IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 - #21

Jedger · Jul 31, 2011

elmomom said:
The lawyer's office is one block up from the corner on which she was said to be seen. And he only said that she wasn't on the video at the time he looked. Doesn't rule out if she was slowed down for several minutes for example, and it doesn't rule out an abduction before she reached his corner.... my opinion of all the video in this case is that it is only really useful for what it shows, but not so useful for what it doesn't.

Although it is noticeable in that clip how Salzman says (more than once IIRC) that the tape may be as meaningful for what it doesn't show as for what it does. He seems to be implying that there's a problem with JR's story IMO.

AbbeyR · Aug 1, 2011

Jedger said:
One possibility is that DB is not the visitor that HT referred to.
Another possibility is that it was DB, and that he was in fact at the Runcible Spoon at or near the time he sent the tweet and was solidifying that "alibi".

But if he was really there for breakfast, what is it an alibi for (at 10 am)?

ncbuckeyecb · Aug 1, 2011

Jupiter812 said:
JR and DB were at Cranbrook together too. And both in AEPi. Coinkydinks or binds that tie?

Not sure if anyone has replied to you yet but AEPi is a Jewish fraternity... Which would just go to show they are of the same religious faith. Not much more than that, IMO.

GobBluth · Aug 1, 2011

Jedger said:
Although it is noticeable in that clip how Salzman says (more than once IIRC) that the tape may be as meaningful for what it doesn't show as for what it does. He seems to be implying that there's a problem with JR's story IMO.

YES! My thoughts exactly, Jedger.

I found his statements more interesting than the video itself. It leads me to believe that CR and JR are not "friends" any longer, and that Salzman is implying that JR is, as everyone thinks, withholding or even LYING about information. And I'm sure he's privy to more info than we are. Just more things to make you go hmmm.....

The more I research, the worse it looks for JR, IMO. If that guy is innocent, then he needs to hire a new lawyer that might help him with some good PR, and he needs to show FULL cooperation w/LE.

bloom54 · Aug 1, 2011

AbbeyR said:
But if he was really there for breakfast, what is it an alibi for (at 10 am)?

ok.. so what if rather than an alibi, it was intended to let his buddies know that he was back from hiding LS? mission accomplished...

Darcyline · Aug 1, 2011

It is strange, but off the internet I still see more...negative press toward CR than JR. I am sure that is because he is more present, but I would expect more negativity directed at JR at this point? I agree that it definitely looks the worst for him whether he is guilty or not. I still see him referred to as "A friend" sometimes at the end of an article or mention of her that focuses on partying or CR or even JW.
That may be just what I see though and not indicative of the greater media picture. Do you guys see a lot of rage/negative press directed at JR outside of a few internet sites like the JR needs to talk Blog?

GobBluth · Aug 1, 2011

elmomom said:
The lawyer's office is one block up from the corner on which she was said to be seen. And he only said that she wasn't on the video at the time he looked. Doesn't rule out if she was slowed down for several minutes for example, and it doesn't rule out an abduction before she reached his corner.... my opinion of all the video in this case is that it is only really useful for what it shows, but not so useful for what it doesn't.

He looked at that tape for more than an instant. I'm certain that that tape was scoured, and I'm sure that he was part of it. It was his tape, and it could help his client.

I think her not being on that tape is extremely useful to LE in narrowing things down, and questioning certain POIs. If there is one block between where JR claims to have last seen her and the location of this video, then what happened to her in this ONE block? Did she change her route? Why would she do that if she knew that JR was watching her for safety purposes? ONE BLOCK. Did she ever leave JRs (on foot?) IDK, just throwing it all out there for thoughts.

Stranger abduction in this scenario, if it is factual, would seem highly unlikely, IMO. Abducted in a matter of moments from when a witness stopped watching you, and just before approaching a surveillance camera. It is certainly possible, tho, but would be an extreme case of being in the exact wrong spot at just the wrong time.

elmomom · Aug 1, 2011

GobBluth said:
He looked at that tape for more than an instant. I'm certain that that tape was scoured, and I'm sure that he was part of it. It was his tape, and it could help his client.

I think her not being on that tape is extremely useful to LE in narrowing things down, and questioning certain POIs. If there is one block between where JR claims to have last seen her and the location of this video, then what happened to her in this ONE block? Did she change her route? Why would she do that if she knew that JR was watching her for safety purposes? ONE BLOCK. Did she ever leave JRs (on foot?) IDK, just throwing it all out there for thoughts.

I don't think his lawyer was lying, nor do I think he would (he is an officer of the court). And in fact I think he made a point of saying that LE came to ask for the tape before CR was his client, and they just checked the immediate time frame that she should have been seen (in his presence).

Also, when asked he claims he does not believe that JR (or CR or MB) were involved in LS's disappearance FWIW.

bx2 · Aug 1, 2011

GobBluth said:
He looked at that tape for more than an instant. I'm certain that that tape was scoured, and I'm sure that he was part of it. It was his tape, and it could help his client.

I think her not being on that tape is extremely useful to LE in narrowing things down, and questioning certain POIs. If there is one block between where JR claims to have last seen her and the location of this video, then what happened to her in this ONE block? Did she change her route? Why would she do that if she knew that JR was watching her for safety purposes? ONE BLOCK. Did she ever leave JRs (on foot?) IDK, just throwing it all out there for thoughts.

