IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #31

Status
Not open for further replies.
He wasn't alone with her then. They were with friends. They weren't alone until they left Kilroy's

I thought it was reported LS & CR left JR's and went to CR's apt before going to Kilroy's. Is this not true? Also, MB made the statement when they came back from Kilroy's that LS looked worse than when he first saw her. So, where did he see her? If it was at JR's then he was partying at JR's instead of doing a paper. If not at JR's then it would have to been in his apt, which would make LS with CR at his apt before going to Kilroy's.
 
I thought it was reported LS & CR left JR's and went to CR's apt before going to Kilroy's. Is this not true? Also, MB made the statement when they came back from Kilroy's that LS looked worse than when he first saw her. So, where did he see her? If it was at JR's then he was partying at JR's instead of doing a paper. If not at JR's then it would have to been in his apt, which would make LS with CR at his apt before going to Kilroy's.

I think both of those things are true. MB was at JR's earlier in the night, not writing a paper, and he was at his apartment after JR's and before Kilroy's with CR, Lauren and at least one other friend, according to the lawsuit docs.


technicality. She was there with him, If his object was merely, excuse any disrespect, to have sex with Lauren, why would he want them to leave and
go to Kilroy's?
He had her there at his apt., but wanted more drinks. It's been a long time
since I've been in the young dating world, but usually, give a guy who even thinks he has a chance for sex the choice between a couple of drinks or sex, and if I remember correctly, they always choose sex, even if there's only a chance it will happen. Most guys, if I remember correctly, wouldn't take you back out, especially around your friends and your boyfriend's friends, who then would most likely try to dissuade you from that . If sex were that important, I don't think he would have left to get more drinks.

Doesn't that assume that Lauren would have gotten together with him? Perhaps his goal of bringing her to the bar was not just to have a few more drinks himself, but to get her more intoxicated. Who knows. What we do know is that once Lauren was too intoxicated to walk or talk, Corey Rossman -- a guy who had only known Lauren one week -- took her away from her apartment building, despite other people protesting, and dragged her home to his place.
 
Can anyone help me with a link (Abbey you are great with links) or clarify that this is a rumor?

I remember hearing about Lauren and David Rohn possibly taking prescription pills that night-- and in fact the name of the specific pill is slipping my mind right now.

Can someone help me out here? Just want to know where that information came from or if it is complete rumor.

TIA

Rosenbaum told investigators that either Spierer or Rohn told him they'd crushed up and snorted Klonopin, a drug used for seizures and panic attacks, beforehand and that he believed they'd also taken cocaine. Spierer's family and investigators said they have no information that she consumed cocaine.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/02/missing-student-boyfriend-family-fume/2382909/
 
Thanks! Would be interested to know if Rohn confirmed or denied that when he spoke to police and took his poly.

Hold on now! That would be at least 3rd hand, likely 4th or more. David did not talk to the reporter. Neither did Jay. I doubt the Spierers hired detectives said it either. So, did an officer from Bloomington say that? Maybe? Cops gossip too. Doesn't make it true though.
 
I think both of those things are true. MB was at JR's earlier in the night, not writing a paper, and he was at his apartment after JR's and before Kilroy's with CR, Lauren and at least one other friend, according to the lawsuit docs.




Doesn't that assume that Lauren would have gotten together with him? Perhaps his goal of bringing her to the bar was not just to have a few more drinks himself, but to get her more intoxicated. Who knows. What we do know is that once Lauren was too intoxicated to walk or talk, Corey Rossman -- a guy who had only known Lauren one week -- took her away from her apartment building, despite other people protesting, and dragged her home to his place.

But CR was attacked on the 5th floor of her apt building. Does that sound like he was trying to drag her away to his apartment? Sounds like he was actually taking her home. But then he was attacked. Keep in mind I am not defending this guy but you can look at things in so many lights. If Lauren didn't intend to enter her apartment, what was she doing on the 5th floor near her apartment?
This is a glaring oversight. Why did she leave then? Maybe she saw a mob made up of people she trusted and panicked. Pardon me, but at this point, it just doesn't seem like a guy trying to drag a woman home to have sex. ZO wasn't trying to help Lauren, IMO, he was trying to keep CR from going in Lauren'Is apt. IMO she probably knocked on the door down the hall for some reason, ZO and friends were in there and came out to confront him and kick him out.
 
