I can't believe its been three years. I hope they get some answers soon, I can't imagine the hell they've been in for so long.
IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #33
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
- Status
I can't believe its been three years. I hope they get some answers soon, I can't imagine the hell they've been in for so long.
Isn't that post the Chapman quotes that we are all aware of and then the things the PI's added later or things from the civil suit? Not two differing accounts by the attorney?
One quote in that post I referenced states that Lauren left the apartment alone, without MB and that he watched her leave. The quote that I posted says that MB brought Lauren over to JR's himself and then left. In the civil suit, there is yet another version.
edited for clarity: The last two quotes in #303 are clear that MB watched Lauren leave from his apartment but did not leave with her. The quote that I posted is clear that MB walked Lauren to JR's.
As a law student you would equally know that what a lawyer says is not evidence of anything. It is common for lawyers to come up with different accounts, it is all a PR exercise and means nothing, because it is the lawyer who is saying it, not the client. They are presenting alternative scenarios to a narrative. That they choose not to explain that to you, the audience, should be readily apparent to any first year law student.
As a law student you would also know that the only time a lawyer is dragged in front of a disciplinary committee is if the client makes a complaint.
But only the bottom 3 quotes are from the attorney aren't they? The others are from the PI's or the civil suit and not the attorney as I read it.
I thought that was the whole point of the #303 post to show that what the attorney said is different from what is said by PI's and/or in the civil case filings? I'm not seeing two changing stories from the attorney. That's what I want to see a link to.
The contradiction would stem from the fact that the POI were also very drunk, and their recollections would be hazy at best and will probably change. After all the constant rehashing, debate and self reflection over the years, I doubt there is anything left that is particularly accurate any more. All testimony changes with time, it is normal. That is the big problem with any eye witness testimony. Usually the most accurate impressions are those that are recorded immediately after an event. Stuff that is recounted weeks, months or years later is rarely accurate and you certainly cannot depend on any of it without corroboration.
I expect accounts and details to change. Facts shouldn't change.
I think people are talking past each other in the lawyer conversation. What matters in a trial is not the same thing as what matters when it comes to assessing what we (the public) have been told about the last few hours of a missing girl. I think most would agree that the inability of the last people with her to give a coherent account of basic things like a timeline and who was present in the hours before she disappeared is problematic.
And the lawyers' statements go beyond just PR spin. They made claims that have been refuted by video evidence, contradicted by witness statements and by their own clients. As mentioned, there may be explanations for those contradictions. But I'm not going to make assumptions about what those explanations are when they have not been offered. Legitimate questions have been raised about these accounts and the evidence we have so far. Beyond those statements, there are also contradictory accounts from several witnesses who spoke to the POI directly.
It's clear from the Spierers' statements that the stories still don't add up.
I think people are talking past each other in the lawyer conversation. What matters in a trial is not the same thing as what matters when it comes to assessing what we (the public) have been told about the last few hours of a missing girl. I think most would agree that the inability of the last people with her to give a coherent account of basic things like a timeline and who was present in the hours before she disappeared is problematic.
And the lawyers' statements go beyond just PR spin. They made claims that have been refuted by video evidence, contradicted by witness statements and by their own clients. As mentioned, there may be explanations for those contradictions. But I'm not going to make assumptions about what those explanations are when they have not been offered. Legitimate questions have been raised about these accounts and the evidence we have so far. Beyond those statements, there are also contradictory accounts from several witnesses who spoke to the POI directly.
It's clear from the Spierers' statements that the stories still don't add up.
But you're assuming that all of that isn't accurately reflected in police statements or investigative statements. And we just don't know that at all.
I think at this point the Spierers are convinced of the guilt of 5N and unless they admit to involvement in her demise and disappearance then for them the stories will never add up whether truthful or not.
Nope, as I've said countless times, we have no idea what was said in police statements. We only know they are persons of interest in Lauren's disappearance.
I am referring to every other account we actually have access to, including the statements their lawyers chose to give to the media, the private investigators and the witnesses who spoke to them.
No matter what they told police, I question why there are multiple and contradictory stories allegedly being told to neighbors, friends, investigators and the media about what happened the night Lauren disappeared. That two of the last people with Lauren can't keep to a single story, and the other has "amnesia" doesn't lend much to their credibility, IMO.
