IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #32

[sammi89]

I've been thinking about this quote and what it means to have 'control or 'right of control' over a person...

For ex. what if this was a sexual assault case, and not a missing person case... Just hypothetically, imagine if, the morning of June 3rd, Lauren had woken up in CR's bed. The last thing she remembers is him buying her shots at Kilroys. She looks in the mirror and realizes she is covered in bruises and has black eyes. She gets home and... what? Her roommates would see her black eyes and be horrified. She would hear rumors from the night before from other people and find out that there were multiple witnesses who had seen this scene unfold -- That people had told Corey to bring her home, that there had been a fight, that he had taken her out of Smallwood, told people he was in control of the situation, and carried her back to his place.

What would have happened if she was scared/ angry/ confused about what happened the night before or if she suspected she could have been drugged and had gone to the police?

Around the same time Lauren disappeared, a student at IU was charged with sexual assault. Like this case, he was witnessed by several people bringing an intoxicated girl home. Also like this case, when people saw him dragging a girl down the street and asked if everything was okay and if the girl needed help, he answered for her and said "No, it's okay. I've got it".

He was charged with rape, sexual battery and criminal confinement. Eventually the rape charges were dropped in a plea deal, and he was sentenced to 5 years, is on the sexual offenders registry and was kicked out of IU. http://bl-ids-website.ads.iu.edu/news/story.aspx?id=80090

So, I keep thinking about this case for two reasons.

First, arguing that one didn't have 'control or the right of control' over a person implies that they had control over their own actions, doesn't it? In the Yu case, the key evidence for the assault and criminal confinement charges seems to be the witnesses and video that showed that the victim was too impaired to be in control of herself. This led to Yu's admission in his guilty plea:



This is a missing person case, not a sexual assault case, so obviously the issues are different. But if it can be established that Lauren was not physically/ mentally able to consent to being taken by CR to 5 N, I'm not sure how he can absolve himself of responsibility by claiming he had no control or 'right of control' over her a few minutes later.

Second, this case was in the news around the time of Lauren's disappearance. If you click on the IDS link, you'll see that it links up to several articles about the case. We've talked a lot about the 5 N guys fearing the consequences of their involvement with drugs if something happened to Lauren, but this case reminds me that the possibility of being charged with sexual assault could have been a real fear. Regardless of CR's intentions or what happened when they got back to 5 N, having a girl wake up in your apartment with no memory of what happened and black eyes could be really bad... especially if you knew there were witnesses who had called you out on acting aggressively/ inappropriately before you had carried her home.

Just thinking 'outloud'.... it's quiet in here!

BBM

I agree with the above but wanted to add since I think it is so important that CR was actually approached by others and asked if LS was okay and he said that he had it under control. Don't those statements imply that he actually did have control of her and/or the situation (which I understood to be handling LS or perhaps even ensuring she was, in fact, "okay")?

I am unsure of the judge or law in IN but I truly think there is at least an argument that, if the Spierers can demonstrate that LS was in no shape to ensure her own safety and had in fact been placed in "danger," and that these boys recognized it, that they did have some kind of minimum duty to make sure she was okay, especially if the Spierers can demonstrate that the boys played a hand in creating the danger (providing alcohol, perhaps even CR's trek back to 5N with LS & head head slams if by refusing help and there is enough evidence LS was not with it), but I think it would have to be the combined effects of everything that night and it seems harder because when things got bad, LS only appeared with one POI at a time (CR's convenient amnesia put him to bed).

I do wonder if there is some strategy in getting MB dismissed... I.e., CR was the one with her while she was in "danger" (took her back to Smallwood when she was seemingly not okay, took her from Smallwood, was assisting her when she hit her head, etc. Etc.) but CR might argue that he was soon in bad shape himself and passed her off to MB who passed her off to JR. JR can then argue that he had never put her in harm's way/perhaps did not even know how her injuries occurred and did not have any duties therefore to ensure her safety? Especially because he did his "tests?" It just seems like it might be harder for the Spierers to argue their case when there is Part B. CR's actions (without JR present) & Part C. JR's actions (without CR) although there IS Part A where both JR and CR were at JR's party with LS, right? However, she was probably in relatively good shape at that point in the night.

