IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 - #24

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
mamamia54 said:
I've wondered if when LE checked 5 North with the dog, if they also brought in a forensic team to do any testing on things, and if they didn't why not. That would have been a perfect time.
Click to expand...

I have heard that LE did search the apartments at 5 North soon after LS disappeared.
 
For some reason, I think that JR, HT and some others know something happened to LS, and they might have suspicions about who did that something, but they don't know for sure.

Perhaps LS did walk away from JR's apt., but earlier than 4:15. Maybe JR saw LS walk away.

Maybe she left to get away from someone (the MPOI) in JR's apt. Maybe that person "cut her off at the pass," picked her up to take her back to JR's or to his vehicle, thus explaining the bar manager's sighting.

When the MPOI does not return to JR's, he knows something has happened, just not what exactly. He calls DR at 4:15 to see if LS has arrived at SW.

So, if the MPOI is a roommate or visitor of JR, he knows something is up, just not what exactly. Not knowing exactly what happened would help him pass the polygraph.

Does this make any sense?
 
From: http://www.lohud.com/article/20110905/NEWS02/109050313/Lauren-Spierer-s-college-friends-Where-you-

"She (HT) has kept her friendship with JR and said she has been out with him a few times in recent weeks, but hasn't spoken with him any more about the case.

" 'It's hard for him to be back,' she said. 'Everyone's harassing him and looking at him differently. He doesn't deserve it.' If anything, she said, 'The one thing he did wrong was that he let her walk home by herself.' "

So, maybe JR did let LS leave or LS left because she was scared of someone at JR's or someone at JR's was threatening her or acting inappropriately, and HT believes that JR is only guilty of letting LS leave.

Does anyone else find it incredible that HT, LS' roommate and professed friend, would not discuss LS' disappearance with the last person to see her?

Too tired to wrap my mind completely around this, but what does this say about HT as a person and a friend?

Then again, sharing something traumatic can bring people closer together. Perhaps HT and JR talk about LS' disappearance all the time.

Is bugging an apt. without the tenant's knowledge illegal in IN?
 
Carmen101 said:
From: http://www.lohud.com/article/20110905/NEWS02/109050313/Lauren-Spierer-s-college-friends-Where-you-

"She (HT) has kept her friendship with JR and said she has been out with him a few times in recent weeks, but hasn't spoken with him any more about the case.

" 'It's hard for him to be back,' she said. 'Everyone's harassing him and looking at him differently. He doesn't deserve it.' If anything, she said, 'The one thing he did wrong was that he let her walk home by herself.' "

So, maybe JR did let LS leave or LS left because she was scared of someone at JR's or someone at JR's was threatening her or acting inappropriately, and HT believes that JR is only guilty of letting LS leave.

Does anyone else find it incredible that HT, LS' roommate and professed friend, would not discuss LS' disappearance with the last person to see her?

Too tired to wrap my mind completely around this, but what does this say about HT as a person and a friend?

Then again, sharing something traumatic can bring people closer together. Perhaps HT and JR talk about LS' disappearance all the time.

Is bugging an apt. without the tenant's knowledge illegal in IN?
Click to expand...

Although I've tried to empathize with HT and the position she's in, those quotes are the kind of thing that would make me turn against my daughter's roommate if I were her parents. Poor guy, people are looking at him differently. Even if he had nothing to do with it, you would think he could set aside the self-pity, and you would think that HT would have enough discretion not to let the press turn the story into a self-pity party for her and one of the POIs.
 
JR's not talking about it (even to his "good friend" HT) because his attorney has told him not to talk to anyone. Talking to HT would be like the old game of telephone.... she has no filter!

But, if JR truly has no knowledge, then talking at length with LE with his attorney present shouldn't be a problem... and might provide some insight about who was with her at his apartment and why she left....

Perhaps he's talked to LE and we just don't know about that.... but I kind of doubt it...
 
Carmen101 said:
For some reason, I think that JR, HT and some others know something happened to LS, and they might have suspicions about who did that something, but they don't know for sure.

Perhaps LS did walk away from JR's apt., but earlier than 4:15. Maybe JR saw LS walk away.

Maybe she left to get away from someone (the MPOI) in JR's apt. Maybe that person "cut her off at the pass," picked her up to take her back to JR's or to his vehicle, thus explaining the bar manager's sighting.

When the MPOI does not return to JR's, he knows something has happened, just not what exactly. He calls DR at 4:15 to see if LS has arrived at SW.

So, if the MPOI is a roommate or visitor of JR, he knows something is up, just not what exactly. Not knowing exactly what happened would help him pass the polygraph.

Does this make any sense?
Click to expand...

I am trying to consider things from the position that JR passed the polygraph, so yes. I don't have great faith in polygraphs, since the other case I follow has been blown wide open by a polygrapher's statement that a suspect failed one but LE passed him. However, I question why JR's pricey attorney would advise him to take one if he didn't think he'd pass ... or why JR would go along with it. Perhaps what actually happened is far enough removed from the questions that were asked?

