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

imkeylime said:

But in terms of her ODing and them freaking ... Years ago, I had a friend (female) who got very intoxicated with another friend (male) ... and rather than take her into his house (he was living at home at the time), he put her in a lawn chair outside. Can you imagine how badly that could have ended? Stupid, stupid move. People can make them.

Click to expand...

When my kids first started driving... I was very concerned about how they would react in the event of an accident. I knew because of the work I did that adolescents and young adults (and honestly, some NOT young adults) have a very difficult time with overcoming that initial flight reaction that instinctively occurs when something bad happens. The FIRST instinct is to protect yourself from whatever it is you fear... So we talked scenarios at length -- always ending with, "you need to call me and tell me what happened AFTER you call the police"... then we can work out what else you need to do... I wanted to be sure that they understood (and believed) that I would be there for them even IF they had done something wrong...

Since I assume that the person(s) involved in LS disappearance were also involved in getting her to a point of danger to her health (i.e. drug/alcohol use), whether by providing the party supplies or simply being part of the party, I also assume that, if they believed she had OD'd, that they were in deep **** trouble... so their initial response would be to protect themselves... so it doesn't surprise me that they didn't call 911, didn't make an ER visit with her... but that they did whatever they felt they needed to do to protect themselves. And they either shared that info with their parents, who helped in the protection plan... or they lied to them...

And honestly... I don't even know where I'm going with this stream of consciousness.. LOL

I just know that, on occasion, I think about what I would do if I'd been out drinking or doing drugs and were driving home impaired (not a very likely scenario, so I'm not even sure why it enters my mind.. ).... and I hit someone... no witnesses.... what would I do? what would YOU do? I know what I WANT to say I'd do.... but your first instinctual reaction would be "get the hell out of here!".... I want to believe that I could quickly get past that and get help for the person I hit... and to accept the consequences.

Personally, I think the letter, while heartbreaking, is the wrong tactic if the family is trying to get answers and closure. I get the feeling from it they want someone to pay for what has happened to their daughter.

Well, IMO if this was an accidental death of some sort the fear of the parents and especially the system wanting to make someone 'pay' is why they don't have answers now. It's why the PsOI have circled the wagons. It's also why any parents who might suspect their child was involved would look to protect their child. They don't want to see their child on trial for causing a death because the system says they are responsible even if the departed took the drugs of their own free will. And they don't want to see their child charged as a drug dealer or see his college and future go down the tubes.

And the same would be true if it was some sort of accident where in an intoxicated state she fell or something and was fatally injured.

Of course the parents of LS could say their daughter has already lost all that and more but I'm not sure what that really gains them to dwell on that aspect at this point. I'd think closure would be the best thing for them so they can begin to rebuild the life and get back to some form of normalcy.

If it was really murder that took place then the likelihood of anyone talking is very low no matter what tact the family would take. But if it was some type of OD or accident and panic setting in then IF the family would state they don't want to make someone 'pay' for what happened, offer they are not going to file a civil suit, make some concession to the fact they can in some way understand how things might've snowballed and then plead with anyone who knows anything to please come forward so they can just have closure... That is the tactic that might get someone to come forward. Especially if they can do this in conjunction with LE offering some form of limited immunity.

The current letter seems to me like it would only cause anyone involved to clam up even more because the letter is telling them the family thinks they are a criminal (committed a heinous crime).

And it would have the same effect on any family or friends of people involved who know or suspect something. OTOH, these same people might feel a little more apt to speak if that thought they could help bring the family closure and their friends or family would not be thrust into the system facing drug and murder/manslaughter charges.

British said:

I think the key to the story is that "activity" in the alley where the keys were found. The fact that the police does not release the name of the person who was with her at that moment makes me think that they consider that person a real suspect, not just a POI. If that person was just a POI, why would n't the police disclose his/her name? The police may be building a case, but they may not have sufficient evidence to bring charges and make an arrest. Not having a body makes things difficult.

Click to expand...

Here is the solitary quote from which this entire "activity" thing is coming:

"We have information from that video that again gives us an indication not only of the direction (of her travel) but the activities that have taken place from where that video shows,"

That's it. It is ambiguous at best whether or not any activity is even shown let alone that something definitely happened. His responses weren't scripted, he is reacting like anybody would and says things that don't necessarily have any meaning at all in order to placate the reporters.

