IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 - #17

[British]

Originally Posted by Gabby66

I don't agree that this is the only way. One other way that I have mentioned previously, is if there was another altercation - either in the alley, or at 5 North, where she tried to intervene and was punched by accident, causing her death. She's very small so this is quite possible. In this scenario, both sides may want to conspire to dispose of her b/c in the middle of a brawl, who could it be proven who threw the fatal punch?

That does not make sense. It sounds like an impossible scenario, as at least in the alley the police had reported that she was only with one other person (and based on the time line it must be one of the POIs). There was an "altercation" or "confrontation" next day or the day after at 5 North, but from what I read that was when her boyfriend and/or other friends of hers went to 5 North to talk to some POIs to find out why she disappeared.

[elmomom]

Originally Posted by Gabby66

It's all just SO odd.

I totally agree!

[Jupiter812]

There is only so much interconnectedness between Sports, Smallwood, and 5 North that we can know. There is a sequence of events, but each one is discrete too. I'm of the opinion that the continuation of the party at 5 North later on is key. It allows the mystery guest to enter the picture too. He could be totally responsible and no one would know.

[Jupiter812]

Originally Posted by British

The only way that more than one POIs were involved is if it was an OD and they conspired to dispose the body. Possible, but I believe less likely than a sexual attack/murder. In that case it may simply be that only one POI was involved and disposed the body alone.

What I'm most interested to hear if you're willing to share is why you think it was so intentional (attack/murder).

[British]

Originally Posted by Jupiter812

What I'm most interested to hear if you're willing to share is why you think it was so intentional (attack/murder).

Oh, simple. Because I have hard time believing that the last POI who reported seeing her would dispose her body instead of taking her to the hospital had she OD'd. He was apparently her friend and, if he was afraid about drugs, he could have simply disposed any drugs prior to taking her to a hospital ER. So, that makes me think that there was a rape/murder done by someone of the POIs. Thats all.

[Gabby66]

Originally Posted by British

That does not make sense. It sounds like an impossible scenario, as at least in the alley the police had reported that she was only with one other person (and based on the time line it must be one of the POIs). There was an "altercation" or "confrontation" next day or the day after at 5 North, but from what I read that was when her boyfriend and/or other friends of hers went to 5 North to talk to some POIs to find out why she disappeared.

Sorry it doesn't make sense. It's a clear possibility to me. Let me explain...

A. The Timeline only shows her to the exit of the alley. She and acquaintance are walking down alley, then enter the gravel lot to discover people waiting for them. This area wasn't on camera, from the way it's been described. This is also where her keys were found, along with her purse....could point to a sign of struggle of some sort. IMO it's entirely possible that the struggle (if any) was a continuation of the night's events and she got caught in the middle.

B. LE do say that she was seen with an "individual" (I believe they termed him/her), but they don't specifically state that the two of them were the only ones shown to be in that alley. Also, initially, if they saw others on the video, LE might have thought they were insignificant.

C. LE specifically states that they saw "ACTIVITY" on camera, in that are. we are not told what it is. Could be drugs, sex, altercation - any of these are possible. Heck, it could be that LS was doing cartwheels down the alley. I tend to think it's something significant though, that makes LE feel it's related to the case. The reasons I suspect this are:

1. LE has given us very few leads about the events of the night, but this is one they've specifically stated: That there was activity in the alley. This tells me that they see something specific happening (and that it's not just cartwheels). It's almost like a message to the POIs that "We see what you were doing). I think there's just not enough there however. Perhaps this activity began just before they walked out of the camera's view. This takes me back to the idea that it could have been a couple of guys approaching them (activity) and CR started to bolt, but they tackled him out of camera's view in the gravel lot. IF this happened, I think it happened quickly though, that she was injured. According to the guys who saw CR the next day, he surely wasn't described as being someone who had been beaten up on for a long time.

Again, it's only a theory, but I think it's one to consider. It could also be that the altercation happened at 5 North, and that JR was involved as well, giving him reason to lie

[bx2]

Originally Posted by Gabby66

C. LE specifically states that they saw "ACTIVITY" on camera, in that are. we are not told what it is. Could be drugs, sex, altercation - any of these are possible. Heck, it could be that LS was doing cartwheels down the alley. I tend to think it's something significant though, that makes LE feel it's related to the case. The reasons I suspect this are:

1. LE has given us very few leads about the events of the night, but this is one they've specifically stated: That there was activity in the alley. This tells me that they see something specific happening (and that it's not just cartwheels). It's almost like a message to the POIs that "We see what you were doing). I think there's just not enough there however. Perhaps this activity began just before they walked out of the camera's view. This takes me back to the idea that it could have been a couple of guys approaching them (activity) and CR started to bolt, but they tackled him out of camera's view in the gravel lot. IF this happened, I think it happened quickly though, that she was injured. According to the guys who saw CR the next day, he surely wasn't described as being someone who had been beaten up on for a long time.

