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

[AnalyticalExaminer]

BBM

The ONLY way to KNOW anything in this case, is to have been there.

Or to see it on camera. There is video evidence. CR's lawyer says CR is the guy on the tape - http://www.lohud.com/article/201106...ion-has-no-memory-their-last-moments-together. No one has contradicted him, whether LE or anyone else. Ergo CR is the guy on the tape. Can we put this to bed now?

 

[Darcyline]

Forgive me if I am missing something, but is the only proof that DB was JR's guest is that they liked the same page on facebook and DB was probably in the area?

Is there more insider source info I don't have about that?


Oh and I have never understood the logistics of people not believing CR was the person in the video with Lauren on the way to his place. I am all for playing with what we "know" and I agree that we know, for sure, very little. However, I am pretty confident that CR was with Lauren at Smallwood, something happened, and they made their way back to his place through the alley. I would be interested to see if anyone passed through right before or after that though!

 

[AnalyticalExaminer]

Forgive me if I am missing something, but is the only proof that DB was JR's guest is that they liked the same page on facebook and DB was probably in the area?

They are co-administrators of a page on facebook. There is also connecting evidence on twitter. They were in the same class at the same high school.

 

[Darcyline]

And JR is the only person he knows in the city/campus? I thought he had more friends/connections than that, but all insider sources seem to contradict one another. If JR is literally his only friend/person he knows there than that makes more sense.

 

[AnalyticalExaminer]

And JR is the only person he knows in the city/campus?

I wouldn't know how many people he knows. But we know JR had a guest from home at the same time DB was in town, and we know that DB:
1) was in the same high school class (approximately 200 people),
2) is in the same fraternity (at a different school), and
3) is good enough friends with JR to be co-administrators of a FB group.

I'd say there is very good circumstantial evidence that DB was JR's guest.

 

[AnalyticalExaminer]

Im not gonna just take the word of a roommate-a roommate would most certainly lie for u-or at the very least believe his roommate had nothing to do with something so horrible.

Really? He would most certainly lie when being caught lying could result in five years in prison and/or a quarter-million-dollar fine for making false statements to the federal government (FBI)? The only reason someone would do that, in my opinion, is if they were guilty themselves.

I am of the opinion that everything, or almost everything, that has been told to LE is true. The real issue, I think, is what has not been told to LE, and who has not talked to them.

 

[Walker]

In the Morgan Harrington case, a newspaper delivery woman, Norma Parson, claims to have witnessed MH leaving a room on the “Lawn” at UVA at 3:45am with three men after the night she attended the Metallica concert with companions. Her testimony was not included in the official LE timeline.

Similarly, in this case, the bartender’s testimony that she saw LS at 3:38 am @ 10th & College Avenue with a "mystery man" has not been included in the official LE timeline.

http://tonygatto.wordpress.com/2011...n-spierer-mystery-encounter-with-unknown-man/

In the MH case, posters discussed why Ms. Parson’s testimony was apparently discounted.

The general conclusion was that the LE timeline consists only of indisputable facts (like videotape images) and eyewitness testimony corroborated by another eyewitness or physical evidence.

In this case, we notice that the bartender’s uncorroborated testimony is not part of the timeline, but JR’s testimony is included. Therefore, JR’s testimony is most likely supported by some other source or physical evidence.

http://www.readthehook.com/69512/missing-pieces-witnesses-share-their-tales-morgan-sightings

Quote from above link:

"It's well established that confidence and accuracy are not clearly correlated," says UCLA Law Professor Jennifer Mnookin, an evidence expert. Mnookin says that's the reason police confirm every alleged sighting and look for multiple witnesses or surveillance tapes before releasing new reports.

 

[Jupiter812]

I'm suspicious of this co-administration of a Web site. Was the reveal of JR's FB "Like" of Inspill a system snafu--was it supposed to stay private? (I do understand that in order to administrate, JR must Like the page. ) If not, then why are JR and DB making themselves intentionally conspicuous? One thought: to send a message, Can't get us.


Anyone know the meaning of "Inspill"? Translation?

 

[Jupiter812]

In the Morgan Harrington case, a newspaper delivery woman, Norma Parson, claims to have witnessed MH leaving a room on the “Lawn” at UVA at 3:45am with three men after the night she attended the Metallica concert with companions. Her testimony was not included in the official LE timeline.

Similarly, in this case, the bartender’s testimony that she saw LS at 3:38 am @ 10th & College Avenue with a "mystery man" has not been included in the official LE timeline.

http://tonygatto.wordpress.com/2011...n-spierer-mystery-encounter-with-unknown-man/

In the MH case, posters discussed why Ms. Parson’s testimony was apparently discounted.

The general conclusion was that the LE timeline consists only of indisputable facts (like videotape images) and eyewitness testimony corroborated by another eyewitness or physical evidence.

In this case, we notice that the bartender’s uncorroborated testimony is not part of the timeline, but JR’s testimony is included. Therefore, JR’s testimony is most likely supported by some other source or physical evidence.

http://www.readthehook.com/69512/missing-pieces-witnesses-share-their-tales-morgan-sightings

Quote from above link:

That was interesting and educational.

If Bloomington PD abide by the same rule then perhaps they have talked to any others who were at JR's, but why wouldn't they say so? They would not have to name names.

 

[AnalyticalExaminer]

In this case, we notice that the bartender’s uncorroborated testimony is not part of the timeline, but JR’s testimony is included. Therefore, JR’s testimony is most likely supported by some other source or physical evidence.