Hold on now! That would be at least 3rd hand, likely 4th or more. David did not talk to the reporter. Neither did Jay. I doubt the Spierers hired detectives said it either. So, did an officer from Bloomington say that? Maybe? Cops gossip too. Doesn't make it true though.

I am certainly not assuming it is true just because the statement is attributed to Jay Rosenbaum. First of all, you are right-- it is unknown whether those words actually came out of Jay's mouth or not. Second of all, I don't believe that he has been entirely (or even mostly) truthful.

I was simply saying I would like to know whether David Rohn indicated that he and Lauren did or did not do coke and/or Klonopin that night.

I don't think I said anywhere in my post that I think a statement in MSM attributed to Jay Rosenbaum's "story" is the gospel truth.

I would love to hear David Rohn speak about what he knows of that night.
 
^^my post in blue^^

The reason I keep coming back to the 5N boys is because from the facts that are known for certain, they were with her, and they willingly placed themselves as the last to see her alive. I'm not by any means saying I think JW should be cleared, but IMO (and I could very well be wrong) it requires way more assumptions to figure out a scenario where JW was involved in her disappearance. Other than the PT board (which my impression has been was mainly defending the 5N boys, in which case it would make sense for them to implicate JW/say he was possessive or a dealer) I've seen no mention of JW being possessive, and as far as I know that has never been mentioned in main stream media at all. (also for the record I think there have been way too many discrepancies in TG's info for me personally to take any of it as fact unless its been verified by PIs or LE, but I know others feel differently)
I don't see it being "obvious he controls his parents!" at all, there are many (unfair) reasons for them to state that Lauren was the one more involved in drugs. Plenty of parents always believe their kids are little angels, maybe it was easier for them to pretend that LS used drugs and JW was her innocent protector than for them to accept that they both probably experimented with drugs and drinking like most college kids. Maybe they've read the cruel rumors that went around shortly after LS disappeared and accepted it as fact. We have no idea, and I don't see an obviously emotional statement his parents gave as fact that he controls them.
As far as rumors about dealing go, I've read way more rumors about CR/JR and their crew dealing than I have about JW
I could be wrong but I thought that the PIs looked into the bartender's statement and found that she had gotten the time and several facts wrong. I'm more inclined to believe them than I am a witness who was probably tired and didn't realize that what she was seeing would become so important. Like I said earlier about the phone records, they might not have been made public but if JW had been sending LS angry or threatening texts I think its beyond reasonable to assume that LE would have looked into those texts and it probably would have bumped him to the top of their suspect list. Him saying they texted until he went to bed could mean they sent tons of texts, or it could mean that they texted two or three times but were generally in contact.
If someone had LS's phone I just don't see why they would return it to kilroys. Does kilroys have cameras? Would kids at IU necessarily know that they do or do not have cameras? I can't think up a reasonable scenario where someone would be motivated to take LS's phone, keep it with them for most of the night and then wander out early in the morning to stage the phone at kilroys. Lauren had an iphone, tossing the phone over the fence would at the very least crack the screen. I think we would have heard about it if her shoes were found in one part of kilroys and her phone was found broken next to a fence.

Again, I don't know why the assumption is JW's texts got "mean", I haven't read anything saying that, and IMO that is an assumption that doesn't have anything to back it up. all the information we have from verified sources about JW/LS that night says that he was content watching the game with friends, I haven't read any articles or even heard rumors saying that he was pissed she wasn't with him or was angry at her for any reason. Obviously her being with CR would be a reason for him to get upset, but as far as I know theres no proof he knew she was with him.

"She told JW she was staying home because that's what he wanted to hear. If he wasn't controlling, she would have told him to have fun with his friends, she was going out." This is certainly a possibility, but isn't it equally possible that she told JW that and then decided to go out? Or she might just not have told him because he would be annoyed that she was going out with another guy, or he might have not liked CR in general. IMO that doesn't necessarily indicate possessiveness, I've gotten into little fights with boyfriends who are perfectly nice guys about hanging out with guy friends they weren't fans of, it happens.