Again, it's only a theory, but I think it's one to consider. It could also be that the altercation happened at 5 North, and that JR was involved as well, giving him reason to lie

Just wanted to try and get to the source of yet another commonly held belief on this board, that LE gives an indication that there was some kind of activity that took place.

The only thing I can find is this quote:

"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," said Capt. Qualters"

Can you please help point me to something else because the quote above (to me) is just stating the obvious, that they can see what goes on in the alley from the vantage point of the video.

[Gabby66]

Originally Posted by bx2

Just wanted to try and get to the source of yet another commonly held belief on this board, that LE gives an indication that there was some kind of activity that took place.

The only thing I can find is this quote:

"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," said Capt. Qualters"

Can you please help point me to something else because the quote above (to me) is just stating the obvious, that they can see what goes on in the alley from the vantage point of the video.

I think we are each interpreting this differently. IMO he is talking about THAT VIDEO (not videos - plural), so he's talking about one here. IMO he is saying that on the video, they get an indication of her direction of travel (towards 5 North) AND the activities that took place in the area where that particular video shows. If these "activities" weren't related to the crime (as in other people walking to/from) then why mention them at all? IMO LE is specifically wanting it known that they can see those activities.

[Gabby66]

I wanted to add this also.....a while ago, I posted the idea that perhaps LS was flirting with these boys and not wanting to leave. I mentioned that I'd read that she'd been at CR/MB's for an hour before leaving and someone questioned my source. I didn't know, but I found it today:

"Spierer and Rossman left the apartment building and she escorted Rossman back to his apartment. She was there for about an hour with Rossman and another young man."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/lauren-spie...ry?id=13809364

[bx2]

Originally Posted by Gabby66

I think we are each interpreting this differently. IMO he is talking about THAT VIDEO (not videos - plural), so he's talking about one here. IMO he is saying that on the video, they get an indication of her direction of travel (towards 5 North) AND the activities that took place in the area where that particular video shows. If these "activities" weren't related to the crime (as in other people walking to/from) then why mention them at all? IMO LE is specifically wanting it known that they can see those activities.

Ok, yeah, if that is the source of the "activity" that folks are referencing I'd consider it ambiguous at best, but far from indicating that anything took place related to a crime.

[British]

Originally Posted by bx2

Ok, yeah, if that is the source of the "activity" that folks are referencing I'd consider it ambiguous at best, but far from indicating that anything took place related to a crime.

Hard to know. Could be either way. The fact that her keys were found there could be related to a struggle or drug use maybe?

[elmomom]

It could also be a picture of her being tossed over someone's shoulder and carried..
When I was listening to that and another press conference it was before I knew about the supposed 3:38 sighting. But even then something in the way he describes the person LS was seen with disturbed me. I know that even if it was CR he would not have given his name, but for some reason I was wondering if it really was CR that she was seen with, just in the awkward way he described him. I'm sorry that I can't quote it.. it was more a feeling I got while listening. And again, it was before I ever heard about the 3:38 thing, so there really wasn't a reason for me to suspect that anyone else may have been with her other than CR.

[bx2]

Originally Posted by British

Hard to know. Could be either way. The fact that her keys were found there could be related to a struggle or drug use maybe?

Yep, I'm not ruling that out by any means, but also think its just as likely that it could be nothing, that she was intoxicated and dropped it without noticing or she had CR holding on to them while she jumped on his back to get carried and he dropped it without noticing.

[bx2]

Originally Posted by elmomom

It could also be a picture of her being tossed over someone's shoulder and carried..
When I was listening to that and another press conference it was before I knew about the supposed 3:38 sighting. But even then something in the way he describes the person LS was seen with disturbed me. I know that even if it was CR he would not have given his name, but for some reason I was wondering if it really was CR that she was seen with, just in the awkward way he described him. I'm sorry that I can't quote it.. it was more a feeling I got while listening. And again, it was before I ever heard about the 3:38 thing, so there really wasn't a reason for me to suspect that anyone else may have been with her other than CR.

If it wasn't CR, you would think this would be very much known to LE, even if they haven't given that indication. Not only do you have the possible appearance differences from 2 cameras, but you also have the interview of a seemingly cooperative and sober MB, who would have surely mentioned LS and CR not showing up together as we've been led to believe.