 

[Dixie811]

If MB is dismissed in the civil suit… anyone think that will make him more likely to talk regarding JR and CR's civil suits? He will still be deposed in those suits, right?

Doubtful, I guess since I don't see him wanting to go on the record with anything he doesn't want to be brought against him in a criminal case.

 

[Kadence]

I've been thinking about this quote and what it means to have 'control or 'right of control' over a person...

For ex. what if this was a sexual assault case, and not a missing person case... Just hypothetically, imagine if, the morning of June 3rd, Lauren had woken up in CR's bed. The last thing she remembers is him buying her shots at Kilroys. She looks in the mirror and realizes she is covered in bruises and has black eyes. She gets home and... what? Her roommates would see her black eyes and be horrified. She would hear rumors from the night before from other people and find out that there were multiple witnesses who had seen this scene unfold -- That people had told Corey to bring her home, that there had been a fight, that he had taken her out of Smallwood, told people he was in control of the situation, and carried her back to his place.

What would have happened if she was scared/ angry/ confused about what happened the night before or if she suspected she could have been drugged and had gone to the police?

Around the same time Lauren disappeared, a student at IU was charged with sexual assault. Like this case, he was witnessed by several people bringing an intoxicated girl home. Also like this case, when people saw him dragging a girl down the street and asked if everything was okay and if the girl needed help, he answered for her and said "No, it's okay. I've got it".

He was charged with rape, sexual battery and criminal confinement. Eventually the rape charges were dropped in a plea deal, and he was sentenced to 5 years, is on the sexual offenders registry and was kicked out of IU. http://bl-ids-website.ads.iu.edu/news/story.aspx?id=80090

So, I keep thinking about this case for two reasons.

First, arguing that one didn't have 'control or the right of control' over a person implies that they had control over their own actions, doesn't it? In the Yu case, the key evidence for the assault and criminal confinement charges seems to be the witnesses and video that showed that the victim was too impaired to be in control of herself. This led to Yu's admission in his guilty plea:

This is a missing person case, not a sexual assault case, so obviously the issues are different. But if it can be established that Lauren was not physically/ mentally able to consent to being taken by CR to 5 N, I'm not sure how he can absolve himself of responsibility by claiming he had no control or 'right of control' over her a few minutes later.

Second, this case was in the news around the time of Lauren's disappearance. If you click on the IDS link, you'll see that it links up to several articles about the case. We've talked a lot about the 5 N guys fearing the consequences of their involvement with drugs if something happened to Lauren, but this case reminds me that the possibility of being charged with sexual assault could have been a real fear. Regardless of CR's intentions or what happened when they got back to 5 N, having a girl wake up in your apartment with no memory of what happened and black eyes could be really bad... especially if you knew there were witnesses who had called you out on acting aggressively/ inappropriately before you had carried her home.

Just thinking 'outloud'.... it's quiet in here!

Thank you for posting this case Abbey, I think the decision in this case is going to be pivotal in the Spierer case, particularly the BBM part, also, IBM, we don't know this but it may very well be the case, as you have shared, and I suspect you may be correct.

Question for all, since the lawsuit against MB was dismissed, does this mean, should he speak, "turn state's evidence", that he is immune from prosecution, like maybe a double jeopardy situation? I know he wasn't tried but I'm wondering where he would stand legally if he did decide to talk?

 

[Sunrisenow]

Parents of missing IU student Lauren Spierer request confidentiality of some court documents

http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/fr...cle_f9ffe1cc-7bf4-5217-8286-b8664273d3bf.html

 

[sammi89]

Thank you for posting this case Abbey, I think the decision in this case is going to be pivotal in the Spierer case, particularly the BBM part, also, IBM, we don't know this but it may very well be the case, as you have shared, and I suspect you may be correct.

