that MY eyes see a bed cover in the second pic in mammia54's post today at 12:15 - top photo. If you look towards the rear driver's side of that truck, you'll see something white that is attached to the top of the black. It's above the black, as it casts a shadow. I even see it folded back, and the underside. That's what MY eyes see.

I meant there is no bedcover. There might be a wadded tarp in that corner but it's attachment to the truck bed would be doubtful at best. It would be attached to whatever it's covering. If it wasn't attached to whatever it's covering it would be sailing like a cape and blown out of the truck when the truck picked up speed.

There's so many clues as to there being no bedcover that it's hard to know where to start. The two photos and the reflection in the window helps to balance out what is and is not there.

Start with some basic facts about bedcovers- Modern bedcovers are typically a hardshell covering. Flexible tarp like material would at least have ribs to bow the material and help it shed water.

Old style bedcovers that simply were stretched material did not shed water very well and would end up unsnapping or tearing due to the weight of the water.

What you are seeing at the corner is the indention of the truck bed where it meets the cab. Lighting and a bad photo are blurring it enough that unless you know what is supposed to be there you can start assuming/imagining other things in the blurring.

 

[jjenny]

I think his alibi was probably picking someone else and then being elsewhere in a reasonable time period. LE would have confirmed with the person being picked up and, later, people at the job. This person literally wouldn't have much time to snatch and do something with a girl IF the story LE is telling us is true. Some people do think they are lying about it or think there was a second white truck LE is missing.


And holy CRAP I wish I lived somewhere where no one was allowed to do any outside/manual labor before 8am. We have landscapers, painters, various other workers starting really, really early. I hate it. Then I feel bad because I know they choose to do that because of how hot it is any later. I suppose if I was doing some sort of manual labor in really hot weather a 4-5am start time may seem nicer to me.

There is no reason for LE to lie about ruling the truck out if they didn't. If this guy was going to work and showed up at work shortly after being on camera driving that truck, that's an alibi. LE only suspected the truck because they falsely assumed it circle the block. Turns out it didn't. People are staring at these images of the truck coming up with all kind things they "see," such as multiple men, dogs, and who knows what else.

 

[Jupiter812]

Is that within the city limits or everywhere?

Within city limits but where I've lived in the county they don't start before 7:30/8:00 even though technically they don't have to. I'm sure it depends on the neighborhood too which can vary greatly in the county. Out of curiosity I looked at the city ordinance which appears to be 7 a.m. but based on just my experience it is closer to 8. We're chill here.

 

[Gabby66]

I meant there is no bedcover. There might be a wadded tarp in that corner but it's attachment to the truck bed would be doubtful at best. It would be attached to whatever it's covering. If it wasn't attached to whatever it's covering it would be sailing like a cape and blown out of the truck when the truck picked up speed.

There's so many clues as to there being no bedcover that it's hard to know where to start. The two photos and the reflection in the window helps to balance out what is and is not there.

Start with some basic facts about bedcovers- Modern bedcovers are typically a hardshell covering. Flexible tarp like material would at least have ribs to bow the material and help it shed water.

Old style bedcovers that simply were stretched material did not shed water very well and would end up unsnapping or tearing due to the weight of the water.

What you are seeing at the corner is the indention of the truck bed where it meets the cab. Lighting and a bad photo are blurring it enough that unless you know what is supposed to be there you can start assuming/imagining other things in the blurring.

I don't think you get my point. I'm saying that just because you personally don't see something with your eyes, doesn't mean that others do not, nor that what you (or I or anyone else) sees is correct (unless of course you're the driver of this truck, which I am not implying that you are). It's too hard to tell from these photos, to be exact. Therefore, it's just not prudent to say, "there's no bed cover' nor "there is definitely a bed cover". Incidentally, I happen to own a very similar truck, so I KNOW what's "supposed to be there" and I don't see it. That doesn't mean I'm right or wrong, but I do know what I personally see. I see a bed cover.

 

[Gabby66]

There is no reason for LE to lie about ruling the truck out if they didn't. If this guy was going to work and showed up at work shortly after being on camera driving that truck, that's an alibi. LE only suspected the truck because they falsely assumed it circle the block. Turns out it didn't. People are staring at these images of the truck coming up with all kind things they "see," such as multiple men, dogs, and who knows what else.

I do not believe that it's so much that they would be lying (though it's possible to divert attention from the driver as a suspect). I think it's more likely that if they made a mistake once (and IMO not considering the time difference was a major mistake), they certainly could make a mistake again. Not checking out the time stamps on the video clocks was a major oversight. This is a given and we have proof of this mistake, since they announced the correction. Therefore, it's fair to assume that other mistakes could be made - even bigger ones. We ALL make them, so I'm not finding fault; it's human. Perhaps they didn't bother to enhance the pictures and ask about a potential person in the back seat. Perhaps they didn't check up with the work to ensure this person never left the site at ALL that day (and if he went to lunch, they didn't verify his presence at the restaurant he indicated visiting). I mean, if this guy appeared cooperative with "nothing to hide", how far did they really go to check him out? Many psychos appear to have "nothing to hide". I'm just sayin'. IMO what they SHOULD have done (and I find it doubtful) is to have this guy load up his truck with the exact equipment that he says was in there, in the approximate location, and drive past the area again, getting on video, then compare those stills.

 

[bx2]

I'd also like to be clear up front, that I don't think the truck is involved in any capacity....

LE only suspected the truck because they falsely assumed it circle the block. Turns out it didn't.

Can we use this information to presume that there were no other vehicles traveling along this same section of 10th street within the time period that LE checked the video for? If there had been, surely LE would see that every vehicle appeared "twice" and wouldn't have leapt to conclusions on the truck alone.