IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #30

[akh]

I think it's dismissive to say this lawsuit is about 'fishing'. It's about holding people responsible for their actions, and it does have a legal basis. That's why the POI been crafting their defense since day one, IMO.

Sounds like fishing to me...

“We hope no one will misinterpret this action. Any parent in search of information about a missing child would use every resource available to them. Therefore, we intend to use the rights afforded by the civil justice system to obtain answers to questions that have gone unanswered for too long. We fully expect that those with relevant information will cooperate with this process.”

...and there's nothing wrong with that. Especially if you believe this case was fast heading nowhere with options dwindling.

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

Some of the points copied from: http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wthr/PDF/spiererlawsuit.pdf



Even though we knew just about all of this, it made me sad and angry to read. If anyone thought that people were 'exaggerating' Lauren's condition, do you still think so now?

I am so glad I waited till I got home to read this report. :cry: I know that Lauren's parents didn't prepare the document (a lawyer did), but I remember going over my divorce papers with my attorney and it makes me sick to imagine them going over the suit with theirs. As you said we knew just about all of it and we have heard from her parents many times before (and each time it was freshly heartbreaking).

:rose: Lauren

 

[reedus23]

If the facts are as the parents present them, I don't see how MB will be civilly on the hook for this. There's no way, under the circumstances, that he had a legal duty of care beyond walking her to the home of a closer friend. I think he actually might be able to get the complaint against him dismissed at the summary judgment stage (which requires that the complaint fail to state a proper claim, assuming all of the facts therein are true).

I just heard about this lawsuit and have not kept up real close on the case. Are the parents looking for money or are they looking for answers? If it is the latter, even if a claim is dismissed at the summary judgment stage, they still likely would have gotten answers. Doubtful a judge will grant such a motion without discovery having been conducted.

 

[Dixie811]

I just heard about this lawsuit and have not kept up real close on the case. Are the parents looking for money or are they looking for answers? If it is the latter, even if a claim is dismissed at the summary judgment stage, they still likely would have gotten answers. Doubtful a judge will grant such a motion without discovery having been conducted.

Answers, they are looking for the truth. I don't believe this suit is in any way financially motivated.

 

[sammi89]

I think everyone saw this coming and I'm happy that the Spierers came to a decision on whether or not to go forward with such a suit before they would have been barred by the statute of limitations.

General Comments
Is this sort of suit barred from naming John Doe/fictitious defendants? Just curious, it seems like there could be individuals unknown at the time the suit was commenced that might be learned later during discovery (ex: JR guests) that could be liable.

I think the Spierers might have an argument against MB by stating he took on the duty to care for Spierer when she asked to go to her apartment and he took her to JR's, but obviously all of this is wholly dependant on which story MB decides to give. I think they might still be able to call him as a witness though, right? Obviously, none of these might win such a case for them, but if the goal is just to get in front of the judge, it might be enough for a judge to permit the suit against MB.

On drugs not being mentioned, specifically roofies, it might be a waste of time if there has been no proof and no body to autopsy. That doesn't mean it didn't happen given the supposed decline in her behavior, but legally, it is obviously going to be much easier to argue the know substances (i.e., alcohol). The only inference I take from that it that no one has stepped forward saying they either witnessed CR/JR/MB roofie her and/or CR/JR/MB told some kind of witness, nor is there video evidence. Still possible given how she supposedly was acting, but there is just nothing there (legally) to support it (yet).


I wouldn't characterize the suit as a fishing expedition just because it sounds negative to me lol. Legally, time was almost out to file and it seems like their claims have at least some merit. Maybe a judge won't find them persuasive and find in their favor, but I think their goal is more just to get the case in and ideally find some leads and/or answers. If that's what is meant by fishing, then I agree with those general comments too.

Also, I find it really hard to believe that LE would be 100% against the filing just because. They're humans too and it probably helped that the Spierers seemed to have waited until the last possible moment to file. They probably advised them on the risks to a criminal case, but I would think they probably understand, at least on a human level. I'm sure it wasn't an easy decision for the Spierers, especially because of the potential harm to a later criminal case.

 

[elmorejames]

Hadn't seen this article linked yet.

http://www.indianapolismonthly.com/...update-lawsuit-targets-last-people-to-see-her

They actually call out the MB discrepancy in what his lawyer told them vs. what is alleged in the lawsuit. CR also now saying his harassment claims reported by Lohud were falsified by the author.

Ummm what I find most interesting is that CR changed attorneys from Salzmann to Barclay.... Wonder who dropped who and why?

This is sort of a big deal. Two kids with two different lawyers once the heat was turned up.

