IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #10

Status
Not open for further replies.
the 20 yo set most certainly knows about cell phone pings and other ways your phones keep track of you imho

I'm 23.. I didn't know what a ping was before this website.. I just asked two of my friends (both 22) and they didn't know. And we're all extremely attached to our phones. I guess I'm saying I'd call it a "maybe" rather than a "most certainly".
 
1 is a possibility.
2 is not a possibility because LE said they don't have her on video after 2:51 am.
3. is a possibility.
4. Why wouldn't it be on video if there is a camera there?

2- LE has told us that they will not give us all the info that they have on the case. I for one do not know that 2:51 is the last video. They haven't even finished reviewing the entire video evidence as of the last press conference, so at the time they said 2:51 is the last video, they certainly hadn't viewed ALL the video.

4. cameras have a fairly small range, it is possible that she was not in the range of the camera- too close to the wall, too close to the street. And I can't for sure I remember that anyone has documented a camera in that particular place. It could be that covered walkway area from what I remember - and clearly one could be there, but not on the video.

If you don't think it is significant, why is so important to discount it?
 
If they were looking for this "mystery man" why wouldn't they show us the sketch? Just like they showed us the photos of the truck.

Maybe because they know who the person is?
 
I took the release to mean that the time is off. That they did have her on video in that location at a different time.
 
I'm 23.. I didn't know what a ping was before this website.. I just asked two of my friends (both 22) and they didn't know. And we're all extremely attached to our phones. I guess I'm saying I'd call it a "maybe" rather than a "most certainly".

wow, I'm surprised. But thanks for letting me know. I guess all the 20 somethings I know are more interested in covering their tracks than you are!
Hmm, now exactly what are they all up to??
 
I'm 23.. I didn't know what a ping was before this website.. I just asked two of my friends (both 22) and they didn't know. And we're all extremely attached to our phones. I guess I'm saying I'd call it a "maybe" rather than a "most certainly".

Maybe you didn't understand exactly what a ping was, but did you know that you could be tracked through your cellphone? I would think most people would assume that.
 
I took the release to mean that the time is off. That they did have her on video in that location at a different time.

I wish he wasn't so confusing, but yes, it sounded that way. Approximately an hour before 3:38 am, which would make it around 2:30 am.
 
Maybe you didn't understand exactly what a ping was, but did you know that you could be tracked through your cellphone? I would think most people would assume that.

Honestly, I have the option to turn GPS off/on on my phone, and I always assumed that if I had it on "off" that I couldn't be tracked. I know that sounds silly but I've never had any reason to worry about being tracked or not so I've never given it much thought. And I think maybe if someone was faced with needing to make some really quick decisions (like disposing of a body), they might not think about something like that if they had never thought of it before. Or maybe they would, I don't know. It's definitely not something I would think of in the moment.
 
In any event, my hope is that even if these folks are ping-savvy, it is quite possible that they did not remember to take the batteries out of the their phones until they were in the their car and on the way to the place they left Lauren...(a phone will still "ping" if only turned off-I think it is kind of like how my tv still downloads my DTV data at night even though it is turned off). So LE might still have some pinging going on in a direction leading away from town.
 
Can someone please explain to me this notion of not knowing if security camera clocks are off? I can't for the life of me understand why they can't stand in front of one of the cameras while looking at their watch, then look at the tape of them standing in front of the camera and compare the times.
 
In any event, my hope is that even if these folks are ping-savvy, it is quite possible that they did not remember to take the batteries out of the their phones until they were in the their car and on the way to the place they left Lauren...(a phone will still "ping" if only turned off.) So LE might still have some pinging going on in a direction leading away from town.

I think if a POI was "pinging" on that particular night at some particular direction, LE would be further along in their search then they appear to be (at least to me).
 
Can someone please explain to me this notion of not knowing if security camera clocks are off? I can't for the life of me understand why they can't stand in front of one of the cameras while looking at their watch, then look at the tape of them standing in front of the camera and compare the times.

I was wondering about this too. Did it just not occur to LE to check the times of the camera that caught the truck?
 
The report I read from the attorney said that the second confrontation happened that morning.

Yes, I read that one too, which is why it's so confusing. Actually, I believe I've now read THREE - all reports of the SAME attorney's comment.