I'm not talking about alternative scenarios, I'm talking about what was stated as fact (MB did not walk Lauren to JR's, MB did walk her to JR's. MB was home when Lauren and CR arrived at the apartment, MB was out when Lauren and CR arrived at the apartment and returned because he believed his apartment was being robbed). I don't expect everyone to agree with me at all, and I'm not saying that I necessarily think there is anything to it. All I'm saying is that in the context of changing stories, especially with MB, I don't think it is wise to totally discount changes in his lawyer's account of the night. I think we're getting off point here, and I apologize about my part in it.
I am aware of how disciplinary charges are brought, if an attorney is making statements that a client has no part in and knows to be false or incorrect, I don't think its absurd to think the client might make a complaint.
Ok, all quotes here are from MB's lawyer, BBM
"Further, Beth took Spierer to Rosenbaum's residence and left her with Rosenbaum. It was Rosenbaum who allowed Spierer to leave his residence unescorted."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/25/missing-ind-student-lawsuit/2587749/
"They then went to Rossman's building, where Beth, his roommate, put him to bed, said Beth's lawyer, Ronald Chapman.
Beth watched Spierer leave. She then went to Rosenbaum's apartment."
http://www.lohud.com/article/201106...?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|News&nclick_check=1
""He made Corey go to bed," Chapman said. "He saw her walking out. That was the end of it. He wants her to be found and be OK, but he doesn't have any information that will lead to her discovery."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-06-11-lauren-spierer-investigation-dna_n.htm
I think we're going in circles with what Chapman said. At the end of the day, we have very limited information to work off of, some of which might be flat out untrue, some of which might be misreported, some of which might be misinterpreted. I wish we had more definite facts to work with, but as it stands most of our information comes from the POIs lawyers, the civil suit, MSM and PIs. Its hard to tell what has been verified, especially since most of the initial articles are now behind a pay wall.
My entire point about this was just that I, personally, find it odd that MB's story has changed. Yes, the initial information came from his lawyer and obviously none of us can know how those statements came about.
When this case first started I thought MB sounded innocent in comparison to the 5N POIs because his role seemed so small that night. The fact that his story of that night has changed (has changed as far as I know, maybe he gave one statement to LE at the very beginning, and that statement hasn't changed. I don't know) makes me suspicious, mainly because I would assume that the sober kid working on a paper all night would have a pretty clear recollection of what happened
Somewhere there are some posts with even more direct quotes from Chapman. In addition to the ones that Holly just posted, there are some other discrepancies that may not be a huge deal, but are worth pointing out - especially since some of the comments here suggest that the reason for the discrepancies is that they were all drunk. Like:
- Chapman also said that MB was home all night writing his papers and that he had not had any alcohol or drugs. I don't have time to look up the link because I'm on my way out (and have posted way too much here today anyway!), but it's been quoted here several times. Try searching "stone cold sober" as I'm pretty sure those were the exact words he used. (FTR, The lawsuit docs state that Beth was over at JR's and was drinking)
These should all be simple questions:
-Was MB at home writing papers all night, as his lawyer (and mom, supposedly) took the time to explicitly state to the media/ public? Or was he out?
- Did he not touch alcohol or drugs, or was he drinking?
- Was he at home when Lauren and Corey got there and promptly put Corey to bed ? Or was he out and came home to what he thought were 'robbers'?
- Did she leave wanting to party and MB turned down the invitation? Or was she severely intoxicated to the point that MB was worried about her getting home and needed to find help?
- Did Lauren leave while he was upstairs? Or did he watch her walk out the door? Or did MB take her over to JR's?
- Which apt was he in the last time he saw Lauren?
- Who was there?
- What time did she leave his place?
So why are there no clear answers, even when it comes from the accounts of one single POI? (MB)
Ok, I'm done for now
Goodnight, all!
- Chapman also said that MB was home all night writing his papers and that he had not had any alcohol or drugs. I don't have time to look up the link because I'm on my way out (and have posted way too much here today anyway!), but it's been quoted here several times. Try searching "stone cold sober" as I'm pretty sure those were the exact words he used. (FTR, The lawsuit docs state that Beth was over at JR's and was drinking)
These should all be simple questions:
-Was MB at home writing papers all night, as his lawyer (and mom, supposedly) took the time to explicitly state to the media/ public? Or was he out?