 

[Jupiter812]

Ummm what I find most interesting is that CR changed attorneys from Salzmann to Barclay.... Wonder who dropped who and why?

This is sort of a big deal. Two kids with two different lawyers once the heat was turned up.

Barclay is the Spierer's atty; CR's attorney is now Richard R. Skiles who doesn't appear to be a heavyweight in this area of law.

It does make sense that the boys would hire new attys with different expertise to represent in the suit against them.

 

[AbbeyR]

On drugs not being mentioned, specifically roofies, it might be a waste of time if there has been no proof and no body to autopsy. That doesn't mean it didn't happen given the supposed decline in her behavior, but legally, it is obviously going to be much easier to argue the know substances (i.e., alcohol). The only inference I take from that it that no one has stepped forward saying they either witnessed CR/JR/MB roofie her and/or CR/JR/MB told some kind of witness, nor is there video evidence. Still possible given how she supposedly was acting, but there is just nothing there (legally) to support it (yet).

I think social host liability only relates to alcohol, and there appears to be a lot of evidence that alcohol was a major factor, so I'm wondering if info on drugs would be necessary or relevant at this stage anyway...

I still have a feeling there will be more on this to come though.

 

[Ixchel13]

Kilroy's may also have done their job and asked that she leave; I think their actions would be part of the discovery process. Either side can request a jury or both sides can waive it, so not sure who that may benefit. In reality, I wonder if this case might be settled with just a meeting between the Spierers and each of the defendants, to try and get the answers that they want.

BBM That's wishful thinking, if only.

IMO, I think Kilroy's did what they have proven to have done in the past: serve underage people, get them drunk, then throw them out.
The "witnesses" from Kilroy's, mainly employees who had alot to lose
both possibly getting fired and causing someone to end up dead/missing--are the very ones who started the drug rumors--that Lauren was admitting to
being on two or three different drugs. And of course they will back each other up. I don't believe Lauren was telling them how many different drugs she was on.
The Spierers' probably aren't going after Kilroy's because they want the end result, not the beginning, and to pinpoint and focus on that. Kilroy's would turn the whole thing into a circus. They are basically saying, "oops, we made a mistake and served a minor, but then when she said she was on all these drugs, we did the right thing and kicked her out." BS!! How about this: it was 2:30, closing time, and after serving a minor and getting her drunk, not one drink but several, you told her to leave. Like they tell everyone to leave. And everyone's drunk. Business as usual.
I'll say it again. Kilroy's closed down for "remodelling" right after rumors, both from customers and employees, started about Lauren being in there that evening. They will say it was schedulled, but how convenient that no one was around to contradict what they said.
A while back, I think it was on PT, we calculated how much EXTRA money a bar like that makes when they serve those 1 or 2 drinks that put someone over the limit, not just over the limit, we were being generous, but getting them really drunk--and I think we came up with over 1 mil per month, they have several locations, ya know.
Since Kilroy's is privately owned, really now, how much money does one need? The staggering, heinous greed of these people has no end. From time to time, they get raided and LE is never empty handed when it comes to minors. Where was their public apology? Instead, those greedy pigs blamed the victim. Even if they aren't getting closed down for this, they should be.

 

[AbbeyR]

Also, keep in mind that in an odd twist, in making the case they are making they are not challenging the story that LS walked out of JR's apartment.

I didn't take this as a confirmation of JR's story one way or the other.

And what if their story is true and the only details they can add to the case as presented is details the parents already have but don't want to believe? What if they present a valid case that she wasn't the victim of a random crime leaving 5N but instead she went elsewhere after 5N, or the victim of a stalking?

What if which story is true? The Spierers still haven't spoken to Corey, and as you've reminded us, the POI have yet to say anything under oath, so can't be held accountable for anything.

I would assume that the Spierers want to know the truth, whatever that may be.

What if they can show harassment by the Spierer's PI's and attorneys? Any of that could turn the jury. Particularly if the jury loses sympathy for the family and starts to see this case as a fishing trip and/or even another level of harassment.

How would they do that? Filing a lawsuit is their right, it's not harassment.

 

[Ixchel13]

I didn't take this as a confirmation of JR's story one way or the other.


What if which story is true? The Spierers still haven't spoken to Corey, and as you've reminded us, the POI have yet to say anything under oath, so can't be held accountable for anything.

I would assume that the Spierers want to know the truth, whatever that may be.



How would they do that? Filing a lawsuit is their right, it's not harassment.

IMO, both of you and Akh have valid points--they don't officially disagree
that Lauren walked out of JRs, but they are leaving it open. IMO, I think that's because even if they can't prove she didn't walk out on her own, they can still prove that JR let her leave in a dangerous position, which he already admits to doing.

