IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 - #21

[Jupiter812]

Touching. As we move toward the possibility of a landfill search, the Spierers are in my thoughts more than ever.

Once again, I can't help but notice that absent from these messages "from Lauren's closest friends and family" is any message from JW.

It would be highly distracting (and inappropriate imo) to include a message from JW. It would surely take the focus off LS, and the love and support people are offering, and make it more about him. The Spierer's are very careful about what they allow to be published on the web site, FB page, blog, and even the tee-shirts that were made for the Awareness Ride.

 

[Inspector Gidget]

Spaaah - No visible outside cameras
Domino's - No visible outside cameras
Papa Johns - No visible outside Cameras
Kilroy's - Lots of cameras, (approx. 14 until they started remodeling a couple weeks ago).

In addition:
Starting at 7th & Walnut Heading North
Taco Bell - Beside / Just south of Kilroys - No visible outside camera
Parking Garage across from Kilroys - Dunno

Starting at 8th st. & Walnut Heading North
Flower shop - Beside / Just north of Kilroys - No visible outside camera
Elks Lodge - No visible outside Camera
Jakes Bar - No visible outside camera
Insurance company - No visible camera
ProCure - Camera pointed toward 9th & Walnut intersection

Starting at 9th & Walnut Heading North
Apartments - Camera pointed toward sidewalk & Walnut. Also cameras that may get 9th street sidewalk
Apartments - No visible outside camera
Real Estate office - No visible outside camera
2nd Real Estate office - No visible outside camera
Attorney Office - No visible outside camera
Square Donuts - No visible outside camera
2nd Attorneys office - No visible outside camera

Starting at 10th & Walnut headed North
Mad Mushroom - No visible outside camera
The rest of the block is residential / small business with no cameras, except a small apt. building with a business at the South West corner of 11th & Walnut - No camera.


Feel free to correct any memory oversight and add more blocks.

I just wanted to personally thank you for all you have done
A lot of us live so far away and you are right there taking pics and getting good information.It is so much appreciated

 

[jjenny]

From the timeline in the JRNTT link:



3:15-3:30 am? Was that a typo or is that verified in a story?

That's the wrong time police originally claimed she was seen in the alley at. Then they changed the timeline when they released the official timeline.

 

[bx2]

So today, I started dissecting what little we know about the phone call to DR at 4:15, and low and behold I think I believe that JRs account is truthful OR HT is paraphrasing him in a manner that she think helps him.

Before leaving, Tamir said, Spierer used Rosenbaum's phone to call Rohn to see if he knew where her phone was.

Chapman, who represented Rohn in a prior public intoxication case and spoke with him in recent days about his interactions with Spierer, would only say that that "somebody" called Rohn at 4:15 a.m. and that "he didn't answer his phone because he was in bed."

There's 3 points of "substance" to his story:

1)time of 4:15 - this really can't be disputed, it's easy to see the timestamp on missed calls. He can't claim a different time and have DR be able to so plainly point out the lie.

2)who placed the call - (JR version says LS) I keep coming back to, why would he insert this innocuous detail if it was a lie. Does saying she made the call rather than him making the call on her behalf make it more believable? Remember he is telling this to his friend, not LE.

3)reason for the call - (JR version says she was looking for her phone) We don't know exactly when he told this story to HT, but it was seemingly close to the beginning of the search. I am of the belief that JR had been filled in on some of the other known details by this time, like shoes and phone recovered from Kilroys. If he was lying about the reason for the call, why on Earth would he make up something that could be so easily turned against him. CR or anyone else she met up with that night could come back with LS knew she left her phone at Kilroys thus making his entire phone call story a farce.

MOO, but I'm leaning toward JR being truthful here.

 

[Jupiter812]

So today, I started dissecting what little we know about the phone call to DR at 4:15, and low and behold I think I believe that JRs account is truthful OR HT is paraphrasing him in a manner that she think helps him.

http://www.lohud.com/article/201106...mor-overdose-new-details-her-night-parents-TV

There's 3 points of "substance" to his story:

1)time of 4:15 - this really can't be disputed, it's easy to see the timestamp on missed calls. He can't claim a different time and have DR be able to so plainly point out the lie.

2)who placed the call - (JR version says LS) I keep coming back to, why would he insert this innocuous detail if it was a lie. Does saying she made the call rather than him making the call on her behalf make it more believable? Remember he is telling this to his friend, not LE.

3)reason for the call - (JR version says she was looking for her phone) We don't know exactly when he told this story to HT, but it was seemingly close to the beginning of the search. I am of the belief that JR had been filled in on some of the other known details by this time, like shoes and phone recovered from Kilroys. If he was lying about the reason for the call, why on Earth would he make up something that could be so easily turned against him. CR or anyone else she met up with that night could come back with LS knew she left her phone at Kilroys thus making his entire phone call story a farce.