- Did he not touch alcohol or drugs, or was he drinking?
- Was he at home when Lauren and Corey got there and promptly put Corey to bed ? Or was he out and came home to what he thought were 'robbers'?
- Did she leave wanting to party and MB turned down the invitation? Or was she severely intoxicated to the point that MB was worried about her getting home and needed to find help?
- Did Lauren leave while he was upstairs? Or did he watch her walk out the door? Or did MB take her over to JR's?
- Which apt was he in the last time he saw Lauren?
- Who was there?
- What time did she leave his place?
So why are there no clear answers, even when it comes from the accounts of one single POI? (MB)
Ok, I'm done for now
Goodnight, all!BBM - But isn't that full of assumptions too?
UBM - I'm not sure I agree with you.
Just because we aren't sure why his lawyer said what he said, doesn't make it irrelevant or meaningless.
I like how holly brought up absolutes. I try to stay away from absolutes too because there is a lot of information we just don't know. You yourself are always quick to point out that there is a lot we don't know, so I'm not sure why you are so quick to deem the lawyer's quote as "certainly meaningless." It might be because of reasons you noted, but several other assumptions can be made the other way too.
I think Abbey has already addressed this, but we aren't LE or the lawyers for anyone in this case. We're just sleuthers on the web and the statement falls within the guidelines for this site. In that context, yes, a statement from a lawyer at odds with several other accounts is reason to look at MB's statements with more skepticism.
(name corrected by me)
For the reason I just mentioned, I don't think they are wrong about the importance or weight given to the lawyer's statement. Usually, the statement is brought up as one of several accounts that appear to differ. Additionally, the lawyer's statement might deserve more weight than other accounts if only because MB selected this particular person to represent him and speak on his behalf versus other accounts, such as the neighbor's, who has no interest in the case. MB doesn't appear to take issue with what his lawyer has said, otherwise he likely would file a complaint and/or select someone else to speak on his behalf.
My own opinion - I do agree with holly that I at least seriously question whether his lawyer would make the statements he made without at least speaking to MB first and I seriously doubt he would be outright lying. The lawyer's statements touch on at least three aspects that I find important - MB's mental state at the time (sober vs drinking), MB's activities that night, and MB's interactions with LS.
Again, as mentioned, this is not meant to touch on what would be admissible in court against MB.
Ixchel13
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,658
- Reaction score
- 1,144
PIs have her sitting on steps then getting up and making their way up the alley.
and then going in the building and trying to get in . I was estimating the time 2:45, in between walking from SW and then entering the alley, giving them 3 min. to emerge from the alley.
We've discussed this before, about them not having enough time to do all of this between 2:42 and 2:51. Plus,I've said so many times, you cannot enter 10th and College in any way, shape or form from that alley.
But. on the left side in the alley, there are 2 small courtyards that you can enter 10th and College (Villages) townhomes from. When you "duck" into the courtyards, it could be seen to seem like ducking in a building. There are two doors in each courtyard that can be entered with a key card only..
I think I can clear up the buzzed in questions. Most of these doors around these apts need a key card to get into. You can't be "buzzed in";
if you have a cell phone, with which you call your friend and they can come down and let you in. Lauren didn't have her phone, but CR surely did.
IMO, they were trying to get in 10th and College Villages. Once in, these townhomes open up to Morton St., on the west side, no cameras at all then on that side.
Also, MB doesn't have to be lying (although he could be about other things)
about first coming home to find CR and Lauren there. When he came downstairs, she was gone. If someone brought Lauren back up from the west side, from 10th and College Villages, :they: could have brought her back to MBs, and then he brought her back to JRs, this time suffering from a brain injury, because IMO, she got that brain injury from an attempted trip back down to 10th and College Villages. They tried to get her cognizant enough to walk, which is the "sobriety" test JR is talking about. IMO, he wasn't checking her sobriety, but the severance of her injuries.
IMO, when CR and Lauren tried to get in 10th and Wherever the first time, they may have alerted whomever may have been looking for/stalking her.