One thing I wonder today is whether LS made it to CR/MB's but crashed along with CR, then woke up and went to JR's later. Some reports state she stayed at CR/MB's for like an hour ... if so, I'm curious what she did with that time. I recall MB stating in an interview that "She was our friend." IDK if that's true (friendship), even, but I did find it odd that he used past tense, even at the beginning of the investigation. OTOH, it could have been a grammatical vs. Freudian slip.
 
Too bad the writer of the LOHUD article didn't ask HT about AB. Hasn't the writer been reading our posts? :D
 
Carmen101 said:
Perhaps LS did walk away from JR's apt., but earlier than 4:15. Maybe JR saw LS walk away.

Maybe she left to get away from someone (the MPOI) in JR's apt. Maybe that person "cut her off at the pass," picked her up to take her back to JR's or to his vehicle, thus explaining the bar manager's sighting.

When the MPOI does not return to JR's, he knows something has happened, just not what exactly. He calls DR at 4:15 to see if LS has arrived at SW.

So, if the MPOI is a roommate or visitor of JR, he knows something is up, just not what exactly. Not knowing exactly what happened would help him pass the polygraph.

Does this make any sense?
Click to expand...

It's possible. But I lean against believing that's what happened, because JR said he saw her turn the corner at 4:30, and I presume that he's been (privately) polygraphed on that point. My theory on page 16 tried to come up with a similar story, but one in which the 4:30 statement is true.

Then again, I wonder about the meaning of RS's statement that he has no basis for believing that LS called DR at 4:15. The simplest meaning is that no message was left, so there's no certainty about who called. Is it possible that JR somehow was not poly'd on who made the call and the circumstances of her leaving? I doubt it...
 
Darcyline said:
I remember getting my head chewed off for thinking that all of these men were not necessarily her friends, but I still stand by that. Friend to me means something more than someone you party with especially in college. I had tons of people I hung around with on a regular basis-very few of them I would consider to be my actual friends. It is hard to determine just how close they all were and friend vs convenient person to hang around with, but what we do know doesn't really clarify that for me.
Click to expand...

I think part of the objection may be that this is simply a judgment (and an obvious one, perhaps) rather than an examination of the facts, and probably not a useful one.

As to what we know about the friendships, we know that LS only met CR and MB a week before the disappearance (though some have expressed skepticism; I tend to believe this). We also have HT saying that LS knew JR during the last year (during half of which he was away), when they went to his place (which I take to be for partying, and not necessarily the sort of friendship that involves care). And we know that she lived in the same place as DR, and I believe it's been said that they hung out all the time, though we don't know under what circumstances. HT is her roommate (one of several, it seems), and presumably friend since first year. And JW, of course, is her 2-year-ish boyfriend, and friend since childhood.

We have no known connection between her and any other MPOI, though it's been said that at least some if not all of those involved in the confrontation were concerned for her welfare (it's also been speculated that some if not all were concerned for JW as well).

As to the notion that people are not friends for not talking (more), I think the crux of the issue might be that their talking gives rise to potential murder liability for something that some say should be the basis for amnesty (so that overdoses are more likely to be reported). Perhaps they find it difficult to negotiate over this point without giving up the information.
 
cluciano63 said:
I am a terrible cynic, with WS only having made me more so, but I wonder if a certain number of young women would have to disappear before a college town like Bloomington would allow/encourage LE and the media to issue warnings, have town hall meetings, etc. telling the public that a random killer/abductor is on the loose.

LE NOT giving a lot of warnings, etc. does not make me believe 100% that they don't think this could be a stranger abduction, as I doubt they would create a panic over one missing person unless they were positive that was the case, and maybe not even then. It's not good business.
Click to expand...

You'd hope that safety would come before image, but you never know. Years ago, a rape occurred at the university where I then worked. University Relations did little to publicize it, but the student newspaper got wind of it and blasted UR and school for not immediately going public. I was proud of the student newspaper.
 
AnalyticalExaminer said:
I think part of the objection may be that this is simply a judgment (and an obvious one, perhaps) rather than an examination of the facts, and probably not a useful one.
Click to expand...

I think it may be useful to think through the relationships amongst the key players. Unfortunately we have very few facts to examine, but rather are left with judgments/probabilities/likelihoods for most elements of the case with the exception of when LS was seen on camera, when the last call was made from her phone, serveral places that were visited, and that belongings were later found in various locations.
 
cluciano63 said:
I am a terrible cynic, with WS only having made me more so, but I wonder if a certain number of young women would have to disappear before a college town like Bloomington would allow/encourage LE and the media to issue warnings, have town hall meetings, etc. telling the public that a random killer/abductor is on the loose.

LE NOT giving a lot of warnings, etc. does not make me believe 100% that they don't think this could be a stranger abduction, as I doubt they would create a panic over one missing person unless they were positive that was the case, and maybe not even then. It's not good business.
Click to expand...