Because we don't know, we will have to speculate their motives. But, it won't
be just a fishing expo. And let's not give MB a mulligan. He does have some useful info tho, because he thought they were burglars, meaning that he didn't expect CR back, meaning he may have known CR intended to stay at Lauren's. Meaning they were hounded from SW by a pack of drunk peers,
and IMO, I think her roommates were fueling this mob. Somehow, IMO, this got twisted around to everyone was upset that CR was not letting Lauren in her apt., when IMO they were barred from entering.

 

[AbbeyR]

[/B]

BBM That's wishful thinking, if only.

IMO, I think Kilroy's did what they have proven to have done in the past: serve underage people, get them drunk, then throw them out.
The "witnesses" from Kilroy's, mainly employees who had alot to lose
both possibly getting fired and causing someone to end up dead/missing--are the very ones who started the drug rumors--that Lauren was admitting to
being on two or three different drugs. And of course they will back each other up. I don't believe Lauren was telling them how many different drugs she was on.

I don't believe it either. That witness also said she was alone, and she wasn't. CR was buying her drinks during that hour, and no one has ever confirmed that she was kicked out. I thought it was an anonymous witness (were they ever identified as an employee from Kilroy's?) and Tony said here that he didn't talk to him/her directly and that (s)he wasn't reliable.

I still suspect this story was part of the POI campaign to make it seem like Lauren was out partying all alone that night, but JMO.

 

[AbbeyR]

IMO, both of you and Akh have valid points--they don't officially disagree
that Lauren walked out of JRs, but they are leaving it open. IMO, I think that's because even if they can't prove she didn't walk out on her own, they can still prove that JR let her leave in a dangerous position, which he already admits to doing.

Yes, exactly.

 

[akh]

I didn't take this as a confirmation of JR's story one way or the other.

I don't take it as a confirmation. More of they are just going to use JR's own words at face value and it's pretty much a lose-lose proposition for JR either way. They won't challenge that she didn't leave his apartment so they don't have to show he's lying (and give the jury more to think about). And they'll be free to try and paint a picture of her condition that could have the jury questioning whether she even left the apartment in the first place. But since the lawsuit doesn't challenge JR's claim that she did it won't matter in jury deliberations if a few believe she did leave his apartment and a few believe he's directly guilty (or with knowledge) of her disappearance.

I'm clipping these from your earlier post:

34. Unsuccessful at contacting others, Rosenbaum acknowledge that shortly thereafter he allowed Spierer to leave his residence on her own…

38. Spierer's abandonment in an intoxicated and disoriented state in the early morning hours of June 3, 2011 in an area known for criminal acts contributed to her disappearance, and presumed injuries and death

What if which story is true? The Spierers still haven't spoken to Corey, and as you've reminded us, the POI have yet to say anything under oath, so can't be held accountable for anything.

I would assume that the Spierers want to know the truth, whatever that may be.

What it really boils down to for this suit is how intoxicated was she? If the family can strongly imply or even show she was slipped something and have some kind of circumstantial evidence towards that then that would be almost game-set-match. OTOH, if it turns out this type of night wasn't out of the norm for her... and that the video and all the witnesses don't agree that she was totally out of it then this case won't be the slam dunk some are expecting.

She was 20 years old. If she wanted to go home, and was capable of walking, and if it appears she drank (or took drugs) of her own choosing, then the jury isn't going to automatically find for the plaintiffs. OTOH, if she was in such bad shape that she possibly needed medical attention and JR all but must've rolled her out of his apartment to get rid of her then the lawsuit is over and the plaintiffs' win. But there's a thousand things in between those two scenarios that could happen including the jury not liking the 5N guys and refusing to believe them at all to finding the parents so sympathetic that they want to do something for them even if they mostly believe the 5N guys being innocent of her disappearance.

OTOH, maybe once opposing counsel takes over maybe they are successful in painting this as a witch hunt and fishing expedition, or even a ploy to keep the case in the media... and the jury's sympathies began to turn... ?

Meanwhile, once this whole things gets out of the technical phase (summary judgment phase) and actually heads towards court it'll be interesting seeing if they all are willing to fight this straight up or simply roll over and provide nothing and accept a near certain loss?

I hope that the parents not only believe the 5N bunch to be directly involved but have tangible evidence of some kind. This lawsuit would set a mighty bad precedent for any cooperation in the future in a case like this because it appears the lawsuit is mainly based on the things that they've gleaned directly from the cooperation they have received.

How would they do that? Filing a lawsuit is their right, it's not harassment.

It most certainly is their right. But it's important that they use the system properly or else it could backfire.