"What I cannot comprehend as sleuths, that so many people on this thread refuse to even think of what could have happened if she did.
Do we honestly believe that LE has not followed that avenue? I mean, the
5N POI could still be, most likely were, involved, but the actual death just a little down the street." IMO just because there hasn't been an arrest doesn't mean they haven't followed that line of thinking. If the 5N boys have their stories straight (which they seem to, whether its a story or is the truth) without a body it would be hard for the cops to prove otherwise. I, personally do agree with your last sentence. I think its possible that she stumbled out of 5N and passed or passed out nearby and the boys panicked and did something with her. I think (I don't want to speak for others but this is my impression) that the main reason that people don't believe she left 5N on her own is because JR's version of her leaving is so at odds with what we know is on tape. If Lauren was in such a bad state that Cory had to carry her (which is on video tape), I can't imagine that she was able to walk out of JR's and that he watched her round the corner a short time later. The fact that I don't think thats possible makes me doubt the rest of his story, if he was innocent why would he say she left and was in decent enough condition to walk if that seems almost impossible?

Sorry if my comment comes off as harsh, I think in a case like this everyone is going to have theories that they think are particularly likely or unlikely, and I don't mean to get heated with you about it.
 
I am certainly not assuming it is true just because the statement is attributed to Jay Rosenbaum. First of all, you are right-- it is unknown whether those words actually came out of Jay's mouth or not. Second of all, I don't believe that he has been entirely (or even mostly) truthful.

I was simply saying I would like to know whether David Rohn indicated that he and Lauren did or did not do coke and/or Klonopin that night.

I don't think I said anywhere in my post that I think a statement in MSM attributed to Jay Rosenbaum's "story" is the gospel truth.

I would love to hear David Rohn speak about what he knows of that night.

I'd be interested to hear Rohn's version as well. As far as I know we haven't heard anything from him, and the Klonopin story came from JR and hasn't been repeated/backed up by anyone else. I wish we could know how the side players are getting along with the main POIs now. Are MB/CR still close? Is DR still in touch with/friends with CR/JR? Obviously there isn't really a way for us to know this, but I think the answers could be interesting
 
What we do know is that once Lauren was too intoxicated to walk or talk, Corey Rossman -- a guy who had only known Lauren one week -- took her away from her apartment building, despite other people protesting, and dragged her home to his place.

This is the kind of statement where I think the line between facts and speculation begins to blur considerably.

The entire SW confrontation thing to me is still equal parts fishy, unconfirmed, and not entirely believable as it has been described.

If it really was about CR needing to take LS home, well, they were at the apt building. How did they know he wasn't taking her home?

Abbey, AFAIK you've added the words 'dragged her home to his place' into the equation. But we really don't know how much 'dragging' actually took place to get her to leave SW with him at that point. Moreso, if we do assume he was dragging her along then what are we to make of the people at SW that confronted CR to the point of violence, but then just let him drag her away without stopping him, following, or calling for help (with authorities or her friends)? That just doesn't sound right. Not unless she tells them to mind their own business. And if that happens then it changes the idea she was dragged (against her will) to 5N.

Or else the confrontation wasn't really about any concern over LS and her wishes I suppose. It just doesn't make sense they'd be concerned over her welfare, hit CR, and then just let him grab her and drag her away and they not do anything. That just doesn't compute.

So, while I think it's possible that he forced her to go to 5N, I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say without reservation that he 'dragged her'. I think that is adding a bias that simply doesn't exist in the facts as we know them (which even what we 'know' is fairly fluid IMHO) and is questionable when considering the narrative we've been told about the confrontation.
 
Actually, the word "dragged" came straight from the investigators, who were describing the witness statements and video surveillance, and said that Corey 'dragged' 'pulled' and 'carried' Lauren down the alley towards 5 N.

While none of us know the intentions of anyone involved that night, we do have some evidence to go on as to what happened - We know there are witnesses and video surveillance from Smallwood that depict Lauren in a state described as severely intoxicated to the point of being incapacitated, that she couldn't walk without falling, and that Corey Rossman picked her up and carried her out of Smallwood.