I don't know what gives you this impression but it is not the case. The university admin and LE have done a great deal and done so effectively, imo, communicating about this incident and a few others that have occurred since then. I am not going to take on the role of spokesperson nor apologist but just to give you a few examples: The university has an email notification/alert system that goes to ALL students on campus. Recently, a young woman walked home alone at 1 a.m. in a dark, unsafe area and she was robbed. The alert went out and this was when parents were in town for move-in week. Articles in campus/city newspaper were published. Another recent time, two gals were walking at night and believed they were being followed. They ran and called police. Next day an article was published about the incident and commending the gals for doing the right thing, followed up by general education.

The IU Web pages continue to run an alert banner at the top of its pages about Lauren Missing.

Letters and email went out to parents and new students about Lauren before they even arrived on campus. Once they were here, presentations about safety were given. What else can they do?

I think it's safe to say there is no random killer on the loose. Given what we know and don't know about Lauren missing, I think education about prevention and safety is the best course of action. They have done and continue to do that.

http://www.iub.edu/

https://protect.iu.edu/
 
threepisces said:
I can't recall - do we know if the PsOI cars have been searched?
Click to expand...

CR's car has been searched. JR supposedly did not have a car that night. I would assume that LE has searched JW's car - his house has been searched, and I believe I've seen the car reported but could be wrong - as well as DR's car if he had one (he showed them his phone). I would also guess, perhaps wrongly, that they may not have had access to any out-of-state MPOI's car. We have heard of no LE interest in any in-state MPOI.
 
Hello

if you get a chance please watch the following video -it explains why you should always get a lawyer and never talk o police.

Believe me you would never talk to police after watching this video



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=player_embedded"]Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]
 
plaidmom said:
Ya know....that's one big thing that bothers me about this case. No physical evidence of foul play at all (or at least none that has been released).

Perhaps some of the old-timers will chime in and tell me that this is the norm. But for now I am perplexed?

Does anyone have the link to the PC where LE claims to suspect foul play? Because if IIRC, that did happen. And yet they never gave a reason (that I can recall) to suspect such.

Is it the phone being left behind? The purse/wallet/wristlet? Surely not the shoes? People lose shoes all of the time.

Because other than those things, left behind like Goldilocks breadcrumbs, we have....nothing.

No blood (even though she hit her head at least once, possibly twice). No vomit (despite the alleged "partying"). No hanks or even wisps of hair. No fingernails. No scraps or pieces of clothing. No scent for the dogs. Nothing.

No witnesses apparently either, other than the videos. No one saw or heard anything out of the ordinary that night. Other than the bar manager and the homeless man who heard the scream...and both have been discounted/discredited by LE.

The ONLY account of violence we have for that night is the "altercation" at Smallwood. And that had "nothing to do with our missing woman" according to LE.

It's as if she just went *poof*.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite understanding it either. IF someone in forensics had taken perhaps a sample of something from the drains inside 5 North I suppose we wouldn't know it. I mean, Lauren had been there. This is perplexing to say the least.
 
plaidmom said:
Ya know....that's one big thing that bothers me about this case. No physical evidence of foul play at all (or at least none that has been released).

Perhaps some of the old-timers will chime in and tell me that this is the norm. But for now I am perplexed?

Does anyone have the link to the PC where LE claims to suspect foul play? Because if IIRC, that did happen. And yet they never gave a reason (that I can recall) to suspect such.

Is it the phone being left behind? The purse/wallet/wristlet? Surely not the shoes? People lose shoes all of the time.

Because other than those things, left behind like Goldilocks breadcrumbs, we have....nothing.

No blood (even though she hit her head at least once, possibly twice). No vomit (despite the alleged "partying"). No hanks or even wisps of hair. No fingernails. No scraps or pieces of clothing. No scent for the dogs. Nothing.

No witnesses apparently either, other than the videos. No one saw or heard anything out of the ordinary that night. Other than the bar manager and the homeless man who heard the scream...and both have been discounted/discredited by LE.

The ONLY account of violence we have for that night is the "altercation" at Smallwood. And that had "nothing to do with our missing woman" according to LE.

It's as if she just went *poof*.
Click to expand...

You're right that LE stated they suspected "foul play" from the get go. I always thought it was due to context rather than evidence:

* Her friends said she had been partying (but stopped drinking several hours before she allegedly walked home).

* All of the key POI she was with have multiple offenses and arrests, some of them jailed. Yes, I know these are "only" for alcohol and pot but ALL of them have been nailed (including Lauren).

* The association with AEPi was probably a factor.

* All the personal effects she was without.

* She's on video in an intoxicated state three times that we know of: Sports, returning to SW, and alley.

* There was the anonymous observer who saw her exit the SW elevator (I would think LE saw this video early on).
 
Jupiter812 said:
* The association with AEPi was probably a factor.
Click to expand...

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

I think the suspicion of foul play, stated several days after the disappearance when much of the city had been scoured, is fairly straightforward - she didn't make it home, she didn't turn up anywhere else, and she wasn't in a condition or position to take herself anywhere. Ergo, someone else took her somewhere, alive or dead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 216 more.
Total: 4,479 (members: 217, guests: 4,262)

Online statistics

Members online
217
Guests online
4,262
Total visitors
4,479
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,313
Messages
17,967,240
Members
228,743
Latest member
VT_Squire
Back
Top