As for the name of the person she was with, LE hasn't released any names at all, so I am failing to understand why people keep coming back to quesioning the alley partner.

akh said:

Personally, I think the letter, while heartbreaking, is the wrong tactic if the family is trying to get answers and closure. I get the feeling from it they want someone to pay for what has happened to their daughter.

Well, IMO if this was an accidental death of some sort the fear of the parents and especially the system wanting to make someone 'pay' is why they don't have answers now. It's why the PsOI have circled the wagons. It's also why any parents who might suspect their child was involved would look to protect their child. They don't want to see their child on trial for causing a death because the system says they are responsible even if the departed took the drugs of their own free will. And they don't want to see their child charged as a drug dealer or see his college and future go down the tubes.

And the same would be true if it was some sort of accident where in an intoxicated state she fell or something and was fatally injured.

Of course the parents of LS could say their daughter has already lost all that and more but I'm not sure what that really gains them to dwell on that aspect at this point. I'd think closure would be the best thing for them so they can begin to rebuild the life and get back to some form of normalcy.

If it was really murder that took place then the likelihood of anyone talking is very low no matter what tact the family would take. But if it was some type of OD or accident and panic setting in then IF the family would state they don't want to make someone 'pay' for what happened, offer they are not going to file a civil suit, make some concession to the fact they can in some way understand how things might've snowballed and then plead with anyone who knows anything to please come forward so they can just have closure... That is the tactic that might get someone to come forward. Especially if they can do this in conjunction with LE offering some form of limited immunity.

The current letter seems to me like it would only cause anyone involved to clam up even more because the letter is telling them the family thinks they are a criminal (committed a heinous crime).

And it would have the same effect on any family or friends of people involved who know or suspect something. OTOH, these same people might feel a little more apt to speak if that thought they could help bring the family closure and their friends or family would not be thrust into the system facing drug and murder/manslaughter charges.

Click to expand...

I think they mostly want Lauren back, to be able to bury her...and by now, if this was an accidental or natural death, someone has committed a crime by not reporting it and/or improperly disposing of a body...maybe their tactics won't work, but to them, the crime is that someone knows what happened to Lauren, may have been responsible for her death and is not talking...

Honestly, I don't think anyone will come forward in this case..as much as I hate to think or say that. But not because of the Spierers, just because people mostly figure out ways to "CYA" more or less. If LE has no evidence linking anyone to Lauren besides claiming to be the last to see her, nothing may ever change here. I can't help thinking of the POI's in Phylicia Barnes' case, who have apparently managed not to overly incriminate themselves going on a year now...although at least P was found and laid to rest.

amoncrieff said:

Me dumb. It didn't strike me before, but after re-watching a News 8 segment which discusses police interest in surveillance footage recorded at Salzmann's office and several other businesses located along Lauren's presumed route home (approx 2:20 into the clip) -- kaboom.

5 North (644 N. Morton) is a 2-3 minute walk from Salzmann's office (602 N. College).

There is no surveillance video of LS ever making it to or beyond 602 N. College at any time that morning. None. Hence BPD's insistence they are unable to confirm JR's account of Lauren's disappearance.

Repeat: If JR actually observed LS turning the corner onto N. College at approximately 4:30, Lauren is gone, vanished, disappeared by 4:35. If JR actually observed LS turning the corner onto N. College at any time that morning, Lauren is gone, vanished, disappeared after walking less than a block from 5 North.

When Lauren's father asks: "What's the likelihood of a stranger with bad intentions coming along and randomly seeing her in the street?", he could add "within 2-5 minutes after or less than a block from where she was allegedly last seen" before concluding: "We view it as possible, but [a] low probability."

I thought stranger abduction was a plausible scenario. I don't think so anymore.

JR really does need to talk.

Click to expand...

This has been mentioned before, but may be worth repeating. Her turning the corner and walking down College is on the west side of the street and Salzmann's office is on the east side of the street. His cameras (and no other known cameras) would have been unable to pick up an individual walking along the west side sidewalk of College at any point between 11th street and Smallwood.

bloom54 said:

When my kids first started driving... I was very concerned about how they would react in the event of an accident. I knew because of the work I did that adolescents and young adults (and honestly, some NOT young adults) have a very difficult time with overcoming that initial flight reaction that instinctively occurs when something bad happens. The FIRST instinct is to protect yourself from whatever it is you fear... So we talked scenarios at length -- always ending with, "you need to call me and tell me what happened AFTER you call the police"... then we can work out what else you need to do... I wanted to be sure that they understood (and believed) that I would be there for them even IF they had done something wrong...