This does still leave open a possibility, which I've come to start to believe myself, though I'm afraid it doesn't do a whole lot for the overall narrative, and that is that JR's was the first stop after leaving Smallwood. Whether LS/CR arrived there together or apart, she could have walked him the 2 doors home and then gone back to JR's.

[Gabby66]

Originally Posted by bx2

Ok, yeah, if that is the source of the "activity" that folks are referencing I'd consider it ambiguous at best, but far from indicating that anything took place related to a crime.

I don't know if this is all everyone is relying on for the cited "activity". Does anyone else have a link? I thought for sure that I heard this in one of the press conferences. Regardless, I for one believe that if there wasn't something relevant, why bother mentioning it? LE has avoided giving us many details at all, if any really, yet they make certain to point out that they could watch the activities that took place on that video. If she was just skipping along in a flowery dress without a care in the world, why bother being so secretive about everything else, but mention that they were able to see her activities here? It seems to me that they're trying to make it clear to someone out there that they have seem SOMETHING. If the activities involved her dropping her purse, then yeah, I can see them feeling that's relevant b/c it shows her state of being perhaps, if she were stumbling and drunk, but why not say that then, since they've already alluded to that by saying she left behind her shoes and cell. IMO they want us to know there's something there, but there's a reason that they aren't being more specific. I see no reason if it's just that she stumbled, or something trivial.

[Jupiter812]

Originally Posted by British

Oh, simple. Because I have hard time believing that the last POI who reported seeing her would dispose her body instead of taking her to the hospital had she OD'd. He was apparently her friend and, if he was afraid about drugs, he could have simply disposed any drugs prior to taking her to a hospital ER. So, that makes me think that there was a rape/murder done by someone of the POIs. Thats all.

One of the POIs who don't know her as a good friend might not be so inclined to take her to the hospital if it was drug-related.

So do you have any thoughts about why a POI would hurt her? Like, is it personal (directed to her specifically) or is he violent (and possible to do it again)?

[Gabby66]

Originally Posted by elmomom

It could also be a picture of her being tossed over someone's shoulder and carried..
When I was listening to that and another press conference it was before I knew about the supposed 3:38 sighting. But even then something in the way he describes the person LS was seen with disturbed me. I know that even if it was CR he would not have given his name, but for some reason I was wondering if it really was CR that she was seen with, just in the awkward way he described him. I'm sorry that I can't quote it.. it was more a feeling I got while listening. And again, it was before I ever heard about the 3:38 thing, so there really wasn't a reason for me to suspect that anyone else may have been with her other than CR.

I've also wondered about the person in the video. Again, if it's CD (the most likely person), why not just say so? I honestly don't see how holding that back is pertinent to the case. So I have wondered.....

Tong Gatto made mention once that he believed the altercation took place quickly and that CR left immediately. OK - so I'm picturing him stumbling fast or maybe even running down that alley. He also believes (and I think this is based one talking with people around campus) that LS left after him. So I'm picturing this petite little girl going after him. Could she REALLY catch up to him? What if the fight really was about CR's advances? What if CR is ahead of her, and one of the punchers comes out after LS? If one wants to take the theory that the fight was b/c they wanted to protect LS, then wouldn't they want to go after her? So, this makes CR ahead of them and it makes LS in the alley with someone else. They could be arguing, etc. (activities) and could even be running a bit. So they finally catch up to CR near the gravel pit an a fight ensues. I don't know, again - just speculating. There are so many possibilities to play out.

[Jupiter812]

Originally Posted by Gabby66

I don't know if this is all everyone is relying on for the cited "activity". Does anyone else have a link? I thought for sure that I heard this in one of the press conferences. Regardless, I for one believe that if there wasn't something relevant, why bother mentioning it? LE has avoided giving us many details at all, if any really, yet they make certain to point out that they could watch the activities that took place on that video. If she was just skipping along in a flowery dress without a care in the world, why bother being so secretive about everything else, but mention that they were able to see her activities here? It seems to me that they're trying to make it clear to someone out there that they have seem SOMETHING. If the activities involved her dropping her purse, then yeah, I can see them feeling that's relevant b/c it shows her state of being perhaps, if she were stumbling and drunk, but why not say that then, since they've already alluded to that by saying she left behind her shoes and cell. IMO they want us to know there's something there, but there's a reason that they aren't being more specific. I see no reason if it's just that she stumbled, or something trivial.

The term "activity" as used by LE seems to mean something specific IMO. When they use it as professional jargon I think it can mean something related to the case; not necessarily evidence, but information that helps them understand what's happening. Maybe??

