Search results

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
  1. B

    IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #11

    Did you try looking at FB pages where we can at least see the user's friends and see if any of the initials match? Same for twitter, though the names there are not always the person's name.
  2. B

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

    It baffles me too. Just look at the "missing threads" on this site, there's many. So sad. Did you ever hear of Brian Shaffer? He was a medical student that went missing from OH a few years back. He's on video going into a bar, but never coming out. All entrances were within view of a...
  3. B

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

    PS - I wanted to add that there's always "standard language" in contracts, and a lot of the time it means nothing. Not that your LL can't enter your apt if he provides you with sufficient notice, but just generally speaking, there's a lot of BS in contracts. Just because it's written in...
  4. B

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

    As far as obtaining search warrants for the homes/vehicles of the POIs - LE needs probable cause. It seems that some have cooperated/consented already. IMO, they have PC as to JR, and probably JW (though I think he's consented/cooperated?).
  5. B

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

    I think that's pretty standard lease language - it doesn't mean he can enter at any time with a few police friends and search your place. There's a ton of case law about this, and there are a lot of nuances in this area of law (an entire law school course is pretty much about 4th Amendment...
  6. B

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

    Anyone who lives there could, though it might get a little questionable (from a legal standpoint) if, say, JR's roommate let LE in and allowed them to search JR's room. The property owner cannot allow LE to search an apartment that's currently being leased by someone without that person's...
  7. B

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

    You'd need a subpoena. This was in response to elo's post about phone records through the phone company.
  8. B

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

    I was really confused by that as well. Think "curved" as in "curved inwards" instead of rounded.
  9. B

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

    It sure is, and we don't know that he wasn't, so good call. At least we know he can be accounted for (or not accounted for) during relevant times.
  10. B

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

    DR lives in Smallwood, right? At least we know there's video evidence of him coming and going, so LE would know if he never came home that night, came home and then left again, or came home at 7am.
  11. B

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

    This may have lead LE to think that it passed thru a couple of times when now it seems it only passed thru once. Just my opinion. (snip) I think that is precisely what happened with the truck. I just meant you'd think verifying the time would be one of the first things LE would do.
  12. B

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

    This JUST occurred to me as well. TG - can you ask at tomorrow's PC if LS is, at any time, in any video, being turned upside down, or being carried as the 338 witness describes?
  13. B

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

    I just don't get how she could be a whole hour off. Even if there was no giant digital clock there, you know what time you get off work. Maybe not to the exact minute, but to be a whole hour off?
  14. B

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

    I was wondering about this too. Did it just not occur to LE to check the times of the camera that caught the truck?
  15. B

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

    IMO he's saying that she's not on the video at 3:38 am. Period. Leaves open the possibility that encounter happened at that time, as the witness described, but was not captured by any video camera.
  16. B

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

    Okay, thanks, I thought you meant that HT was the only one who said something about the call - was confused. :)
  17. B

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

    I'm confused. Didn't TG just say that one of the attorneys verified the existence of this call?
  18. B

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

    IMO, that would have been more of JW's mindset. He obviously has a bigger stake in it (losing her/being embarrassed) than the rest of the guys.
  19. B

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

    I think you definitely go to the police at some point, it just seems like it was kind of early for that. Like she could still roll in from wherever she was. I was reading tweets from her roommate's (AR) account, and she tweeted about still being drunk at 4:30 the next day (this was a day...
  20. B

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

    I would tend to think these guys would be out to hurt the guys LS was with, but not her.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
146
Guests online
1,960
Total visitors
2,106

Forum statistics

Threads
601,558
Messages
18,126,139
Members
231,091
Latest member
OkCujo98
Back
Top