Since I assume that the person(s) involved in LS disappearance were also involved in getting her to a point of danger to her health (i.e. drug/alcohol use), whether by providing the party supplies or simply being part of the party, I also assume that, if they believed she had OD'd, that they were in deep **** trouble... so their initial response would be to protect themselves... so it doesn't surprise me that they didn't call 911, didn't make an ER visit with her... but that they did whatever they felt they needed to do to protect themselves. And they either shared that info with their parents, who helped in the protection plan... or they lied to them...

And honestly... I don't even know where I'm going with this stream of consciousness.. LOL

I just know that, on occasion, I think about what I would do if I'd been out drinking or doing drugs and were driving home impaired (not a very likely scenario, so I'm not even sure why it enters my mind.. ).... and I hit someone... no witnesses.... what would I do? what would YOU do? I know what I WANT to say I'd do.... but your first instinctual reaction would be "get the hell out of here!".... I want to believe that I could quickly get past that and get help for the person I hit... and to accept the consequences.

Click to expand...

Wow, bloom, that's a really good discussion to have with kids re: accident ... and I'll have it with mine. That initial flight reaction is important to consider, in circumstances like this, or even in a simple car accident. My kids talk pretty openly with me ... there's so much out there, not just drugs and alcohol, but bullying, cutting, and so forth.

I know this case can help us educate our kids. I think my daughter considers me "over-protective," but she recently called me to help two friends (high school) ... they were walking to town near 11 and the same car went past a couple times. My daughter had come home (good choice!), but I was scared until I found her friends (who couldn't reach their parents).

I'm not saying something more sinister couldn't have happened to LS ... someone who knew the cameras tailing her from Sports, someone showing up in the alley or gravel lot, for example. But while CS' letter is vehement, I think it could be directed at friends who didn't come through.

akh said:

Personally, I think the letter, while heartbreaking, is the wrong tactic if the family is trying to get answers and closure. I get the feeling from it they want someone to pay for what has happened to their daughter.

Well, IMO if this was an accidental death of some sort the fear of the parents and especially the system wanting to make someone 'pay' is why they don't have answers now. It's why the PsOI have circled the wagons. It's also why any parents who might suspect their child was involved would look to protect their child. They don't want to see their child on trial for causing a death because the system says they are responsible even if the departed took the drugs of their own free will. And they don't want to see their child charged as a drug dealer or see his college and future go down the tubes.

Click to expand...

I think your analysis is wrong in this case. There is a girl who disappeared and no body has been found. This is not "accidental death". This is a criminal act no matter how you take it. Even if it was just an OD, it is still a crime, as someone would have supplied her with drugs and then dispose her body. Only a criminal mind would plan and dispose a body so well that it has not been discovered 3 months later after such extensive searches.

As to what you mentioned about "any parents who might suspect their child was involved would look to protect their child", if that's case, shame on them.

"We have information from that video that again gives us an indication not only of the direction (of her travel) but the activities that have taken place from where that video shows,"

This statement really has me bothered. Could JR be telling the truth about not being the last to see Lauren? If so, who would it be that LE want to keep secret, and why? It seems that most of the players have come back to college, who hasn't? JW?

mamamia54 said:

"We have information from that video that again gives us an indication not only of the direction (of her travel) but the activities that have taken place from where that video shows,"

This statement really has me bothered. Could JR be telling the truth about not being the last to see Lauren? If so, who would it be that LE want to keep secret, and why? It seems that most of the players have come back to college, who hasn't? JW?

Click to expand...

My understanding is that JW is back. And, if CS/RS and LE believed that JW had info, I think CS' letter would have been written differently -- because there's no question that he knows them... and that they've spent time together. So, IMHO, that letter removed JW from the equation...

bloom54 said:

My understanding is that JW is back. And, if CS/RS and LE believed that JW had info, I think CS' letter would have been written differently -- because there's no question that he knows them... and that they've spent time together. So, IMHO, that letter removed JW from the equation...

Click to expand...

Hmmm, then what are we missing? Everyone seems to be acting as if nothing has happened and going on with their lives including the parties.

time... and pressure... and the occasional push from the media... and watching the public responses of the PsOI...

