Yes, if they were raping her while she was unconscious (I think this is likely, and a typical desire/behavior of a certain type of college boy loser), that changes the game considerably. She dies while sitting there, no big deal. They can all deny knowing where she got her drugs. But if one or more of them suddenly has DNA all over her, they're going to react completely different. No young college boy is going to want to register as a sex offender, or go to prison on rape charges. I just can't seem to isolate which guy did it. I think if it was more than one, someone would've cracked by now. But then again, maybe not. At this point, I still think I'm going with CR. If he didn't kill her/rape her, he knows what happened to her. If he was seen with her AFTER someone punched him (not sure if this has been established clearly), he's very determined to have sex with her, and was probably waiting for her. Some guys (especially when drunk or intoxicated) become obsessed with having sex with a girl, especially if they feel led on or that the girl in question likes them in some way.
Either way, this is such a disturbing case. Wish some evidence would arise.
I had a similar train of thought recently. The three things that keep bringing me back to the idea that it was one of the boys end up being 1) The simplest conclusion is usually the most accurate one; they're the last people who were in contact with her, while there is video evidence of her entering Kilroys, exiting with CR, going to Smallwood with CR, exiting with CR, hitting her head several times, entering the alley between College and Morton and exiting both with CR, there is, according to the 7th Circuit, no video evidence of her entering the Apartments on 11th and College or exiting them (and they refuse to release the videos beyond the two stills). 2) According to
FindLaw's United States Seventh Circuit case and opinions. ; the boys lawyers requested and obtained a motion to "limit discovery to the issue of proximate cause, that is, to address only evidence related to whether the defendants' actions caused severe injury or death to Lauren." I understand utilizing the fact that to prove negligence; one must prove injury and, without a body, injury cannot be proven, that's just good legalwork, but limiting their discovery to essentially nothing suggests, at least to me, that there is something in the discovery the Spierer's / Spierer's lawyers would have received that the boys did not want getting beyond police custody, which has been abnormally committed to keeping details of the case/surveillance/etc away from the public. 3) In an article here:
Friend: Missing Ind. student's parents harassing him CR states, in response to being asked about the punch he received from ZO nullifying his memories of the night "I never said that," CR said. "You're taking statements that were said by my lawyer. I never said I did or didn't." Does that mean that his lawyer is misrepresenting him or that he was instructed to testify something he now doesn't want to commit to?
To respond to if CR was seen with her after he was punched by ZO, according to LE there is video surveillance of the both of them exiting Smallwood Apts, entering the Alley on 11th and College, and exiting it as well, at one point CR begins fireman carrying her.
I also find it strange how little mention of DB appears in most accounts where, in several, the initial party (at JR's Apartment) was to celebrate his return to town. If he was still in the apartment at the end of that night, it appears that the group did not want that widely known.
Finally; in regards to the idea that they wouldn't bother to hide the body if she had simply overdosed, it would be possible for either or all of them to be indicted with anything from negligence (which the Spierer's attempted for despite the lack of a body) to manslaughter if they provided the drugs, etc.