Question for all, since the lawsuit against MB was dismissed, does this mean, should he speak, "turn state's evidence", that he is immune from prosecution, like maybe a double jeopardy situation? I know he wasn't tried but I'm wondering where he would stand legally if he did decide to talk?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure that criminal and civil are totally separate so if MB were involved, he would have reason to plead the 5th or otherwise not be forthcoming. Even if he is forced to talk, I'm not sure that there would be any way to really know if it was the truth, an outright lie, or misleading.

However, I do think that whatever is said might be useful for LE and/or the Spierers because if anything new is revealed, they can go out and try to verify it which, at best, might produce new leads for them.

 

[sammi89]

Parents of missing IU student Lauren Spierer request confidentiality of some court documents

http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/fr...cle_f9ffe1cc-7bf4-5217-8286-b8664273d3bf.html

Wow. Interesting. Comments were pretty harsh on the Spierers. I get their point of view but the request was so vague that I'm not sure why some people are so upset.

This article included what the Spierers' attorney had to say:

The Spierers’ attorneys say releasing that information publicly could interfere with the investigation into Lauren Spierer’s disappearance and impede the seating of an impartial jury.

http://www.lohud.com/viewart/201401...sing-IU-student-s-parents-want-lawsuit-sealed

I wonder if the Spierers do have additional evidence that hasn't panned out and is not sufficient for a criminal case? I wonder too if one of the nonparties is referring to DR and what DR & LS were up to earlier? DR is the one who came forward on his own, correct? I'm sure the Spierers want to protect their own daughter's image, but maybe they are also trying to protect those who have come forward with information voluntarily? Maybe whatever supposedly freaked JW out initially, or further information from ZO & co.?

I'm a little skeptical that it would be just that LS was involved in any drug activity because that rumor has been around such a long time anyway. JR has asserted he heard LS was taking something with DR and the whole claim predicates on the basis that LS was already intoxicated when CR & JR gave her more to drink, so I think it is safe to assume that CR & JR would bring it up as a defense anyway.

 

[Jmoose]

Wow. Interesting. Comments were pretty harsh on the Spierers. I get their point of view but the request was so vague that I'm not sure why some people are so upset.

This article included what the Spierers' attorney had to say:


http://www.lohud.com/viewart/201401...sing-IU-student-s-parents-want-lawsuit-sealed

I wonder if the Spierers do have additional evidence that hasn't panned out and is not sufficient for a criminal case? I wonder too if one of the nonparties is referring to DR and what DR & LS were up to earlier? DR is the one who came forward on his own, correct? I'm sure the Spierers want to protect their own daughter's image, but maybe they are also trying to protect those who have come forward with information voluntarily? Maybe whatever supposedly freaked JW out initially, or further information from ZO & co.?

I'm a little skeptical that it would be just that LS was involved in any drug activity because that rumor has been around such a long time anyway. JR has asserted he heard LS was taking something with DR and the whole claim predicates on the basis that LS was already intoxicated when CR & JR gave her more to drink, so I think it is safe to assume that CR & JR would bring it up as a defense anyway.

BBM-this is what I was thinking, too-there's been so much speculation since Lauren disappeared about the events of the night and her particular activities, that it doesn't make sense that her parents would try to hide what most here already suspect. I think the Spierers are trying to protect somebody other than their daughter.

 

[imkeylime]

... It will be interesting to see what happens with CR's 'amnesia' in the civil case.

Snipped by me. True about CR's "amnesia." But IMO, MB really holds the key here. He's the missing link. He's either covering for CR re: amnesia or he's easily snowballed. Or both.

Also, I'm still here with you. Both of my kids had health crises during the holidays, but I'm here. I check in but don't always have time to post, but Lauren is on my mind!

 

[AbbeyR]

Yeah, I find the comments a little baffling (but not really surprising given the usual HT commentators!) I would assume the Spierers really are just looking for answers and want to keep the information low key to protect a possible criminal case and that their interest is not to make the people involved the focus of further public scrutiny. I would have imagined that those who are concerned about the reputations of the POI would welcome this. Huh.