Gabby66 said:

The innocent people won't really have any answers about her actual disappearance (or they wouldn't be innocent). Their interview could lead to answers about LS's demeanor that night but that goes back to having to answer some tough questions which may point to other criminal involvement. So, without asking those types of questions, I'm not sure what some of these kids would have to offer. LE already knows her demeanor b/c they have her on video. What they don't know is what she may have taken, how much, and exactly what happened after exiting that alley. Those are the key things they need....and they all involve other criminal activity. Someone GAVE her drugs (if she took them). Therefore, if JR came in to take a test as you describe (excluding any questions dealing with any other criminal activity), what would he offer? It's not like he's going to say, "She died at my place and I hid her body." That would have happened by now. I think he's already shared his story and he's sticking to it. Without admitting to guilt, and excluding the drug stuff, I'm not sure what else he could offer them. They're certainly going to WANT the drug-related information b/c if she OD'd that's the piece they really need for this case.

It doesn't matter at all what LE care about in a civil case. Even if LE would grant them immunity from drug charges for coming forward and admitting that they gave LS drugs, these kids could all still face a civil suit and IMO that's why they aren't coming forward.

Click to expand...

What he would offer is a chance for LE to figure out if he is telling the truth when he says the last time he saw her was walking down college ave. at 4:30.That would determine the whole direction of this investigation.To me that is more important than what drugs she might or might not have taken.If JR is telling the truth what does it really matter what drugs she took.

Gabby66 said:

Respectfully curious - what makes you think she was murdered? I don't think that at all and am wondering if I am missing something. I get the feeling that it was an accidental OD and they hid her body. I feel that way b/c of all of the rumors and the fights and other things among this group - certainly seem like a big rowdy party crowd. I've read lots of scuttlebutt about her circle and drugs, etc. from students/peers. However I have not read one comment from a student who's suspicious that she was killed. At this point, I really only have rumors to rely on since LE is so quiet, but I guess I put some stock in those b/c lots of people seem to know her crowd. So what makes you feel otherwise? Thanks.

Click to expand...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/foul_play_possible_cops_disappearance_YzZLYOMxL3uF7rs12wK30N

Spierer, 20, was reported missing last Friday afternoon. Lt. Bill Parker said Tuesday that she was last seen by a male friend walking home to her apartment in downtown Bloomington at around 4:30 a.m. Friday. He said foul play is suspected.

Click to expand...

This news report is dated June 7.

Could suggest case is possibly murder.

But what would be the motive?

JW may have committed a "crime of passion." However, given that he was probably a member of the group which confronted CR at 5 North the following morning, this scenario seems unlikely.


Earlier in the case, some member of this circle was suspected of being an FBI informant. Can't remember which one. Does anyone else remember this discussion?

Let's assume that some members of LS's social circle were using illegal drugs. Then, it follows that they were obtaining these substances from certain people active in this business locally. Of course, they may have had multiple sources, but let's assume that there was at least one particular group selling the drugs in the Smallwood neighborhood.

When we consider the path of CS and LS that night, they seem to be moving along quickly given the reports that they were impaired.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6698438&postcount=25"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - IN IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 - #7[/ame]

Bar to Smallwood: 3 minutes.
Smallwood to 10th: 6 minutes.
Through the alley: 3 minutes.

The shoes & cell were left at the bar; the key & change purse were left in the alley. The loss of necessary items implies a sense of urgency. Even her companion did not notice or stop to pick up her belongings.


JMO: they seem as if they are fleeing in fear of something. IOW they are not laughing, chatting and having a nice relaxing stroll. They are impaired but still “making their way along” to their destination.

MB staying up all night; maybe due to deadlines for papers, but also could indicate vigilance.

Another poster here suggested that JR’s/LS’s 4:15 am call to DR was to find out what was going on.

Could the students have been threatened by the drug-dealing group?

Say that CR & LS were drugged and robbed in the bar by the drug-dealing group. They flee to Smallwood to get off the streets. Therefore, the drug-dealing group does not normally have a presence inside the Smallwood building. However they encounter a group of other students, and an altercation results. Then CR is assaulted. Again, they flee. MB takes a very protective attitude toward CR (indicating a fearful situation).

The implication is made that the reason LS goes to JR’s place is to party some more; but seems more likely that they were afraid that something was going to happen, and maybe JR’s was safer. Even if she did ask if MB wanted to "party," maybe she meant it as “do you need to take some drug to stay alert in the face of danger?” rather than did he want to take some drug as a recreational experience.

LS is also reported to have expressed urgency to leave JR's alone at 4:30 am, despite being slightly drunk per JR.

Was LS afraid of this group in the days leading up to her disappearance? Might be interesting to know what other students had heard about the drug-dealing group.