So trying to decide "why Lauren left" doesn't really seem very accurate, when every single account we have suggests she could not and didn't leave there of her own free will.
 
Actually, the word "dragged" came straight from the investigators, who were describing the witness statements and video surveillance, and said that Corey 'dragged' 'pulled' and 'carried' Lauren down the alley towards 5 N.

While none of us know the intentions of anyone involved that night, we do have some evidence to go on as to what happened - We know there are witnesses and video surveillance from Smallwood that depict Lauren in a state described as severely intoxicated to the point of being incapacitated, that she couldn't walk without falling, and that Corey Rossman picked her up and carried her out of Smallwood.

So trying to decide "why Lauren left" doesn't really seem very accurate, when every single account we have suggests she could not and didn't leave there of her own free will.

I'm not talking about the alley. I'm talking about leaving SW. Did the PI's say he dragged her out of SW? I don't recall that at all.

You said he 'dragged her' from SW. If that is true, then why didn't the people who allegedly were concerned about LS to the point of striking CR not stop him and just allow him to drag her away?

You can't say they were afraid of CR considering they outnumbered him and at least one had already struck him. Really, I can think of only two things- Either she was with him by choice, or the group weren't really that concerned with LS' well-being. Either of those things would change the implication that you make when you say he dragged her from SW.

Possibly even more important, they'd just arrived at SW (where she lived), so why were they there in the first place? It sounds like the confrontation could've actually led to her not going home and leaving SW.

IOW... we just don't know he was dragging her away from SW against her wishes and I don't even think we know enough to even safely assume that. Certainly not enough to put it into the narrative as if that is what happened.

IMHO
 
I'm not talking about the alley. I'm talking about leaving SW. Did the PI's say he dragged her out of SW? I don't recall that at all.
You said he 'dragged her' from SW.

No, I said he
took her away from her apartment building, despite other people protesting, and dragged her home to his place

This is based on reports from witnesses and the investigators. I don't assume these are 100% accurate, but the 'narrative' is consistent from all of the reports that we have. It seems a lot more speculative to me to imagine alternate scenarios that no witnesses or evidence have ever suggested...

He took her out of Smallwood -- from the source who saw the video surveillance footage:

"She comes stumbling out of the elevator, trips several times toward the corner of the lobby, where she comes to rest in the corner of the lobby, falls to her knees and leans against the wall for support until a male companion comes to her aid, gathers her under his arm and escorts her out of the front of the building," the source said.

... "As for this idea that she was Florence Nightingale and taking him back because she was concerned, she wasn't in any condition to take care of herself, let alone another human being," said the source, one of scores of people who have seen the evidence, who was willing to comment only anonymously. "She couldn't even stand up on her own. I have difficulty with this individual (Rossman) saying he can't remember anything when he's the guy who picked her up and took her out of the building." http://www.lohud.com/article/201107...condition-help-friend-get-home?nclick_check=1


...video shows Spierer stumbling across the floor, and Rossman helping her to her feet and out of the building.

On the next block, she sat down on a staircase and fell backward, slamming her head on the concrete step. The thud was loud enough for a young woman to hear it and ask whether she was all right.

According to the woman, Rossman replied, “She’s OK, I’ll take care of it.”

As Rossman and Spierer continued up the street, she fell hard and didn’t raise her hands to cushion the blow as her face hit the ground. A few steps later, she fell again... At this point, Rossman had Spierer slung across his back and was carrying her...

“It was a combination of her staggering, him pulling and carrying her,” investigator Mike Ciravolo said. http://www.lohud.com/article/2012060...nclick_check=1

This is all reiterated with other reports from Kilroys, etc. that say the same thing in the lawsuit docs and as far as I know, none of it has been contested so far by any of the POI.

Edited to add: I also didn't say he dragged her out against her wishes - as if she was kicking and screaming - I said 'she didn't leave there of her own free will' -- as in, she clearly didn't have the physical or mental capacity to be going home with him as the result of her own conscious decision and/ or ability to get there on her own.
 