I felt kind of reassured reading this article, thinking that there is likely a lot that they know, that we don't.

 

[AbbeyR]

Hi Keylime :seeya:, Sorry to hear about your kids -- hope they are okay now and all is well!

 

[Dixie811]

Yeah, I find the comments a little baffling (but not really surprising given the usual HT commentators!) I would assume the Spierers really are just looking for answers and want to keep the information low key to protect a possible criminal case and that their interest is not to make the people involved the focus of further public scrutiny. I would have imagined that those who are concerned about the reputations of the POI would welcome this. Huh.

I felt kind of reassured reading this article, thinking that there is likely a lot that they know, that we don't.

I agree. There must be some information included in that paperwork that hasn't been released-- for a reason. I don't know whether it's a little information, or a lot of information, but it does seem to be sensitive information. Which, IMO, is good news- if and when the case breaks. Really glad to know that the Spierer's and LE have knowledge that we don't.


______________________________

Just had a thought. I agree with all of the posters who stated that I don't think the Spierer's would request confidentiality of the documents if it were information about drugs. I think it is already common knowledge that this group of kids, and probably Lauren, had some level of involvement with drugs and definitely with alcohol.

One thing I can see the Spierer's being more sensitive about is something of a sexual nature. I could be way off base-- but that certainly isn't information that anyone wants plastered to the media about their daughter.

 

[imkeylime]

Hi Keylime :seeya:, Sorry to hear about your kids -- hope they are okay now and all is well!

Thanks, Abbey! Daughter is good, son getting good care ... and I have a broken wrist! Not a good story. But I can type now and will be participating more soon.

The request re: privacy is a bit baffling, but I agree that it could concern DR or maybe even what went on in the alley. LE seemed to hem and haw a bit about that. Edited to add: or maybe something to do with the fake ID (although so not uncommon).

 

[ontheclock]

Parents of missing IU student Lauren Spierer request confidentiality of some court documents

http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/fr...cle_f9ffe1cc-7bf4-5217-8286-b8664273d3bf.html

Does anyone know if this is standard procedure in civil cases with ongoing criminal investigations? I don't agree with some of the comments under the article - the one's insinuating that the Spierers are trying to hide sensitive information that would put Lauren in a bad light.

P.S. good for them, one way or the other.

 

[imkeylime]

Does anyone know if this is standard procedure in civil cases with ongoing criminal investigations? I don't agree with some of the comments under the article - the one's insinuating that the Spierers are trying to hide sensitive information that would put Lauren in a bad light.

P.S. good for them, one way or the other.

I definitely agree, ontheclock. IDK about standard procedure, but IMO, Lauren should have some protection, since she can't speak for herself. We've seen the efforts of "friends" like HT to indict her.

 

[ontheclock]

I definitely agree, ontheclock. IDK about standard procedure, but IMO, Lauren should have some protection, since she can't speak for herself. We've seen the efforts of "friends" like HT to indict her.

If the Spierers have legal options to suppress information, I'm all for it. This is a civil case, and if the info needs to be confidential, so be it. You're right, Lauren needs protection, whether it's her reputation or not.

 

[Ros]

I can understand the need to keep some information confidential because of the ongoing criminal investigation. However, if that information is relevant to the criminal investigation, I don't understand why the documents containing that information would be destroyed 30 days after final disposition of the civil case.

And although the public (including ourselves) is curious about what went on that night, the public has neither a need or right to know that information. It seems that LE would have a need and right to know that information, however.

 

[Ros]

I saw some information in one of the HeraldTimes comments that I don't recall seeing before:
American Girl posted at 3:13 pm on Thu, Jan 30, 2014.

She said that the citizen search parties found her DL in a yard at 12th and Walnut, and a bracelet similar or identical to the one she was wearing was found just off a nearby alley, along with a pair of panties.