I disagree. While JR's testimony is likely "supported" by his polygraph (and I believe it may be true), I believe LE included it on the timeline because it is where LS was last placed by a witness.

 

[Jupiter812]

I'm suspicious of this co-administration of a Web site. Was the reveal of JR's FB "Like" of Inspill a system snafu--was it supposed to stay private? (I do understand that in order to administrate, JR must Like the page. ) If not, then why are JR and DB making themselves intentionally conspicuous? One thought: to send a message, Can't get us.


Anyone know the meaning of "Inspill"? Translation?

Another thought of why JR and DB might co-host a FB page would be to get visitors and Likes (and ISP addresses if poss.) in order to solve the mystery of who is behind the JRNTT blogs.

 

[imkeylime]

I'm suspicious of this co-administration of a Web site. Was the reveal of JR's FB "Like" of Inspill a system snafu--was it supposed to stay private? (I do understand that in order to administrate, JR must Like the page. ) If not, then why are JR and DB making themselves intentionally conspicuous? One thought: to send a message, Can't get us.


Anyone know the meaning of "Inspill"? Translation?

Check out the link below ... a software program in development at UofM, as I read it. But I'm a technical mess ...

https://twitter.com/#!/inspill

 

[bessie]

I disagree. While JR's testimony is likely "supported" by his polygraph (and I believe it may be true), I believe LE included it on the timeline because it is where LS was last placed by a witness.

You lost me, AE. Which witness? JR? Polygraph notwithstanding, why is his word any more credible than the bar manager's?

 

[jjenny]

You lost me, AE. Which witness? JR? Polygraph notwithstanding, why is his word any more credible than the bar manager's?

Presumably because JR actually knew LS so he couldn't have confused her with anyone else.

 

[bx2]

I'm suspicious of this co-administration of a Web site. Was the reveal of JR's FB "Like" of Inspill a system snafu--was it supposed to stay private? (I do understand that in order to administrate, JR must Like the page. ) If not, then why are JR and DB making themselves intentionally conspicuous? One thought: to send a message, Can't get us.


Anyone know the meaning of "Inspill"? Translation?

The facebook co-admin group appears to be several years old with the only remaining post looking particularly ironic. I don't think it was anything planned by them in relation to this case.

There was a facebook change to where you can target things on your page to specific groups, public, friends, etc within a day or so of his "like" appearing to those of us that previously couldn't see anything. Again, I don't see anything nefarious behind it, merely that he knows some of the people behind it (it's some kind of new media start-up).

 

[bessie]

Presumably because JR actually knew LS so he couldn't have confused her with anyone else.

I considered that before I asked the question, Jenny, but AE's post seemed to indicate something different.

 

[bx2]

I considered that before I asked the question, Jenny, but AE's post seemed to indicate something different.

Listen to JQ explain the police timeline http://www.idsnews.com/news/multimedia/media.aspx?id=39596&type=m.

He does take care to note the differences between points notated by video and that the rest is based solely on witness testimony.

I do also notice that he is clarifying that original 3:15-3:30 video sighting to what we now know was 2:48 and 2:51 and has caused a lot of the confusion with some of the earlier MSM aritcles. The audio is from 6/16. Parker's apparent discounting of the 3:38 witness was on 6/10. Was LE still operating under the incorrect assumption that LS was walking through the alley at 3:15-3:30 when they were listening to the 3:38 witness?

 

[AnalyticalExaminer]

You lost me, AE. Which witness? JR? Polygraph notwithstanding, why is his word any more credible than the bar manager's?

Which witness = JR. I wasn't deeming him more credible, only more relevant - his is the last claim in time to see her and therefore the last point on the timeline. And I add, in that regard, that LE was careful to note that JR's account was not corroborated.

As to credibility, though, I do think the poly counts for something, and I think the fact that the mystery witness has not been credited may suggest that she did not take or pass a polygraph (or that there were other indicia that she was not credible, such that no poly was necessary, though I'm unsure what these would be). (Of course, I still retain a little belief in the possibility that JR was publicly credited, but privately discredited, with the reverse true of the mystery witness)

 

[phantomthought]

I'm struggling a bit to convey that I think most of what you say above is completely reasonable, but at the same time operating under some assumptions that we just have no idea if they are true. Yes, its fine to surmise that he would talk to her at some point in the night, but we have no idea when this did or didn't happen. We don't know if there was any rational structure to their plans or if it was as simple as, give me a call when you want to hang out. We don't even know that there was any such plans, only that HT is providing secondhand (at the least?) info from him. We just can't know what the context to the plans was.

We are definitely missing something from this story.If we go by what we know from HT and JW roommate they had plans to get together after the game that night but neither one of them tried to call the other or at least until after she lost her phone which would have been after 2:30 in the morning.That does not seam to make any sense to me.If I am remembering correctly the roommate said he did get or make any calls and HT said JW could no longer get in touch with her because she had left her phone at Kilroys.

 

[akh]

It would be pretty hard not to use JR in the timeline because he knows LS and seems to be claiming to be the last one to see her that morning (unless we're not privy to something with that info). Even if LE is skeptical how can they not use that info? If they started scrubbing testimony from POI's from the timeline because they can't verify it or are skeptical of it they'd have little left.

Not only could releasing that info immediately helped to find LS, it could also serve to exonerate or implicate JR because it could lead to someone otherwise unattached to the case in the public being able to confirm or discredit that report and portion of the timeline.