IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #25 - Page 19

PlainJaneDoe · #**451** 10-07-2011, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imkeylime

I've always thought LS may have OD'd and a POI or PsOI disposed of her body to hide their involvement, i.e., that someone shared coke or alcohol with her ... or a prescription drug like Xanax, which might be easier to trace.

We've discussed Xanax quite a bit and the possibility it was involved that night, especially if she indeed talked about it at Sports. Re: Adderall: yesterday my daughter asked me what it was, saying a boy in her HS chem class keeps talking about it. That freaked me out. What I've learned is frightening. Students w/o ADHD take this drug not just to extend partying, but to enhance studying (it helps them stay awake and focus) and for weight loss (females in particular). The recent suicide of a Vanderbilt University student was attributed to it—abuse of the drug can cause psychosis. In the related article, a fellow student says that "everybody takes it." (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoo...ry?id=12066619)

The use of prescription drugs on campuses seems rampant, along with alcohol consumption. Any of these "cocktails" might have been deadly to LS given her heart condition ... and also might have compromised a POI's state of mind (not a defense for not talking or worse, obviously) or LS' state of mind (as in why oh why did she leave SW with CR?) ...

Unfortunately, some people wrongly believe that because a rx drug is legal, it is less dangerous than other narcotics.

phantomthought · #**452** 10-07-2011, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jupiter812

No matter that a case might be made that he passed the poly and told the truth or else we would know otherwise, the highly dubious notions that she could walk normally and JR watched her walking always cancels out the poly. I always come back to how unlikely both actions are.

It's like not seeing the forest for the trees.

I have come to believe that is the only thing LE has to go on in this case.No new searches.It is almost as if they were shamed into searching the landfill and most likely not the result of any specific info.Not the smallest effort on LE part to generate any publicity for this case.I believe they know the chances of them finding out where and what happened to LS are very slim and they just want all the publicity about this case to go away.I think LS parents know this to and that is why they are not going anywhere.Strange they did manage to make a statement to the press when they were compared to gomer pyle but no statements or press conf. on the status of their investigation.

imkeylime · #**453** 10-07-2011, 01:38 PM

PlainJaneDoe, I also wonder if they realize it's illegal to take a rx drug if you're not the prescription holder. And even if you are, adding alcohol into the mix isn't smart. I remember reading an excerpt from the blog of the diplomat's daughter (17-year-old freshman at Parson's) who fell from a high-rise apartment in NYC last year. I'm not sure if she was taking Xanax the night she died, but she wrote how it didn't mix with vodka. Her death made me sad as well.

elmomom · #**454** 10-07-2011, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phantomthought

I have come to believe that is the only thing LE has to go on in this case.No new searches.It is almost as if they were shamed into searching the landfill and most likely not the result of any specific info.Not the smallest effort on LE part to generate any publicity for this case.I believe they know the chances of them finding out where and what happened to LS are very slim and they just want all the publicity about this case to go away.I think LS parents know this to and that is why they are not going anywhere.Strange they did manage to make a statement to the press when they were compared to gomer pyle but no statements or press conf. on the status of their investigation.

nothing to add... I totally agree with you, and have felt this way for some time.

mamamia54 · #**455** 10-07-2011, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phantomthought

I have come to believe that is the only thing LE has to go on in this case.No new searches.It is almost as if they were shamed into searching the landfill and most likely not the result of any specific info.Not the smallest effort on LE part to generate any publicity for this case.I believe they know the chances of them finding out where and what happened to LS are very slim and they just want all the publicity about this case to go away.I think LS parents know this to and that is why they are not going anywhere.Strange they did manage to make a statement to the press when they were compared to gomer pyle but no statements or press conf. on the status of their investigation.

Yep, and this case will go down in the same way that so many do, too many unanswered questions, too much lawyering up, not enough evidence that a crime was even committed, and the case is not in the news anymore, which means that it goes slowly colder and colder month by month. It's high damn time the LE learned that silence is not golden in these cases. The more info given out, the more likely that it could be solved. AND WHO IS LOOKING FOR LAUREN?

plaidmom · #**456** 10-07-2011, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mamamia54

Yep, and this case will go down in the same way that so many do, too many unanswered questions, too much lawyering up, not enough evidence that a crime was even committed, and the case is not in the news anymore, which means that it goes slowly colder and colder month by month. It's high damn time the LE learned that silence is not golden in these cases. The more info given out, the more likely that it could be solved. AND WHO IS LOOKING FOR LAUREN?