MOO, but I'm leaning toward JR being truthful here.

I've thought about that call today too because I re-read the excerpt below and the "unknown number" jumped out at me. So obviously DR didn't have JR in his contact list. I'm doubtful that LS would know DR's number by memory, so that require JR to have it.

"Bloomington attorney RC confirms that one of his clients, IU student and Smallwood resident DR, socialized with Spierer shortly before her disappearance and has spoken with police. He says DR received a phone call from an unknown number at 4:15 a.m. the morning Spierer disappeared."

 

[jenniek]

I've thought about that call today too because I re-read the excerpt below and the "unknown number" jumped out at me. So obviously DR didn't have JR in his contact list. I'm doubtful that LS would know DR's number by memory, so that require JR to have it.

"Bloomington attorney RC confirms that one of his clients, IU student and Smallwood resident DR, socialized with Spierer shortly before her disappearance and has spoken with police. He says DR received a phone call from an unknown number at 4:15 a.m. the morning Spierer disappeared."

I think it's weird JR would have DR's number and DR wouldn't have JR's. I'm not buying it. As far as LS memorizing numbers, I am a few years older and I know no one (besides my familys) number by heart. I would like to know if DR recently had to get a new phone and lost his contacts - then it might make sense, but my hinky meter is pretty high on this issue. why would she call him of all people? why not a close gf? ht? it just strikes me odd that of all people she would call him. JR and HT have talked so I would assume he has her number saved in his phone. i don't know just my observations, but when i read the unknown number part I thought there was something suspicious about it. jmo

 

[elmomom]

I think it's weird JR would have DR's number and DR wouldn't have JR's. I'm not buying it. As far as LS memorizing numbers, I am a few years older and I know no one (besides my familys) number by heart. I would like to know if DR recently had to get a new phone and lost his contacts - then it might make sense, but my hinky meter is pretty high on this issue. why would she call him of all people? why not a close gf? ht? it just strikes me odd that of all people she would call him. JR and HT have talked so I would assume he has her number saved in his phone. i don't know just my observations, but when i read the unknown number part I thought there was something suspicious about it. jmo

bbm

I can think of a reason why this may be the case. If JR had a reason to call DR and no reason for DR to have to call JR. Considering the rumors I've heard about DR, I can see this.

 

[bx2]

I've thought about that call today too because I re-read the excerpt below and the "unknown number" jumped out at me. So obviously DR didn't have JR in his contact list. I'm doubtful that LS would know DR's number by memory, so that require JR to have it.

"Bloomington attorney RC confirms that one of his clients, IU student and Smallwood resident DR, socialized with Spierer shortly before her disappearance and has spoken with police. He says DR received a phone call from an unknown number at 4:15 a.m. the morning Spierer disappeared."

Can I presume you are getting this quote from the Herald Times 7/3 day by day article? I think they are unsuccessfully summarizing RC's quote from here where he says he doesn't know who called to later be "an unknown number". The dates even match up. Big difference there.

 

[bloom54]

Wasn't it written somewhere that the call was from a landline? That could explain the unknown caller... but WHY would you call from a landline? You'd have to look up the number on your cellphone...

 

[jenniek]

So today, I started dissecting what little we know about the phone call to DR at 4:15, and low and behold I think I believe that JRs account is truthful OR HT is paraphrasing him in a manner that she think helps him.

http://www.lohud.com/article/201106...mor-overdose-new-details-her-night-parents-TV

There's 3 points of "substance" to his story:

1)time of 4:15 - this really can't be disputed, it's easy to see the timestamp on missed calls. He can't claim a different time and have DR be able to so plainly point out the lie.

2)who placed the call - (JR version says LS) I keep coming back to, why would he insert this innocuous detail if it was a lie. Does saying she made the call rather than him making the call on her behalf make it more believable? Remember he is telling this to his friend, not LE.

3)reason for the call - (JR version says she was looking for her phone) We don't know exactly when he told this story to HT, but it was seemingly close to the beginning of the search. I am of the belief that JR had been filled in on some of the other known details by this time, like shoes and phone recovered from Kilroys. If he was lying about the reason for the call, why on Earth would he make up something that could be so easily turned against him. CR or anyone else she met up with that night could come back with LS knew she left her phone at Kilroys thus making his entire phone call story a farce.