I do recall an early comment stating that her (fake?) ID was found a couple of blocks from where she was last seen, which was why I found it significant that JR said she still had her fake ID and her Smallwood key card when she left and that Kilroy's was cited based on the discrepancies between her appearance and the information on her fake ID. Also, I recall a some early suspicion surrounding House Bar (at 12th and Walnut).

It is still mysterious how she would have carried her ID and keycard in a way that she did not lose them with her other things on her way north, but JR would know she still had them.

 

[imkeylime]

I saw some information in one of the HeraldTimes comments that I don't recall seeing before:
American Girl posted at 3:13 pm on Thu, Jan 30, 2014.

She said that the citizen search parties found her DL in a yard at 12th and Walnut, and a bracelet similar or identical to the one she was wearing was found just off a nearby alley, along with a pair of panties.

I do recall an early comment stating that her (fake?) ID was found a couple of blocks from where she was last seen, which was why I found it significant that JR said she still had her fake ID and her Smallwood key card when she left and that Kilroy's was cited based on the discrepancies between her appearance and the information on her fake ID.

It is still mysterious how she would have carried her ID and keycard in a way that she did not lose them with her other things on her way north, but JR would know she still had them.

I also saw the comment, Ros. If true, I wonder if she could have had the fake ID and keycard on her person. She had on leggings and a tank, covered with a button-down shirt. Did the button-down shirt have a pocket? I can't find the pix right now. Maybe her real "DL" (driver's license) was in her wristlet? That seems kind of risky, though ... to carry both to Sports.

I do remember a rumor about panties but nothing about a bracelet. It would be significant if true, obviously.

Could it be that CR had her keycard and fake ID in his pocket and gave it to MB? That could tie into going back to SW ... maybe she had the keycard and fake ID accessible if they planned on returning to Sports after SW. It's definitely confusing. And then there's the jacket she was carrying when first leaving SW ... we've never heard a thing about where that ended up. I'd think that had pockets. ???

 

[doubtingthomas]

We know from reports that LS left SW and went with DR to 5N. My questions is: has it ever been stated why she went with DR? Did she select DR because:

He was the only male at SW that she knew at that time of the morning
She knew he had drugs with him and wanted some
She wanted someone to walk with her for security reasons
Combination of all three

We know LS had been to 5N prior with HT and the walk was only a few blocks away so she would have known the way. So why ask someone to walk with you. The fact that DR left and returned back to SW tells me she just wanted someone to walk with her.

So, if it was for security reasons then why would she opt for walking home from JR’s some 4 hours later without anyone? You might say she was not in the right frame of mind at that time, but JR claims she passed the walking test and she was using his phone to make calls. If she was in a frame of mind to do these things why walk home by yourself when you asked someone to walk with you 4 hours earlier?

 

[AbbeyR]

I saw some information in one of the HeraldTimes comments that I don't recall seeing before:
American Girl posted at 3:13 pm on Thu, Jan 30, 2014.

She said that the citizen search parties found her DL in a yard at 12th and Walnut, and a bracelet similar or identical to the one she was wearing was found just off a nearby alley, along with a pair of panties.

I do recall an early comment stating that her (fake?) ID was found a couple of blocks from where she was last seen, which was why I found it significant that JR said she still had her fake ID and her Smallwood key card when she left and that Kilroy's was cited based on the discrepancies between her appearance and the information on her fake ID. Also, I recall a some early suspicion surrounding House Bar (at 12th and Walnut).

It is still mysterious how she would have carried her ID and keycard in a way that she did not lose them with her other things on her way north, but JR would know she still had them.

Yes, the rumor about the fake ID being found at 12th and Walnut was originally posted by an anon commentator in an HT article. The details posted about the ID didn't match up with the information that was later reported in the articles about Kilroy's being fined though, so I'm skeptical.

I've always been puzzled by JR's mention of the fake ID though, and agree that it seems strange that she could have still been holding it when she got to his apt. I wonder if he provided this info before or after the rumor about the ID being found in the street.