Thanks for posting this. I've been thinking about this issue quite a bit lately.

I'm not one of these people who thinks that LE needs to share everything or that we, the general public, are supposed to be privy to all aspects of an investigation. This isn't T.V. If LE has good reason to keep quiet because they have good leads and want to protect victims and families...well bully for them!

BUT... I also think LE needs to...evolve a bit. The internet is not going away. Social networking is not going to disappear. Blogs and Facebook and Twitter (or their supplanters) are here to stay. Privacy (as my computer scientist daughter likes to say) is dead.

I do fear that sometimes the silence of LE does more harm than good. Rumors and speculation abound. I fear that in this case, and in several others that I am following (Holly Bobo anyone? ), innocent names are being dragged through the mud. Through the power of the internet and search engines some of that damage will be lasting and far-reaching.

I think the days of LE being stone-cold silent and cases just going completely "cold" in the public mind have gone away.

I also feel that LE sometimes needs to be reminded that WE, the taxpayers, pay their salaries. They work for us. It's OK to keep secrets if it really does serve a purpose in the end: lives saved, convictions earned. I'd also like to add that I feel withholding information is one thing. Outright lying is another. I expect better than that from my public servants.

OK, rant off. I feel better now.

bloom54 · #**457** 10-07-2011, 08:18 PM

I wonder if the recent silence is designed to let the Bo Dietl issue quietly dissipate? I really expected something from CS/RS this week... maybe on the weekend... and really, I keep hoping that the reason for the silence is that there's something brewing... but that hasn't worked for me yet...

:+:MrTT:+: · #**458** 10-08-2011, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessicaleanne1992

can someone fill me in on some theories?

My theory is that LS was taken from the area after or return8ing to the alley way to go home. She was on the sidewalk there. where her key was found because she had no shoes on and did-not want to walk upon the gravel. That is where she was taken. And I am leaning more towards her coming out of the alley as seen on the video. and her stuff being found a few minutes or so after that.

I don't believe the boy seen her turned the corner and walk home.

because that is not where her keys were found. They were found around 3am or so by the handrail.

I would speculate that all was over and done with around 430am.

The time he mentioned seeing her.

Come and take your poly test now.

Don't use the excuse your afraid LE may try and pin this on you.

It is a hi profile case, and LE is wise enough to know, it would be a bad idea to use you as a scapegoat in this investigation.

I still believe LS is nearby the area. No more then a hour or so in any direction. Not well hidden but out of sight. At a place pr-chosen to save time. A place one can find easily even in the dark. But a place one would have to know about in advance. A place not well driven or visited by many outside persons.

imkeylime · #**459** 10-08-2011, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by :+:MrTT:+:

My theory is that LS was taken from the area after or return8ing to the alley way to go home. She was on the sidewalk there. where her key was found because she had no shoes on and did-not want to walk upon the gravel. That is where she was taken. And I am leaning more towards her coming out of the alley as seen on the video. and her stuff being found a few minutes or so after that.

I don't believe the boy seen her turned the corner and walk home.

because that is not where her keys were found. They were found around 3am or so by the handrail.

I would speculate that all was over and done with around 430am.

The time he mentioned seeing her.

Come and take your poly test now.

Don't use the excuse your afraid LE may try and pin this on you.

It is a hi profile case, and LE is wise enough to know, it would be a bad idea to use you as a scapegoat in this investigation.

I still believe LS is nearby the area. No more then a hour or so in any direction. Not well hidden but out of sight. At a place pr-chosen to save time. A place one can find easily even in the dark. But a place one would have to know about in advance. A place not well driven or visited by many outside persons.

Your last thought intrigues me. I keep hearing CS say how LS is everywhere but nowhere, how she has to be somewhere. What I hear you say is that someone took her to a place familiar to that someone yet out of the way. I'm not sure how to arrive at where, since we don't know who the someone is.

But ... I did have a thought. In Michigan, old pieces of farmland often have old (unused) silos. I'm wondering if Indiana has the same. I'm guessing that kind of thing would have been checked, but maybe not if it was slightly out of the expected driving distance. Just a wild thought ... with nothing to go on, really. I've also thought she could be really close ... under the surface of a construction site, for instance.

:+:MrTT:+: · #**460** 10-08-2011, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imkeylime

Your last thought intrigues me. I keep hearing CS say how LS is everywhere but nowhere, how she has to be somewhere. What I hear you say is that someone took her to a place familiar to that someone yet out of the way. I'm not sure how to arrive at where, since we don't know who the someone is.

But ... I did have a thought. In Michigan, old pieces of farmland often have old (unused) silos. I'm wondering if Indiana has the same. I'm guessing that kind of thing would have been checked, but maybe not if it was slightly out of the expected driving distance. Just a wild thought ... with nothing to go on, really. I've also thought she could be really close ... under the surface of a construction site, for instance.

quote...
I'm not sure how to arrive at where, since we don't know who the someone is...end of quote.

As a starting point with the POI. As defined by LE.

If I was in LE and looking to go back in time.
And pick an area to research as a starting point.
I would start where they were searching around the time attorneys were hired. If I remember correctly, they were hired after there had been searches. It could be just a mere coincidence. Or maybe perhaps someone was close and or in the area where she may be.
I don't know for sure of course, for I am just speculating.

But I have wondered if attorneys would have been hired early on, if they knew it would be many months afterwards with no answer.
Or had/has the hiring of attorneys early on caused this case to go on for many months and LS whereabouts still unknown.?
Or it could have been that LE was just getting to close for comfort.
Such as asking for poly tests from POI.

bloom54 · #**461** 10-08-2011, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by :+:MrTT:+:

But I have wondered if attorneys would have been hired early on, if they knew it would be many months afterwards with no answer.
Or it could have been that LE was just getting to close for comfort.
Such as asking for poly tests from POI.

Attorneys were hired by the boys' parents... probably as soon as they found out about the situation that might implicate their kids...

I would have done the same if my kid were involved in something like that simply to be sure they had representation.

:+:MrTT:+: · #**462** 10-09-2011, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bloom54

Attorneys were hired by the boys' parents... probably as soon as they found out about the situation that might implicate their kids...

I would have done the same if my kid were involved in something like that simply to be sure they had representation.

This is where i differ from most.
Since the boys were over 18 the police did-not need to ask the parents
to speak with the boys. So we can assume the boys called the parents and told them about there fear of being implicated in something they have not done.

If one of them were my boys, and called me and told me what they may had told there parents. I would have told them to get there rear down to headquarters and talk with the police. If they did nothing wrong they have nothing to worry about. But if they did do something wrong then they are going to pay the consequences for what they have done.

Especially now. over 4 months later and LS is still missing and no other leads have materialize that we know of. I would tell my boy, with the attorney to go to headquarters NOW with the attorney and talk with the police and clear your name and suspicion about your involvement in this matter once and for all.

How long are the parents planning on retaining these attorneys so LE cannot have access to the boys.
A year? 5years? forever?!
Or until the boys are grown and have there own jobs and can continue to pay attorneys for themselves. Eventually this has to stop. And someone has to come forward to speak, because the matter is not simply going to disappear over time.

You responded to my posting before i was finished editing it.
I also added the following.

Or had/has the hiring of attorneys early on caused this case to go on for many months and LS whereabouts still unknown.?

bloom54 · #**463** 10-09-2011, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by :+:MrTT:+:

If one of them were my boys, and called me and told me what they may had told there parents. I would have told them to get there rear down to headquarters and talk with the police. If they did nothing wrong they have nothing to worry about. But if they did do something wrong then they are going to pay the consequences for what they have done.

Unfortunately, that assumption that if they've done nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about is just not accurate. How many cases have we seen where truly innocent people have been railroaded? And... you have to remember these are high-powered families. They are used to allowing attorneys to manage the uncomfortable situations in their lives.

Quote:

Especially now. over 4 months later and LS is still missing and no other leads have materialize that we know of. I would tell my boy, with the attorney to go to headquarters NOW with the attorney and talk with the police and clear your name and suspicion about your involvement in this matter once and for all.

If you were paying big bucks for an attorney, you'd be letting that attorney run the show. because if you don't, that attorney is going to say, "find another attorney!"...

And... we have NO IDEA who has actually met with LE with their attorneys and has possibly been given an all-clear...

Having an attorney "on retainer" is just a cost of doing business for these families... so I don't imagine that they're likely to cut those cords any time soon if they feel the need to protect their kids.

Quote:

Or had/has the hiring of attorneys early on caused this case to go on for many months and LS whereabouts still unknown.?

I think it's safe to say that IF one of the boys is actually involved in the disappearance/hiding of the body, etc., the attorney involvement has certainly hampered the investigation -- simply because they shut the kids up.

imkeylime · #**464** 10-09-2011, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by :+:MrTT:+:

quote...
I'm not sure how to arrive at where, since we don't know who the someone is...end of quote.

As a starting point with the POI. As defined by LE.

If I was in LE and looking to go back in time.
And pick an area to research as a starting point.
I would start where they were searching around the time attorneys were hired. If I remember correctly, they were hired after there had been searches. It could be just a mere coincidence. Or maybe perhaps someone was close and or in the area where she may be.
I don't know for sure of course, for I am just speculating.

But I have wondered if attorneys would have been hired early on, if they knew it would be many months afterwards with no answer.
Or had/has the hiring of attorneys early on caused this case to go on for many months and LS whereabouts still unknown.?
Or it could have been that LE was just getting to close for comfort.
Such as asking for poly tests from POI.

Well, we did discuss Bradford Woods in Martinsville awhile back, which is operated by IU and has a connection to DR's major. It's apparently an active place in the summer, which could rule it out. Parts of Martinsville were checked by LE after a mysterious odor was reported, to no avail. And there's been discussion of a fire in the area ... that's an area I'd check closely.

IMO, it's not unusual that the parents hired attorneys. It's common in my region (east coast) for parents to send in attorneys when their kids get called down for almost anything. I'm not sure why ... general distrust of the system maybe. Even if the PsOI aren't directly involved, they may be indirectly involved via drugs, etc. I don't see it as a sign of guilt (though they may be guilty).

OldSteve · #**465** 10-09-2011, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bloom54

Unfortunately, that assumption that if they've done nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about is just not accurate. How many cases have we seen where truly innocent people have been railroaded? And... you have to remember these are high-powered families. They are used to allowing attorneys to manage the uncomfortable situations in their lives.

If you were paying big bucks for an attorney, you'd be letting that attorney run the show. because if you don't, that attorney is going to say, "find another attorney!"...

And... we have NO IDEA who has actually met with LE with their attorneys and has possibly been given an all-clear...

Having an attorney "on retainer" is just a cost of doing business for these families... so I don't imagine that they're likely to cut those cords any time soon if they feel the need to protect their kids.

I think it's safe to say that IF one of the boys is actually involved in the disappearance/hiding of the body, etc., the attorney involvement has certainly hampered the investigation -- simply because they shut the kids up.

Good points! Also, as soon as one or more POI's get an attorney, the one(s) without would be at a disadvantage...
Good example of what happens when you don't have an attorney - Amanda Knox!

Walker · #**466** 10-09-2011, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bloom54

I think it's safe to say that IF one of the boys is actually involved in the disappearance/hiding of the body, etc., the attorney involvement has certainly hampered the investigation -- simply because they shut the kids up.

Not only attorneys would advise them to keep quiet. No one with normal intelligence would speak about how they got rid of someone's body. The reason that prisoners will often tell their associates about their crimes is that their intelligence is usually low, their impulsivity is high, and they socially identify with the other prisoners. Students are not prisoners.

Also, the consequences to the students would be much higher. The courts are unpredictable, and the judge might "throw the book" at them to score political points.

Let's imagine that some student, John Doe, gave LS some drugs before her death (if she is dead); but he was not heavily involved in drug trafficking, and he had no intention to do harm to her. Does anyone honestly believe that Doe should be placed in prison for 10-20 years, where he would be raped and abused, because he is different in background from the other prisoners?

However, JMO the students did not steal LS's body and improperly dispose of it somewhere.

The recent case in Laurel IN, in which Ison killed 5 people, seems to have been primarily motivated by money and drugs.

Could one of these drugs that the students (and apparently a large segment of the general public) is popping for recreation destroy the brain chemistry when taken in large quantities? Maybe Xanax is dangerous even at moderate dosage levels.

A middle-aged career criminal, Ison does not seem to have planned how to get away after the crime. He left evidence at his home. He didn't try to escape to another region. His father blamed his senseless behavior on drug addiction.

If Ison could shoot five people just to steal the drugs and cash, might not other low-level thugs abduct and kill someone just to steal their jewelry (for example)?

The body found near the recently demolished building might point to a murder perpetrated by someone involved in construction work. Perhaps some crime gang has cells that find employment in construction.

imkeylime · #**467** 10-09-2011, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walker

Could one of these drugs that the students (and apparently a large segment of the general public) is popping for recreation destroy the brain chemistry when taken in large quantities? Maybe Xanax is dangerous even at moderate dosage levels.

...

The body found near the recently demolished building might point to a murder perpetrated by someone involved in construction work. Perhaps some crime gang has cells that find employment in construction.

Snipped by me ...

I'm no expert, but I believe rx drugs used for recreation could mess with brain chemistry. What I read about Adderall indicates that it results in psychosis when abused. IDK about Xanax ... but even heavy alcohol use can affect brain chemistry.

Walker, are you referring to the woman found near a construction site in Hammond, IN? When I googled that, I found that she was a 28-year-old from Chicago who was reportedly being stalked by an ex-boyfriend. I haven't read anything further, though. But if we're talking about the same case, it looks more like a personal issue.

Gabby66 · #**468** 10-09-2011, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imkeylime

PlainJaneDoe, I also wonder if they realize it's illegal to take a rx drug if you're not the prescription holder. And even if you are, adding alcohol into the mix isn't smart. I remember reading an excerpt from the blog of the diplomat's daughter (17-year-old freshman at Parson's) who fell from a high-rise apartment in NYC last year. I'm not sure if she was taking Xanax the night she died, but she wrote how it didn't mix with vodka. Her death made me sad as well.

My understanding is that it's not illegal to TAKE the drug not prescribed to you, but it's illegal to give someone else your prescribed drug. When you give someone a prescription drug, you must hold a pharmaceutical license to do so. In other words, I do not believe these kids committed any crime by taking prescription drugs. The criminal would be the drug supplier.

bloom54 · #**469** 10-09-2011, 05:49 PM

I do believe it's illegal to have it on your person... so that would, I imagine, also make it illegal to ingest it.

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/teenf...egal_pills.htm

elmomom · #**470** 10-09-2011, 05:55 PM

It is completely illegal to take a controlled substance (i.e. prescription drug not prescribed to you)

Quote:

Is abusing prescription drugs illegal?
Yes, it is illegal to use prescription drugs without a valid prescription

Quoted from:
www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs5/5140/5140p.pdf

And, while searching for this, I learned that what Gabby suggested is one of the most common myths amongst young people regarding drugs. So I see a place where the anti-drug campaign has failed to educate our youth properly!

PlainJaneDoe · #**471** 10-09-2011, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elmomom

It is completely illegal to take a controlled substance (i.e. prescription drug not prescribed to you)

Quoted from:
www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs5/5140/5140p.pdf

And, while searching for this, I learned that what Gabby suggested is one of the most common myths amongst young people regarding drugs. So I see a place where the anti-drug campaign has failed to educate our youth properly!

Unfortunately, there are a lot of misconceptions about drugs out there (population in general). I include myself in this, as when I joined my current lab I discovered that many things I thought I knew about drugs weren't true!

elmomom · #**472** 10-09-2011, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlainJaneDoe

Unfortunately, there are a lot of misconceptions about drugs out there (population in general). I include myself in this, as when I joined my current lab I discovered that many things I thought I knew about drugs weren't true!

always are. when cocaine was "new" and in vogue in the early 80's most of us thought it was pretty harmless, and that was what everyone said. Then, when some young people would die from sudden cardiac arrest we were under the impression that it was only those who had an undetected enlarged heart... never mind that we were positive that it wasn't addictive!

But the legalities should be pretty easy to inform folks about, easier than convincing them that prescription drugs are harmful to you... at least I would think so..

AnalyticalExaminer · #**473** 10-09-2011, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jupiter812

No matter that a case might be made that he passed the poly and told the truth or else we would know otherwise, the highly dubious notions that she could walk normally and JR watched her walking always cancels out the poly. I always come back to how unlikely both actions are.

I disagree very strongly.

I have no evidence that it is unlikely he could see her turn the corner other than the opinion a) of locals who have never been inside JR's apartment (we don't know where he viewed her from or how), and b) that seems inconsistent with the pictures we have been shown of the street - it looks to me very much like someone would be visible at the corner at least if viewed from the sidewalk. If it were impossible for JR to have seen LS, that would be a fact that could be easily established by LE, at which point his story would completely fall apart and he might now be in jail. None of this is to say that I believe that he did see her (although I think that may be more likely than not), only that he could have.

Similarly, I can not at all rule out that LS was in a position to walk steadily to the corner, despite her seemingly well-established condition nearly two hours (and perhaps one hour) earlier. As many have speculated, cocaine or adderall might be sufficient. Even time might be sufficient if in fact she regained some sobriety (but not all - even JR claims he was unsure how steady she was), but then died due to her heart condition or more drugs or some other means. Despite her condition, we do know that she traveled on camera three blocks North shortly after leaving SW, and I believe there probably exists polygraph testimony regarding her condition by someone many people believe was sober (MB).

Again, I think the possibility that JR is telling (part of?) the truth should be confronted.

Walker · #**474** 10-09-2011, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elmomom

always are. when cocaine was "new" and in vogue in the early 80's most of us thought it was pretty harmless, and that was what everyone said. Then, when some young people would die from sudden cardiac arrest we were under the impression that it was only those who had an undetected enlarged heart... never mind that we were positive that it wasn't addictive!

But the legalities should be pretty easy to inform folks about, easier than convincing them that prescription drugs are harmful to you... at least I would think so..

Back in the 70s, the Introduction to Psychology course at my university was taught by lecture to a group of at least 100 students. The prof insisted to this large group that cocaine was absolutely non-addictive. It made no sense. I asked myself, If people can get addicted to alcohol, how could a substance so much stronger than alcohol be safe? Sadly, many of my fellow students trusted his "authority" and the authority of other professors like him.

The problem with college programs, esp. in soft areas like social sciences and humanities, is that the professors do not necessarily base their opinions on reasonable evidence. Cocaine had been imagined to be non-addictive because prior to the introduction of crack (about 1985), cocaine was priced at such exorbitant levels that individuals generally could not afford to ingest the drug in sufficient quantities to cause addiction. Reports of addiction dating back to an epidemic of cocaine abuse in the 1920s were dismissed as exaggerated or mistaken. The psych professors did not objectively examine the chemistry of the drug, or the reactions it causes, or its history. They failed to ask the right questions; they failed to think critically, and they failed to advise caution. Instead they espoused opinions which were most popular, but hopelessly and tragically wrong.

akh · #**475** 10-09-2011, 08:22 PM

I don't think we even know that JR said he saw her round the corner. We just know it's been repeated that is what he said... correct? Maybe that's not what his official statement actually said.

And maybe he did say he saw her round the corner, unless he was just adamant about that then maybe in retrospect he didn't exactly see her round the corner even though he thought he did when trying to remember exactly what he'd seen.

It's not like at the time he would've thought there would be a test or any importance whatsoever on exactly what he would be seeing as she left his apt.

And one of things he could be hiding could be as simple as he knew she was extremely trashed when she left his place, could barely walk or talk, and he let her go anyway so he doesn't exactly want to say he should've known she was in no shape to be walking alone at night. Maybe there's even some fear of legal culpability of letting her leave in that condition? Or maybe the fear is it would be argued it's his fault that she was in that condition.

Few of you seem to think that LE and the family promising some type of limited immunity against charges/drug charges and potential civil suits should be put forth in exchange for information. So without LS being found I'm starting to believe that LE has nothing. What they do have must be extremely limited and probably doesn't fit with other info and theories they'd like to believe.

It's understandable why any PsOI wouldn't want to talk freely about the night because if they did anything wrong (involving drugs for example) they'd likely face trumped up charges from LE/prosecution thinking that overcharging them would lead to them accepting a deal if they told what they know. But what if they've already told what they know? Then they'd be over-charged for a crime and have nothing to offer to get those charges reduced. Meanwhile, LE would be under pressure to seal the deal with the PsOI they have in custody.

As much as JR would be high on anyone's list of PsOI the fact that he came back to IU gives me some pause to wonder why he'd do that if he was really involved in her disappearance?