MOO, but I'm leaning toward JR being truthful here.

bbm, I think the only way I could believe this is seeing if she also called her own phone. that is the FIRST thing anyone would do if they couldn't find their phone. since we don't know whether or not there were any other calls made I am still on the fence. and as far as I'm concerned he could have told HT anything, who cares what he told her she doesn't matter. telling police is different. he could have easily said oh "we" called DR and HT might have spun that as "lauren" called DR. we just don't know enough, imo

 

[jenniek]

Wasn't it written somewhere that the call was from a landline? That could explain the unknown caller... but WHY would you call from a landline? You'd have to look up the number on your cellphone...

i've never heard the landline theory, being that age I would doubt they would have a landline unless it was included in their rent and even then you are right why call from a landline. if it's true it was from a landline then the whole "pinging" in martinsville would be a lie. I don't know we don't know enough.

 

[bx2]

bbm, I think the only way I could believe this is seeing if she also called her own phone. that is the FIRST thing anyone would do if they couldn't find their phone. since we don't know whether or not there were any other calls made I am still on the fence. and as far as I'm concerned he could have told HT anything, who cares what he told her she doesn't matter. telling police is different. he could have easily said oh "we" called DR and HT might have spun that as "lauren" called DR. we just don't know enough, imo

I agree that she would have first called her own phone. Do you all think that she had JR in her Contacts list? Even if she didn't, I do wonder if JW would be a tad curious on who the number was at 4:15 (presuming he looked through her phone after retrieving it from Kilroys and presuming that she called her own phone from JR's at all).

 

[bloom54]

i've never heard the landline theory, being that age I would doubt they would have a landline unless it was included in their rent and even then you are right why call from a landline. if it's true it was from a landline then the whole "pinging" in martinsville would be a lie. I don't know we don't know enough.

That was my feeling when I heard the landline thing, too... the only reason I could imagine a landline was when I first thought the apartments had a shared entry -- and often the buzzer is tied to a landline in the apartment. But since they have individual entrances I find it hard to believe that any kid would have a landline...

 

[bloom54]

Can I presume you are getting this quote from the Herald Times 7/3 day by day article? I think they are unsuccessfully summarizing RC's quote from here where he says he doesn't know who called to later be "an unknown number". The dates even match up. Big difference there.

ah.. now THAT makes sense to me!!

 

[bloom54]

bbm

I can think of a reason why this may be the case. If JR had a reason to call DR and no reason for DR to have to call JR. Considering the rumors I've heard about DR, I can see this.

can you share?

 

[Jupiter812]

Can I presume you are getting this quote from the Herald Times 7/3 day by day article? I think they are unsuccessfully summarizing RC's quote from here where he says he doesn't know who called to later be "an unknown number". The dates even match up. Big difference there.

Yes, the entry for Day 15, Friday, June 17. I agree, that is a big difference, but I have no way to know whether it's sloppiness on the part of HT. If it was in fact an unknown number it would explain why DR didn't answer it.

By June 17, the ID of the caller would be known, wouldn't it?

What dates don't match up? The day-by-day story of June 17 is referring to when RC provided his quote, not when the call occurred.

 

[Jupiter812]

I think it's weird JR would have DR's number and DR wouldn't have JR's. I'm not buying it. As far as LS memorizing numbers, I am a few years older and I know no one (besides my familys) number by heart. I would like to know if DR recently had to get a new phone and lost his contacts - then it might make sense, but my hinky meter is pretty high on this issue. why would she call him of all people? why not a close gf? ht? it just strikes me odd that of all people she would call him. JR and HT have talked so I would assume he has her number saved in his phone. i don't know just my observations, but when i read the unknown number part I thought there was something suspicious about it. jmo

HT and her girlfriends were not with her that night but DR was.

 

[Jupiter812]

can you share?

I was going to address that in my original post. As I understand it, JR might have DR's number for when he wants party supplies.

 

[bx2]

Yes, the entry for Day 15, Friday, June 17. I agree, that is a big difference, but I have no way to know whether it's sloppiness on the part of HT. If it was in fact an unknown number it would explain why DR didn't answer it.

By June 17, the ID of the caller would be known, wouldn't it?

What dates don't match up? The day-by-day story of June 17 is referring to when RC provided his quote, not when the call occurred.

I said the dates do match up, referring to the date that the HT published the story with the quote (6/17) and their own timeline referring back to it.

 

[Jupiter812]

I agree that she would have first called her own phone. Do you all think that she had JR in her Contacts list? Even if she didn't, I do wonder if JW would be a tad curious on who the number was at 4:15 (presuming he looked through her phone after retrieving it from Kilroys and presuming that she called her own phone from JR's at all).

Not only would JW be a tad curious, I would think it might be one of the reasons he raised this to the level of a missing person.