The law office (and camera) is also on the east side of College, opposite side of where she would be walking home. It just isn't that helpful in determining anything other than her not walking through Salzmann's parking lot.

jjenny · Aug 1, 2011

elmomom said:
I don't think his lawyer was lying, nor do I think he would (he is an officer of the court). And in fact I think he made a point of saying that LE came to ask for the tape before CR was his client, and they just checked the immediate time frame that she should have been seen (in his presence).

Also, when asked he claims he does not believe that JR (or CR or MB) were involved in LS's disappearance FWIW.

Well what exactly one would expect a defense lawyer to say? He is a defense lawyer. And his client CR has a complete memory loss, so not exactly able to provide useful information, I presume.

jjenny · Aug 1, 2011

bx2 said:
The law office (and camera) is also on the east side of College, opposite side of where she would be walking home. It just isn't that helpful in determining anything other than her not walking through Salzmann's parking lot.

Could it still catch the side she would be walking on?

bx2 · Aug 1, 2011

jjenny said:
Could it still catch the side she would be walking on?

This is a matter of opinion since we obviously haven't seen video from it, but I don't believe it capable of seeing the east sidewalk, let alone across 3 lanes to the west sidewalk.

IndyMom · Aug 1, 2011

bx2 said:
This is a matter of opinion since we obviously haven't seen video from it, but I don't believe it capable of seeing the east sidewalk, let alone across 3 lanes to the west sidewalk.

Darn it, just when I hop on for a second and try to catch up. I get excited and then my hope is gone again

Darcyline · Aug 1, 2011

If it couldn't possibly catch her walking her route then wouldn't it make more sense to say the camera didn't reach where she was supposedly walking than to say it the camera didn't catch Lauren at the time she was supposed to be walking home? DOes that make sense? If I had a camera that was too far away to show a crime I would say that and not "I didn't see the crime at the stated time on the camera"?

GobBluth · Aug 1, 2011

bx2 said:
The law office (and camera) is also on the east side of College, opposite side of where she would be walking home. It just isn't that helpful in determining anything other than her not walking through Salzmann's parking lot.

jjenny said:
Could it still catch the side she would be walking on?

According to a report that I saw, they stated that it DOES show the sidewalk where she would have been walking.

elmomom said:
I don't think his lawyer was lying, nor do I think he would (he is an officer of the court). And in fact I think he made a point of saying that LE came to ask for the tape before CR was his client, and they just checked the immediate time frame that she should have been seen (in his presence).

Also, when asked he claims he does not believe that JR (or CR or MB) were involved in LS's disappearance FWIW.

I don't think he's lying at all, I hope my post didn't accidentally imply that. But the "immediate time frame" could be a long period of time, since the time frame that JR says she left his apt has been approximated, and I've seen it vary 22 minutes. The "immediate time frame" that she should have been seen on that video wouldn't be just a 15 min clip.

IndyMom · Aug 1, 2011

Darcyline said:
If it couldn't possibly catch her walking her route then wouldn't it make more sense to say the camera didn't reach where she was supposedly walking than to say it the camera didn't catch Lauren at the time she was supposed to be walking home? DOes that make sense? If I had a camera that was too far away to show a crime I would say that and not "I didn't see the crime at the stated time on the camera"?

I agree with you.

bx2 · Aug 1, 2011

Darcyline said:
If it couldn't possibly catch her walking her route then wouldn't it make more sense to say the camera didn't reach where she was supposedly walking than to say it the camera didn't catch Lauren at the time she was supposed to be walking home? DOes that make sense? If I had a camera that was too far away to show a crime I would say that and not "I didn't see the crime at the stated time on the camera"?

GobBluth said:
According to a report that I saw, they stated that it DOES show the sidewalk where she would have been walking.

By all means, please provide link to the report or Salzmann's statement.

From the photos thread-

Salzman's Law Office, East side of College. Corner of College & 10th. Across from 10th & College Apartments. His cameras point at his parking lot. I don't think they get the sidewalk or the road. Lawyers are careful like that.

Darcyline · Aug 1, 2011

Oh so are you saying the statement was never made by Salzman? I remember reading it, but perhaps the source made it up?

I would google, but God I suck at that stuff. I cannot even find really obvious stuff that was posted recently like the CR video. Can someone help us out or clarify?

It seems like a pretty significant statement if made.

bx2 · Aug 1, 2011

Darcyline said:
Oh so are you saying the statement was never made by Salzman? I remember reading it, but perhaps the source made it up?

I would google, but God I suck at that stuff. I cannot even find really obvious stuff that was posted recently like the CR video. Can someone help us out or clarify? It seems like a pretty significant statement if made.

Not saying anyone made it up, just that this would be significant news to me and so I'd be very interested in seeing/reading it for myself. One page back was the first I had ever heard it, hopefully it can be cited.

GobBluth · Aug 1, 2011

bx2 said:
Not saying anyone made it up, just that this would be significant news to me and so I'd be very interested in seeing/reading it for myself. One page back was the first I had ever heard it, hopefully it can be cited.

Trust me, I am googling and searching my history, although part was automatically cleared. I just read this report in the past day or two, but I have only been researching this for a week or less (other than what I saw here and there before), so I didn't post it right away as I figured it was already addressed. (I didn't look at exact date of report, so it might have been old.) Nevertheless, I can't find it after 45 solid minutes of searching, so it must not have been big news.

If anyone has a clip of something that sounds familiar, please post. Subject: Salzmann discussing watching office surveillance w/police. It might not be the same clip, but might jog my memory of actual clip.

Ugh. I'll keep trying to find it, until I fall asleep. I actually paused True Blood for this, lol. Unheard of...

IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 - #21

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics