Discussion in 'Lauren Spierer' started by AbbeyR, Jan 17, 2014.
Thinking of Lauren and her loved ones today.
Lauren - YouTube
Thinking of the Spierer family with love on Lauren's 23rd birthday.
From AbbeyR via Nursebeeme, I think this a great idea! Can we start with the first "thing" and work our way down the list? Maybe someone new, or even one of us, may see something we didn't see before.
Things to do in Cases When There's No News:
- Go back through threads and collect what you think are the top ten most important links in the case, make a list of them, and post them. These lists would be great for both those familiar with the case, as well as people new to the case.
1. IMHO: http://findlauren.com/
2. The LoHud Feature (includes timeline and video with interviews with Private investigators): http://www.lohud.com/flash/spierer/
3. LoHud: Lauren Spierer Mystery (the most quoted article here, I think): http://www.lohud.com/article/20120603/news02/306030045?nclick_check=1
4. The lawsuit doc (Spierer vs. Corey Rossman, Jason Rosenbaum, Michael Beth): http://indianalawblog.com/documents/spierer-complaint.pdf
(I'm not sure if the responses are still posted online somewhere?)
Article in the Indianapolis Star:
JR and CR are blaming LS and Kilroy's for whatever happened.
I'll try to give some of the few items of note from the Rosenbaum and Rossman responses to the Spierer's complaint linked in post #943 above. It will be much easier to list the admissions, as everything else consists of either a denial or a lack of sufficient information, though some of those may be of interest as well.
Nature of Actions
Rosenbaum admits jurisdiction is proper (paragraph 2), venue is proper (3), Rob and Charlene Spierer are a resident of NY (4,5) but lacks knowledge to the remainder of paragraph 4&5. Rossman denies 2 and 3, and lacks knowledge for all of 4 and 5.
Both Rosenbaum and Rossman admit the allegations in paragraphs 7,8, and 9 (defendants' respective state of residence).
Rossman denies or lacks knowledge to all of the paragraphs here. For events up to paragraph 20, he denies the allegations, but starting at 21 (after leaving Kilroys) he is without sufficient information to admit or deny. Interestingly he does deny paragraph 24 (which is "Rossman engaged in a physical confrontation with one of these individuals"). Probably a wording dispute there since we've been told this event is on video.
Rosenbaum also denies or lacks knowledge to most of the allegations with a few exceptions: (11) admits Lauren visited his residence June 2, 2011 (but lacks knowledge to the remainder of #11). (34) admits Spierer left his residence on her own and was last seen walking in the direction of 11th Street and College Ave at approximately 4:30am (but denies the remainder of #34). (37) admits that to his knowledge and belief that Spierer has never been located (denies the remainder of #37). (33) admits that Beth left his residence (but denies the remainder of #33). [I find this one interesting as #33 is simply "Beth left and returned to his residence after these efforts"; odd that he agrees Beth left, but denies, rather than admitting to not knowing, that Beth returned to his residence. Is that insinuating Beth went elsewhere or maybe just a continuance of denying the efforts he had previously denied in #32]
Count One - Negligence resulting in Disappearance, Death, or Injury
Dismissed by the court on 12/23/13
Count Two - Negligence per se
Both parties deny all paragraphs except Rossman admits to to #48 (that IC 7.1-5-10-15.5 imposed a specific duty)
Count Three - Dram Shop
Both parties deny all
Rosenbaum alleges claimed injuries and damages were caused in whole or part by fault of Lauren Spierer and Kilroy's Sports Bar. States plaintiff's claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Asserts all defenses available under Indiana Dram Shop Liability Act.
Rossman alleges claimed injuries and damages were proximately caused by Lauren Spierer, Kilroy's Sports Bar, and David Rohn over which whom he had no right of control. States plaintiffs may have received payments which constitute an accord, satisfaction, or collateral source set-off to any judgment they may obtain against him. States plaintiff's claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. States that his conduct was not the proximate cause of the incident, injuries, and damages alleged. Incorporates any and all Affirmative Defenses listed by any other Defendant. Reserves the right to assert additional defenses as may be revealed in the course of discovery.
I'd prefer to not post the PDF's as I'm unsure of my own redaction responsibility, but am happy to answer questions if anyone would like to know how a party specifically answered any part of the Spierer's complaint. With any luck someone will probably make them publicly available soon anyway.
Thank you for this, I've read most of what I can find online but this breakdown of their responses is interesting. I find it particularly interesting That Cory implicates DR (which I'm aware in this context could be as simple as him stating that Rohn gave lauren a drug that could have made her impaired, not necessarily that Rohn was directly connected to/responsible for her disappearance), I would guess that this means Rohn has cooperated with the spierers and LE.
My reading of this particular lawsuit so far makes me think that the spierers are going after anyone they can in order to get information (I by no means mean this in a negative way, most of the POIs don't seem to be talking, so this is their only recourse, and imo they've been very smart about it) and I'd be willing to bet that since Rohn isn't named as a defendant in the lawsuit there is a reason for it. I'm really hoping that however this lawsuit progresses that it gives out at least a little new information. I know I've been extremely frustrated with the lack of information in this case, I'm guessing a lot of other people here have been as well, and I can't imagine the pain this is causing the spierers and lauren's friends. No matter what your personal theory is about what happened that night, I think we all can agree that there is potential here for JR and CR (either knowingly or unknowingly) to reveal some bit of information thats new to us/LE. I just hope that somehow something can come out that gives a new or more concrete direction to this case. Its been over 2 and a half years, thats far too long
Thanks Bx2 - That's a really helpful summary
Looks like a load of lawyer talk and no information. Looks like they need deposed and I'd bet the judge will want some straight truthful answers.
If these guys are innocent? Why run up legal fees and go to such effort to not reveal what they know? Suspicious!!!!!!!
Do we have any proof that Lauren could not have left Jay's like he claims? In the LoHud video, frequently linked to here, the detective is asked about Lauren's condition as last seen. He says she is OK. Then he says, not really. I take that to mean she is ripped but not unconscious.
*** How to Submit an Anonymous Tip in the Lauren Spierer Case ***
Terms of Service - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
Threadiquette- Questions about rules welcome here - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
How to Become a Verified Member
Who's Who in the Lauren Spierer Case, Updated 06-30-11 (by the Herald Times Online)
Photos and Maps
Bloomington Police search for missing 20 year old woman
Lauren Spierer, age 20.
She is a white female, 4 feet 11 inches tall, slender build, has blue eyes and long blonde hair. She is listed as a student according to IU Bloomington's website.
Spierer was last seen walking south on College Avenue from 11th Street on her way back to her apartment in Smallwood Plaza, located on College Avenue.
She did not arrive to her apartment and video footage does not show her entering the apartment complex.
Spierer was wearing a white tank top with a loose, light colored button shirt over it and full length black stretch pants. She was not wearing shoes.
Re: the photo released Wednesday, 06-15-2011, of Lauren leaving Smallwood Apartments the evening of June 2, 2011.
Thread #1 Thread #2 Thread #3 Thread #4 Thread #5 Thread #6 Thread #7 Thread #8 Thread #9 Thread #10 Thread #11 Thread #12 Thread #13 Thread #14 Thread #15 Thread #16 Thread #17 Thread #18 Thread #19 Thread #20 Thread #21 Thread #22 Thread #23 Thread #24 Thread #25 Thread #26 Thread #27 Thread #28 Thread #29 Thread #30 Thread 31
:sigh: It's been far too long...
I wish there were more LE resources to re-search EVERY single body of water, wooded area, etc. in the Bloomington area. I think about Lauren daily as it hits close to home. I hope we get some answers soon, We all know Charlene and Rob need some.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Here's the quote from the PI (Snipped from http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7997448&postcount=585):
So yeah, in the context of what he is describing (i.e., Lauren couldn't walk on her own and had just fallen and hit her head, hard) I don't think he's saying she was okay. Just that she wasn't totally unconscious. That's why he goes back and corrects himself, right?
I don't think it's possible to have proof that she could not have left Jay's apartment - that's what makes this case so hard to solve. At the same time, if we look at all of the evidence we have -- the reports from people who saw Lauren in the hour or so before she went missing and the descriptions of video surveillance -- they all consistently report that Lauren couldn't walk on her own.
Is there any evidence that Lauren did walk out of 5 N on her own? Only the word of one Person of Interest (JR), and suggestions from the other two (CR and MB) that Lauren could have walked out -- But these stories appear to have changed since they had their lawyers give public statements in 2011. It's hard to understand why, if Lauren had really walked out the door, the POI would have deliberately tried to mislead people about Lauren's condition and their own involvement with her in the hours before she disappeared.