The background emotion seems to be fear. But when did the fear start? Did the drug-dealing group threaten anyone? Did the drug-dealing group blame them for something? Maybe a deal went bad, and they (correctly?) believed that one of the students was an informer. Or did they want to make an example of someone to keep the students quiet?

The drug dealing group probably didn't target LS specifically, but may have used her as a way to take a hit at someone else or at the students generally.

Could have been retaliation for a large drug bust. Did someone get sent to prison as a result of a student report of criminal activity? LS could have fit the demographic.

bx2 said:

This has been mentioned before, but may be worth repeating. Her turning the corner and walking down College is on the west side of the street and Salzmann's office is on the east side of the street

Click to expand...

Thanks. As the News 8 clip reports, "several businesses" located along the relevant section of N. College besides Salzmann's law practice provided surveillance footage to police. According to BPD, there is no footage where LS appears anywhere -- east or west -- at anytime on N. College (or anywhere else) after 2:51 am Friday (6/3) morning, including 3 am, 3:30 am, 4 am, 4:15 am, 4:20 am, 4:25 am, 4:30 am, 4:31 am, 4:32 am, 4:33 am, 4:34 am 4:35 am, 4:36 am, 4:37 am, 4:38 am, 4:39 am, 4:40 am, 4:41 am, 4:42 am ...

bx2 said:

His cameras (and no other known cameras) would have been unable to pick up an individual walking along the west side sidewalk of College at any point between 11th street and Smallwood.

Click to expand...

How do you know this? Have you examined all the relevant footage?

I don't know the viewing angle or field of vision for every camera, surveillance or traffic, located along N. College. But here's one.

amoncrieff said:

Thanks. As the News 8 clip reports, "several businesses" located along the relevant section of N. College besides Salzmann's law practice provided surveillance footage to police. According to BPD, there is no footage where LS appears anywhere -- east or west -- at anytime on N. College (or anywhere else) after 2:51 am Friday (6/3) morning, including 3 am, 3:30 am, 4 am, 4:15 am, 4:20 am, 4:25 am, 4:30 am, 4:31 am, 4:32 am, 4:33 am, 4:34 am 4:35 am, 4:36 am, 4:37 am, 4:38 am, 4:39 am, 4:40 am, 4:41 am, 4:42 am ...



How do you know this? Have you examined all the relevant footage? or that it's just possible.

I don't know the viewing angle or field of vision for every camera, surveillance or traffic, located along N. College. But here's one.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that there is a camera at that intersection?

amoncrieff said:

I don't know the viewing angle or field of vision for every camera, surveillance or traffic, located along N. College. But here's one.

Click to expand...

HOLEY MOLEY... you can look completely 360 degrees with that... where IS that camera??

bloom54 said:

HOLEY MOLEY... you can look completely 360 degrees with that... where IS that camera??

Click to expand...

Its on the Google vehicle

mamamia54 said:

Are you saying that there is a camera at that intersection?

Click to expand...

It's from Google Maps. I've no idea what kind of camera it is. It could be video. It could be a still.

All I do know is the shot is obviously centered, though the apparent field of vision (in this lens) wouldn't necessarily restrict coverage to one side of the street, depending on mounting angle, elevation etc.

amoncrieff said:

Thanks. As the News 8 clip reports, "several businesses" located along the relevant section of N. College besides Salzmann's law practice provided surveillance footage to police. According to BPD, there is no footage where LS appears anywhere -- east or west -- at anytime on N. College (or anywhere else) after 2:51 am Friday (6/3) morning, including 3 am, 3:30 am, 4 am, 4:15 am, 4:20 am, 4:25 am, 4:30 am, 4:31 am, 4:32 am, 4:33 am, 4:34 am 4:35 am, 4:36 am, 4:37 am, 4:38 am, 4:39 am, 4:40 am, 4:41 am, 4:42 am ...



How do you know this? Have you examined all the relevant footage?

I don't know the viewing angle or field of vision for every camera, surveillance or traffic, located along N. College. But here's one.

Click to expand...

There has been detailed explanations of all visible cameras along the route and their fields of view throughout this thread. I can help you out if you have a question regarding one in particluar.

amoncrieff said:

It's from Google Maps. I've no idea what kind of camera it is. It could be video. It could be a still.

All I do know is the shot is obviously centered, though the apparent field of vision (in this lens) wouldn't necessarily restrict coverage to one side of the street, depending on mounting angle, elevation etc.

Click to expand...

But I'm thinking that it was a one time picture taken there at some point in time. I think we could do that with any intersection, or am I incorrect?