I wasn't questioning your intentions. Always happy to explore possibilities, we have been doing that for years already, and anything other than 5N has been baseless. Saying that maybe she was abducted by UFO's isn't helpful. Everything points to the 5N guys and nothing, not one shred of anything points anywhere else. That was my point. If you want a serious discussion about other alternatives, please produce, links, facts, statements, or some other piece of credible information otherwise it's just less credible than searching for Big Foot (we do have the Roger Patterson film at least for that). Using your terminology, I would like something to HAMMER at... something other than 5N guys, but you provide nothing. So I will go back to HAMMERING where the NAILS are...

VV, I think I will go back to just reading Lauren's thread. I did want to point out that I mentioned nothing about her being abducted by UFOs. I also wanted to point out, while I'm not a fan of the 5N crew, as many of their actions, as well as non-actions, make them look guilty, there are other possibilities and until we find Lauren, we just don't know what really happened. I must admit your response stung a bit :(
 
It's frustrating that we have had so little news or movement forward in Lauren's case for so long, isn't it?

I'm sure everyone here is willing -- would welcome even -- a new line of questions or topic to painstakingly dissect other than the boys at 5 N. It's just hard to know where to look when there's nothing else to go on and nothing really that points in any other direction...

Hopefully the civil case will answer some questions or provide some new insight or there will be another lead soon. Hang in there, friends! :)
 
Everything points to the 5N guys and nothing, not one shred of anything points anywhere else.

That has more to do with the media and Spierers initially focusing on them and their circle of friends than it does with 'not one shred of anything points anywhere else'. We really don't know what does or does not point anywhere else because LE isn't talking and everyone seems to have gone silent and the media has pretty much dropped any investigative reporting long ago. When they did apparently try to chase down another angle (JW) it was shut down with him not talking and the parents only growling instead of putting anything into the existing narrative. So we're left with the early investigative reporting and what talking that did happen then. And all of this was during a 'fog of war' period in the reporting where confused reporting was often the result. And that is what we're mostly left with here to rehash.

I watched a Dateline episode last night about a man potentially convicted of a crime he didn't commit and had spent 29 years behind bars proclaiming his innocence. Apparently this was the 2nd Dateline episode on his plight and due to the info coming public with the first episode some other people came forward with new info that they hadn't thought important before but now learned it could very well be connected and important.

That makes me wonder about this case and wonder how things would change if more info was out in the public explaining whether there really is nothing point anywhere but 5N or if there's actually mitigating evidence or incriminating evidence pointing other places. Particularly important might be who said they were where at certain times along with photos to help the public connect the faces. That type of thing might lead someone to recall seeing one of these people somewhere they weren't supposed to be. Or else someone might've been directly told something different than what was put into the official narrative (thus calling their statement into question).

Also, things that have been discussed here where it's 'a friend of a friend told a reporter the POI said this' reporting.... It would be nice to know whether LE/PI's have dissected that type of thing or not.

It would also be nice to for once and for all have the bar manager witness discrepancies explained.. or attempted to be explained from a LE/PI point of view. Is it really a matter of just picking and choosing what to believe? Has this person revisited the reported time discrepancy? Was Gatto wrong when he reported this person didn't ID CR? And once something like that starts getting out in the open maybe it leads someone else to say "That's your witness? She was _______ that night." Which could then lead to some further clarity for everyone.

Of course there's always the problem of protecting the criminal case versus finding LS or what happened to LS. There's really no doubt that LE wants to preserve the criminal case above all else.
 
That has more to do with the media and Spierers initially focusing on them and their circle of friends than it does with 'not one shred of anything points anywhere else'. We really don't know what does or does not point anywhere else because LE isn't talking and everyone seems to have gone silent and the media has pretty much dropped any investigative reporting long ago. When they did apparently try to chase down another angle (JW) it was shut down with him not talking and the parents only growling instead of putting anything into the existing narrative. So we're left with the early investigative reporting and what talking that did happen then. And all of this was during a 'fog of war' period in the reporting where confused reporting was often the result. And that is what we're mostly left with here to rehash.