[Darcyline]

So if that timing is correct Lauren spent like...little time with JR? That really changes things. Before, we had been discussing what Lauren did with JR in the length of time he was there with her. But, if the new corrected timeline says the majority of the time was spent with CR and MB that really changes how I feel about things. I am not sure how yet
So, she didn't even go to JR's until after 4, supposedly called DR at 415, and then left shortly after? Hmmm. That leaves less time for some of the "supposed" activities I was imagining with JR.

[bx2]

Originally Posted by Jupiter812

The term "activity" as used by LE seems to mean something specific IMO. When they use it as professional jargon I think it can mean something related to the case; not necessarily evidence, but information that helps them understand what's happening. Maybe??

A little bit more background to the context from which Qualters was responding to with the quote mentioned above. I don't want to give the impression that I'm arguing against any "activity" happening, merely trying to establish that I don't think we have enough info to say that it did or didn't.

From the Jun 12th conference, I believe it is fair that he was getting a bit flustered by the questions, even misspeaks about the direction that they last have her traveling in. The following exchange occurs after the attempted directional clarification:

Q: So she's walking south to north through that back alley, kind of parking lot area
A: Yes
Q: Does the video show you how that set of keys ends up on that railing
A: <Pause> We have information from that video, um, that again gives us an indication of not only the direction, but the activities that have taken place from where that video shows. So we're we're, ya know, we have that, but that's not something that we're willing to share at this point.


IMO, after listening, he is dodging the question related to the keys and going back to trying to give a general clarification about the video that they have of her.

[cluciano63]

Originally Posted by Darcyline

So if that timing is correct Lauren spent like...little time with JR? That really changes things. Before, we had been discussing what Lauren did with JR in the length of time he was there with her. But, if the new corrected timeline says the majority of the time was spent with CR and MB that really changes how I feel about things. I am not sure how yet
So, she didn't even go to JR's until after 4, supposedly called DR at 415, and then left shortly after? Hmmm. That leaves less time for some of the "supposed" activities I was imagining with JR.

What were you imagining? We've heard JR had a friend in town with him as well, if that changes anything.

[Darcyline]

Cluciano-Well, my original understanding of the timeline was this
2:51 Camera sighting
3 Arrive at CR/MB apartment. CR collapses in bed.
3:15 Go to JR's after speaking to MB briefly

That leaves over an hour with JR and his guest that is unaccounted for and plenty of time for drugs, sex, death, etc.

However, if she did spend an hour with CR/MB my understanding changes. Now it goes-
3 arrive at CR/MB.
4 or later-arrive at JR's so...does CR not pass out? Does she speak to studying paper writing MB for an hour??
4:15 Call DR shortly after arriving
4:30 leave spending possibly less than a half hour with JR


The second timeline leaves much less time in my head for something to happen because she spends a much, much shorter time physically with JR and his guest and a much, much longer time with CR (who is supposedly unconscious) and MB. **scratches head**

[cluciano63]

I don't know if the amount of time spent at MB's was really confirmed, was it? I may have missed it, but I know he said she wanted to "party" and he didn't. But you are right, if she hung around at MB's, then she really barely stopped off at JR's. Maybe he told her he did not want to party either and then she asked to use his phone. Assuming she did make the call, of course, and assuming she did walk away as he has said.

[Jupiter812]

Originally Posted by bx2

A little bit more background to the context from which Qualters was responding to with the quote mentioned above. I don't want to give the impression that I'm arguing against any "activity" happening, merely trying to establish that I don't think we have enough info to say that it did or didn't.

From the Jun 12th conference, I believe it is fair that he was getting a bit flustered by the questions, even misspeaks about the direction that they last have her traveling in. The following exchange occurs after the attempted directional clarification:

Q: So she's walking south to north through that back alley, kind of parking lot area
A: Yes
Q: Does the video show you how that set of keys ends up on that railing
A: <Pause> We have information from that video, um, that again gives us an indication of not only the direction, but the activities that have taken place from where that video shows. So we're we're, ya know, we have that, but that's not something that we're willing to share at this point.


IMO, after listening, he is dodging the question related to the keys and going back to trying to give a general clarification about the video that they have of her.

This is not the same quote I'm thinking of. I think he uses just the word "activity." However, the above is a very informative quote because in essence he's saying 'we know how the keys got to be on the railing.'

[bx2]

Originally Posted by Jupiter812

This is not the same quote I'm thinking of. I think he uses just the word "activity." However, the above is a very informative quote because in essence he's saying 'we know how the keys got to be on the railing.'

I have to disagree again, I believe he is referring back to just having video of her. I'll also say its really hard to try and decipher meaning from quotes without follow ups that expressly ask precisely what you think them to mean.