 

[jjenny]

I am very curious about this "duty of care." Is that true? If I go out with someone and that someone gets drunk, am I therefore responsible for that someone's care? There is no evidence she has been slipped anything. The parents of the boyfriend claimed he normally would go party with her, therefore preventing the consequences such as happened on that night. I do find that plausible.

 

[Dixie811]

I don't personally feel that the Spierer's are not "using the system properly". They believe that if JR, MB, or CR would have sought medical attention for their daughter-- when she clearly wasn't able to do so for herself, that she would be present and alive today. I am inclined to agree with them.

I think that the "tangible evidence" the Spierer's have would be the video recordings from that night, particularly the one the PI's described in last year's lohud video of Lauren falling on her face in the alleyway and CR carrying her. Witness accounts of her being incoherent and slamming her head into the concrete help too.

There seems to be a lot of discussion about whether the Spierer's can ultimately win this suit or not. I don't think they care. I think they believe their suit is valid (as do I), and if they can just get through deposing the defendants (and I am admittedly not educated in civil suits, I don't know exactly when this would take place), then I think the Spierer's will have achieved what they wanted.

Just my opinion... I am enjoying reading everyone's posts!

 

[Dixie811]

I am very curious about this "duty of care." Is that true? If I go out with someone and that someone gets drunk, am I therefore responsible for that someone's care? There is no evidence she has been slipped anything. The parents of the boyfriend claimed he normally would go party with her, therefore preventing the consequences such as happened on that night. I do find that plausible.

CR and JR were both 21, while Lauren was just 20. According to the suit, CR purchased drinks for Lauren at Kilroy's and JR provided alcohol at his party that evening. So I don't know much about duty of care... but I am thinking their ages and that they were involved with serving her would be factored in. Combined with their failure to get her medical care when she was incoherent and seemingly injured.

For example, I don't think it is the same situation as two 21 year old's both going out and essentially serving themselves (purchasing the alcohol themselves). I don't know how duty of care would work in that case.

Hopefully someone else who actually knows the facts can chime in.

 

[SeaEclipse]

I think everyone saw this coming and I'm happy that the Spierers came to a decision on whether or not to go forward with such a suit before they would have been barred by the statute of limitations.

General Comments
Is this sort of suit barred from naming John Doe/fictitious defendants? Just curious, it seems like there could be individuals unknown at the time the suit was commenced that might be learned later during discovery (ex: JR guests) that could be liable.

I think the Spierers might have an argument against MB by stating he took on the duty to care for Spierer when she asked to go to her apartment and he took her to JR's, but obviously all of this is wholly dependant on which story MB decides to give. I think they might still be able to call him as a witness though, right? Obviously, none of these might win such a case for them, but if the goal is just to get in front of the judge, it might be enough for a judge to permit the suit against MB.

On drugs not being mentioned, specifically roofies, it might be a waste of time if there has been no proof and no body to autopsy. That doesn't mean it didn't happen given the supposed decline in her behavior, but legally, it is obviously going to be much easier to argue the know substances (i.e., alcohol). The only inference I take from that it that no one has stepped forward saying they either witnessed CR/JR/MB roofie her and/or CR/JR/MB told some kind of witness, nor is there video evidence. Still possible given how she supposedly was acting, but there is just nothing there (legally) to support it (yet).


I wouldn't characterize the suit as a fishing expedition just because it sounds negative to me lol. Legally, time was almost out to file and it seems like their claims have at least some merit. Maybe a judge won't find them persuasive and find in their favor, but I think their goal is more just to get the case in and ideally find some leads and/or answers. If that's what is meant by fishing, then I agree with those general comments too.

Also, I find it really hard to believe that LE would be 100% against the filing just because. They're humans too and it probably helped that the Spierers seemed to have waited until the last possible moment to file. They probably advised them on the risks to a criminal case, but I would think they probably understand, at least on a human level. I'm sure it wasn't an easy decision for the Spierers, especially because of the potential harm to a later criminal case.

Im sorry, but there is no way MB had a legal duty of care to bring Lauren to a particular apartment simply because she requested it. He didn't invite her over, host the gathering at JR's, go to Kilroy's or bring her back to his apartment. Finding a drunk girl in your apartment almost certainly creates no affirmative duty of care; certainly any duty would be satisfied by trying to get her to stay and then leaving her with a closer friend of hers.

 

[akh]

I don't personally feel that the Spierer's are not "using the system properly". They believe that if JR, MB, or CR would have sought medical attention for their daughter-- when she clearly wasn't able to do so for herself, that she would be present and alive today. I am inclined to agree with them.