I watched a Dateline episode last night about a man potentially convicted of a crime he didn't commit and had spent 29 years behind bars proclaiming his innocence. Apparently this was the 2nd Dateline episode on his plight and due to the info coming public with the first episode some other people came forward with new info that they hadn't thought important before but now learned it could very well be connected and important.

That makes me wonder about this case and wonder how things would change if more info was out in the public explaining whether there really is nothing point anywhere but 5N or if there's actually mitigating evidence or incriminating evidence pointing other places. Particularly important might be who said they were where at certain times along with photos to help the public connect the faces. That type of thing might lead someone to recall seeing one of these people somewhere they weren't supposed to be. Or else someone might've been directly told something different than what was put into the official narrative (thus calling their statement into question).

Also, things that have been discussed here where it's 'a friend of a friend told a reporter the POI said this' reporting.... It would be nice to know whether LE/PI's have dissected that type of thing or not.

It would also be nice to for once and for all have the bar manager witness discrepancies explained.. or attempted to be explained from a LE/PI point of view. Is it really a matter of just picking and choosing what to believe? Has this person revisited the reported time discrepancy? Was Gatto wrong when he reported this person didn't ID CR? And once something like that starts getting out in the open maybe it leads someone else to say "That's your witness? She was _______ that night." Which could then lead to some further clarity for everyone.

Of course there's always the problem of protecting the criminal case versus finding LS or what happened to LS. There's really no doubt that LE wants to preserve the criminal case above all else.

^^^^#1 post of the week!^^^^
 
Meh. The "fog" could have been cleared up pretty quickly by the guys at 5 N if they had not gone into hiding and had their lawyers (and others) give misleading information, and instead simply been forthcoming about what happened and the timeline in the hours leading up to Lauren's disappearance. If the statements by reporters, investigators, friends and neighbors were incorrect, it would have been very easy for them to make a simple statement or given one through their lawyers. If they could have cleared up some of the questions, this would have been in their own interest, and as the Spierers and LE stated early on -- allowed the investigation to move forward.

I agree that there is likely much evidence we don't know about since LE has mostly been silent, but it still seems that all we have are conflicting stories and a refusal to fully cooperate with the investigation from the people who were last with Lauren, and an investigation that from the beginning, has never seemed to focus anywhere else.

Well, it will be interesting to see if the POI finally give a coherent story or if they can't/ won't.
 
Abbey,
The things you are hung up on likely all have either been cleared up or are known discrepancies with the authorities. It's simply us that have no idea which way they go. I'm sure the PsOI are not only 'not talking' because their attorneys have told them that BUT also because LE has told them not to be talking (to the public/media).

They've obviously 'talked' though with investigators.

They are facing a lawsuit based on their 'talking' as it is. Granted, their talking could be a pack of lies but this idea they haven't talked is just not true and just distorts an already distorted picture even more. Except of course for CR who we're told gave DNA samples but doesn't remember anything from the period. Which that is typically troublesome but in this case we know he was drinking, drugs could've been involved, he was punched hard enough to be dropped to the ground (according to reports), and at least two other people alibi him. If there was anything else incriminating or mitigating we're not likely to know it anyway.

If and until LE either acts or puts all its cards on the table, this 'certainty' of the guilt of 5N I find troublesome because we're just too in the dark to get to that point. It becomes a rush to judgment scenario where you decide someone is guilty and begin ignoring anything and everything else, and anything that can possibly be spun to be incriminating then gets spun that way. That's both how innocent people end up imprisoned, as well as how crimes don't get solved (because other potential trails get short shrift and yet the initial PsOI (who are really suspects) don't have the smoking gun needed to make the case). Although, as history has shown, sometimes a 'wrong' case can be made without that smoking gun.

In this case a lack of information doesn't mean there's a lack of evidence pointing in any number of directions.

.02
 
Abbey,
The things you are hung up on likely all have either been cleared up or are known discrepancies with the authorities. It's simply us that have no idea which way they go. I'm sure the PsOI are not only 'not talking' because their attorneys have told them that BUT also because LE has told them not to be talking (to the public/media).

They've obviously 'talked' though with investigators.