These are the ones who found her and brought her back up, in this scenario, IMO, MOO, speculation, and with the knowledge that others disagree.
snipped from a post above who is quoting a PI:
"They came over together, and Rosenbaum said he put on sweatclothes and opened the door. Spierer came carrying her fake ID and Smallwood key card, he said. “When Lauren walked into Rosenbaum’s apartment, he observed a very noticeable bruise under her eye,” the investigator wrote in a report summarizing his interview with Rosenbaum. “He stated he asked her what happened, and she responded, ‘I don’t know.’ ” Beth said he pressed her to sleep over at Rosenbaum’s. Initially, she sat on the couch and seemed agreeable, he said. Beth said that’s when he left Rosenbaum’s and returned to his apartment."
uh,oh. carrying her fake ID? key card and student ID were found along the route, real keys to her apt. door were found at SW. Being that LE said a roommate found her ID and turned it in, could this be a reason LE has reason to believe her friends are not forthcoming? What if JR had the ID, and then decided to give it to someone else on the scene to get rid of?
BBM. The fake ID has always bothered me. I would think that if she had been able to hold on to one card, it would have been her key card. Also, just speaking for myself, but if I go out without a purse and have several cards (ie ID, credit card or whatever) I tuck them somewhere together... its strange to me that she dropped two cards but not the third. I don't necessarily think it means anything, but IA with you that its strange.
One thing your post made me think of (JMO, IMO etc) is that if Lauren had her key card and her student ID visible when she arrived at JR's/5N, JR (or someone else) could have given it to someone to get rid of, and then later discovered her fake ID and decided to just say Lauren left it there. (like if she dropped the fake id at CR and MB's, but hung on to her student id and key card until JR's the fake id might not have been found until later)
Ixchel13
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,658
- Reaction score
- 1,144
Any attorney worth their salt is going to throw that amnesia spiel out there as a blanket right away--his client is on video getting knocked down. Then, as the case progresses, and as we even have seen from CRs statement about the amnesia being exaggerated, the amnesia could be lessened or he could "begin to recall things," lol.
Which is a sweet deal for CR , he didn't even have to have a MD's backup, the video
says it all for him. He could be telling the truth or lying, that video knockdown is all he needs.
Which is a sweet deal for CR , he didn't even have to have a MD's backup, the video
says it all for him. He could be telling the truth or lying, that video knockdown is all he needs.
Vidocq
Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2014
- Messages
- 74
- Reaction score
- 0
I wonder if JR used the word "bruise" to describe Lauren's supposed eye injury. To me bruise sounds like it was black and blue. I remember an episode of Moonlighting where the badguy was discovered to be lying, because he had someone with a fake injury being black and blue right away, whereas, it really takes a day for such an injury to go from pink to blue.
Speculation: what if she left JR's as described, walked to the corner, realized she was missing her key (or phone etc.), then went back to MB's and CR's and knocked on the door....Might explain why CR claims no recollection of events and why the stories originating from MB are inconsistent.
CR's car was searched. Did MB have a car and was it searched?
CR's car was searched. Did MB have a car and was it searched?
doubtingthomas
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 212
- Reaction score
- -2
http://www.lohud.com/story/news/loca...uggle/9837123/
Snipped from the above report:
"There are only two facts: A young woman got pretty intoxicated and she just walked away, and they can't make that into something it's not," lawyer Greg Garrison told the judge, arguing, successfully, that his client Mike Beth be dismissed as a defendant in the Spierers' wrongful death lawsuit. "She just walked away."
So did he mean "She just walked away" from MB's apt like MB originally said or she just walked away in general? Would have been nice to ask that question.
Snipped from the above report:
"There are only two facts: A young woman got pretty intoxicated and she just walked away, and they can't make that into something it's not," lawyer Greg Garrison told the judge, arguing, successfully, that his client Mike Beth be dismissed as a defendant in the Spierers' wrongful death lawsuit. "She just walked away."
So did he mean "She just walked away" from MB's apt like MB originally said or she just walked away in general? Would have been nice to ask that question.
Here is one of the quotes about JR's original story, reportedly the version he told to police in 2011:
(bbm) http://www.lohud.com/article/201106...?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|News&nclick_check=1
Unrelated to the above, but edited to add: From the same article -- By June 14, Qualters had already revised the original statement about having up to 10 Persons of interest, presumably after they began to interview people and review evidence:
- Status