I think that the "tangible evidence" the Spierer's have would be the video recordings from that night, particularly the one the PI's described in last year's lohud video of Lauren falling on her face in the alleyway and CR carrying her. Witness accounts of her being incoherent and slamming her head into the concrete help too.

Was that a video account or a witness account?

I know it was reported (take the word 'report' FWIW) that the Spierer's haven't seen some of the videos... I'm just not sure if they've seen any. I don't think LE is apt to share evidence, even with the PI's. So unless copies existed for the PI's to get from a private source, or else they found video that LE missed, I'm just not sure how much video evidence the Spierer's have.. or even will be able to get for this civil suit. That is a point I'd be interested in knowing.

There seems to be a lot of discussion about whether the Spierer's can ultimately win this suit or not. I don't think they care. I think they believe their suit is valid (as do I), and if they can just get through deposing the defendants (and I am admittedly not educated in civil suits, I don't know exactly when this would take place), then I think the Spierer's will have achieved what they wanted.

But the point is they could learn nothing from the depositions either due to "I don't recall" type answers, pleading of the 5th, or simply because they've been told everything there is from 5N. So once the depos are completed will they drop the case or will they see it thru even if they can see there will be no new answers coming? I think they will see it thru. I think they are going to hope somebody can't afford the judgment and cracks and tells them something different. But what if nobody cracks? What if they are telling the truth and there's nothing different to tell? What if the defendants and their attorneys win the jury over?

How far do the Spierers allow this to play out if they aren't getting what they hoped (either no new information or else even potentially losing the civil case)? If they'd lose this case it would make a potential LE criminal case almost impossible without major new evidence against 5N.

 

[Dixie811]

Was that a video account or a witness account?

I know it was reported (take the word 'report' FWIW) that the Spierer's haven't seen some of the videos... I'm just not sure if they've seen any. I don't think LE is apt to share evidence, even with the PI's. So unless copies existed for the PI's to get from a private source, or else they found video that LE missed, I'm just not sure how much video evidence the Spierer's have.. or even will be able to get for this civil suit. That is a point I'd be interested in knowing.

But the point is they could learn nothing from the depositions either due to "I don't recall" type answers, pleading of the 5th, or simply because they've been told everything there is from 5N. So once the depos are completed will they drop the case or will they see it thru even if they can see there will be no new answers coming? I think they will see it thru. I think they are going to hope somebody can't afford the judgment and cracks and tells them something different. But what if nobody cracks? What if they are telling the truth and there's nothing different to tell? What if the defendants and their attorneys win the jury over?

How far do the Spierers allow this to play out if they aren't getting what they hoped (either no new information or else even potentially losing the civil case)? If they'd lose this case it would make a potential LE criminal case almost impossible without major new evidence against 5N.

Eek, I just typed a detailed reply and lost it. I'll try again.

akh, you are correct there are MANY what-if's regarding this civil suit. I am sure that the Spierer's had to consider many pro's and con's. They may be anticipating many such possible outcomes, and I am sure they are receiving very thorough legal counsel.

It's JMO, but I think that even if the POI's "do not recall" anything, that the Spierer's will still see the civil suit through (if it is not thrown out.. I know someone said that may be possible). Ultimately because I believe Rob & Charlene do believe in the foundation of this type of suit, which is that if the boys had gotten Lauren some help she would be here today. IMO, I don't think they will back down.

___________________________________________________

http://www.lohud.com/flash/spierer/

The lohud link above is what I was referring to previously. I have not watched this video in several months and do not have time to watch again now. If someone has time to re-watch, feel free to correct me because I am working off of my recollection from several months ago:

I believe that in this video the PI's state that they have viewed the footage of Lauren and CR in the alley en route to 5N. The PI's describe Lauren falling on her face and failing to catch herself. They describe how she was struggling to function and CR throws her over his back and carries/drags her along. So if my recollection is correct then they have seen this footage. If so, then it seems to me that the Spierer's would also have been able to view the footage and would be able to use it in the civil suit. But I'm no lawyer!

I know the Spierer's stated just recently in the two-year anniversary interview video someone posted recently that they have not viewed the footage from Smallwood.

There was also the account of Lauren sitting on some concrete steps and slumping over cracking her head. This is a witness account however, not video. Witnesses can testify in a civil trial as well, right? But we all know that eye-witnesses are often considered extremely unreliable.

Similarly to LE keeping some details/information hush-hush, I am betting that the Spierer's PI's may know some things that are not released to the media and the public (obviously not enough to find Lauren or solve the case, but perhaps some more detailed information confirming Lauren's level of intoxication, etc). This information may come in handy during any type of civil trial.

JMO & all that.