They are facing a lawsuit based on their 'talking' as it is. Granted, their talking could be a pack of lies but this idea they haven't talked is just not true and just distorts an already distorted picture even more. Except of course for CR who we're told gave DNA samples but doesn't remember anything from the period. Which that is typically troublesome but in this case we know he was drinking, drugs could've been involved, he was punched hard enough to be dropped to the ground (according to reports), and at least two other people alibi him. If there was anything else incriminating or mitigating we're not likely to know it anyway.

If and until LE either acts or puts all its cards on the table, this 'certainty' of the guilt of 5N I find troublesome because we're just too in the dark to get to that point. It becomes a rush to judgment scenario where you decide someone is guilty and begin ignoring anything and everything else, and anything that can possibly be spun to be incriminating then gets spun that way. That's both how innocent people end up imprisoned, as well as how crimes don't get solved (because other potential trails get short shrift and yet the initial PsOI (who are really suspects) don't have the smoking gun needed to make the case). Although, as history has shown, sometimes a 'wrong' case can be made without that smoking gun.

In this case a lack of information doesn't mean there's a lack of evidence pointing in any number of directions.

.02

I'm not Abbey, but I do agree that a rush to judgment does lead to some convictions of innocent people and while I do think your comments are definitely worthwhile to consider, I think some of this is too dismissive of what is (publicly) known.

Again, I don't think people are saying that the 5N boys have not talked period. I think a lot of people think they have been misleading/haven't provided all the information; i.e., they have provided at least some information that is true and/or appears to check out, but it seems like they haven't provided all of the relevant information.

Lawsuits are generally the least favorable option and most people try to avoid them. From what I remember, the Spierers did not file until the last possible moment before it would have been barred because of timing. I really think this should be considered with equal weight to your own assumption that the 5N boys have cleared the "fog" with authorities: It doesn't seem like the Spierers would file a lawsuit unless they really thought there were holes in the story/things weren't adding up.

I also think it is a minority of people that are absolutely certain that the 5N boys are culpable. There may be many that think they are probably culpable, but I think the public's perception would change if more information came to light.

Whether anyone likes it or not, LS' disappearance made national headlines and continues to pop up in the news every once in awhile. The boys from 5N appear to be decently well off and educated. While they may have talked to authorities to clear up the "fog," I think that is an assumption in and of itself as well. I am not so sure that they have, but I respect the fact that you think this and acknowledge it is a distinct possibility. However, the 5N boys are not limited to what is best for LS and could take steps to put statements out themselves.

LS is missing. These boys are educated, sophisticated adults with resources available to them. If they wanted to, they could do things to try to sway public opinion. While innocent people are unfortunately wrongly convicted, these boys have only endured the judgment of a skeptical public and, unlike those who are convicted, they have the freedom to try to do something about it right now. No, not everyone would believe them if they did put out a story to clear it all up and some would condemn them for whatever story they put out, but they have decided not to put out a story publicly, whatever their reasons.

I don't think it is wrong of the public to form opinions based on what has been publicly reported. They are only that: opinions. I do not think forming opinions on what is publicly reported is anywhere near as terrible as someone who is in fact wrongfully convicted of a crime he or she did not commit, and opinions can be changed with more information. I think most of us understand the media can be unreliable and even sometimes wrong, which is why I don't understand why you think so many people are "certain" of the guilt of the 5N guys. I think this is even more true here on WS, where people are constantly questioning what the media has put out.

I think all of us have come to care about LS and the Spierers for our own reasons and hope they find peace sooner rather than later. I think regardless of our opinions currently, we want to see whoever is responsible for her disappearance found out and convicted, whether it is the 5N crew, JW, or someone else entirely. All of us here are certainly not entitled to the information that LE has, and not even the information that the Spierers have, but people are going to form opinions on what is making the news regardless. I think it is the responsibility of those involved to speak out if they choose to (or not to).


To be sure, all of this is meant respectfully. It is always good to remember that many things are not 100% certain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
190
Guests online
3,985
Total visitors
4,175

Forum statistics

Threads
594,013
Messages
17,997,491
Members
229,297
Latest member
Abbeybabzxx
Back
Top