One said it happened later that morning.
One said it happened later that day.
One (the one I quoted) said a few days later.
:waitasec:
 
I think if a POI was "pinging" on that particular night at some particular direction, LE would be further along in their search then they appear to be (at least to me).

Possibly...just not sure if they have to get phone records from various companies, other states, etc...some require warrants, some cooperate more easily...I guess I am hoping pings play a part, as that may be the only clue to where Lauren is, if no one will tell...
 
Well, it would change my whole interpretation of JW's position in this case if he and LS had actually broken up just before this incident. That would make it more understandable to me why he would leave Bloomington so soon after her disappearance, why he wouldn't have made an effort to get in touch with her/meet up with her on the night of her disappearance, why HT would be so adamant that he couldn't have been involved (because if he really was a very loving bf up until then and they just grew apart, for instance, it would make sense that HT would be compelled to defend him) All of this would make it seem to me like he would have had less of a reason to really care if LS was out with other guys that night or to have as much of a reaction to his buddies confronting CR and LS at Smallwood and then would probably lessen his motive to hurt her. Unless, of course, he wasn't happy that they had broken up, which would mean that he still has that motive.


Sorry this is from way back, but the logic just seems so off to me.

According to the facebook rumors JW and LS were on the outs as of May 30th and he was asking LS to re-friend him or something of that nature. It is rumored he was rather unhappy with the turn of events. Didn't see the page so just a rumor. If they weren't completely broken up she took away his FB friend privileges for one reason or another.

This reeks of someone who sure as HELL would care if his GF or ex-GF was out just a few days after the end of/ a massive fight in a 2+ year relationship with another guy. These are college age kids, trust me, they go crazy over much lesser "offenses". The pictures of JW and LS have always looked to me like he was more into her than the other way around; it's possible, but who knows, picture are subjective. IF JW and LS had broken up, or at least had an argument that caused a de-friending, there is motive in that. It's not like he's going to go "oh well, LS broke up with me 3 days ago, guess it's gravy". His friends felt the need to "defend" him that night against CR who was with his "girl".

As for HT, this little facebook thing actually helped me pin down what my problem is with her. She seems WAY to into LS and JW's relationship. It seems possible to me that when DR returned he told HT that LS had gone to the bar with CR. HT could have called JW or contacted JW about it. She seems to be defending JW a bit too much for him being her roomie's boyfriend. It is even odder if LS and JW were on the outs. It looks like, no reviewing the old video, that HT might be romanticizing the relationship JW and LS had, maybe she thought LS was being awful to JW and gave him a heads up.
 
I was wondering about this too. Did it just not occur to LE to check the times of the camera that caught the truck?

Sometimes things seem so OBVIOUS to some. Sometimes I read about a crime and wonder if "Barney and Fife" did the investigating LOL I don't mean that disrespectfully......just comically.
 
Yes, I read that one too, which is why it's so confusing. Actually, I believe I've now read THREE - all reports of the SAME attorney's comment.

One said it happened later that morning.
One said it happened later that day.
One (the one I quoted) said a few days later.
:waitasec:

That morning would make some sense.. it could have been one of the reasons JW felt that LS was really missing.
 
About there being no "mystery man." He WAS a mystery until BPD confirmed him, 6 days after it was reported. Still mysterious.

What did BPD confirm again? As far as I can tell, all they have confirmed is that the individual on the last video containing LS, at 2:51AM, is known to them. I think there are few who doubt that individual is CR. While there may be a mystery man, I don't believe BPD has ever confirmed that possibility.
 
http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2011/06/22/news.qp-4391232.sto
Any thoughts on the last line I've bolded? (“It does not appear that she saw Lauren at the time that was reported by other sources.” )

Interesting. I think he is saying that her time doesn't jive with the prior sources - could be other reported sightings of LS, as well as the videos.
Which shouldn't be as big as it hit me, since I would hope lots of people saw LS during that night and reported it.
But interesting phrasing there. What do you make of it? He normally doesn't seem to be so carefully unclear in his speaking style, except for this "encounter witness".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
91
Guests online
502
Total visitors
593

Forum statistics

Threads
596,479
Messages
18,048,382
Members
230,011
Latest member
Ms.Priss74
Back
Top