It's sickens me to read this again but, reading it again, it seems there doesn't seem to really be a way that Lauren could have left on her own, it appears that she couldn't even walk on her own What could have occurred to make it so she could? Is that even possible? I wouldn't think so especially with her head, and possible other bodily, injuries. I hope they didn't let her attempt to crawl home!
Also can someone elaborate on this statement?:
MC: "A minute later, the door opening and them going back down and him helping her with that, kinda slung across his back."
What door and going back down where? Is that the girls' apartment at 10th and College? Like they knocked and no one answered then someone did come to the door as they were leaving so they went back down to the apartment? Help, did I miss something? TIA!
Pretty sure this is referring to one of the two front doors of 10&C and 'going back down' is referring to the steps from the complex to street level. There are security cameras facing each door, though it remains unclear on if the PI's have viewed this footage, spoken with someone who has, or are relying on an interviewed witness.
Was looking around at the Monroe County GIS site and figured I'd share some more pictures of the area as it appeared in March of 2011 (so there may be some small differences to the date of the disappearance 3 months later).
Red boxed area represents her last reported locale at 5N. Looking at the scene from all 4 cardinal directions:
There is more than one kind of Proof - beyond a reasonable doubt and then there is Preponderance.
If the judge/jury in the civil case is allowed to know what we know, there is certainly preponderance, if they could see that last video combined with these statements (and these statements being affirmed in court) they would have to find for the plaintiffs.
Not only is not believable that she walked out of JR's it's not believable that she walked to 5N after the last Alley Fall (which occurs after the dialogue you just commented on).
The area where there supposedly was a cadaver dog hit, just happens to be the most poorly lit, treed, and hard to see area behind 5N (on the side where there are no doors) on the path between the Alley Fall, the place where her wallet/keys were found and the 5N building. The rest is mostly an open gravel lot.
Not sure what I missed that CR "suggested" that contradicts his amnesia and has LS walking?
MB is the link between CR and JR in this transfer of LS regardless of her condition. By removing him(MB) from culpability in the civil case it severs culpability as a group (conspiracy) perhaps because then it more clearly is a criminal matter with higher standards of evidence (And would belong in a criminal court). So, even MB's suggestions are mute as far as the civil case goes. It's just down to JR's word vs. the facts.
And JR was attributed with statements acknowledging LS's serious injuries and condition (for example mistaking an ipod for a phone). But he contradicts that with his testing of her ability to walk and supposedly letting her walk out all within a time frame so short that no mere mortal's liver / body could accomplish it... but a time frame long enough that he could have just walked her home and returned!
You make an excellent point... that if these POI's didn't know something bad happened to LS why behave the way they did? The stories, the contradictions, the immediate defensiveness but absolutely no care and concern for a friend that you knew, liked and just were with the night before. No passion to find her or to later solve the case!
SURE it is a US Citizen's right - Innocent until proven guilty. But really there is no responsibility for a young woman in this condition, who was a friend, none whatsoever? If I put myself in CR/MB or JR's shoes and this were my friend that vanished I would spend the rest of my life trying to find out what happened. For one, it's the right thing to do! Yet I also would not want anyone thinking, hinting that I had anything to do with it. I would be so very motivated for those 2 reasons. So, I can't understand people who have a friend vanished in their midst and are supremely annoyed that anyone noticed and cares. I can't understand how they can go on with their lives and expect everyone to pretend like Lauren didn't exist! There is something supremely wrong with that!
Well said, VV.
No no, you didn't miss anything. I was referring to the early statements made by CR's lawyer. Remember, before the video evidence came to light, he said that Lauren helped Corey home because he was 'injured'? Salzman was also the one who claimed that Lauren had left MB and CR's (on her own) after MB turned her down after she asked him if he "wanted to party". Based on the more recent reports, MB's latest statements do not support that story at all.
I'm also convinced that CR (or someone close to him) was the anonymous source behind a few of Gatto's stories (JMO!), including the one where CR was 'jumped' and ran out of Smallwood and Lauren followed on her own later (contradicted by video evidence, which showed Lauren couldn't walk on her own and Corey took her out of the building and back to 5 N).
To me the fact that CR's lawyer gave the statements above suggests that they knew very well how bad things would look if people knew what condition Lauren was in, and they were trying to paint a different story before the real story became public. It worked too. Those rumors shaped the way people understood the story and the way it was reported.
Thankfully, there are witnesses and video.
It will be interesting to see what happens with CR's 'amnesia' in the civil case.
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!
Separate names with a comma.