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

[jjenny]

Maybe he's not a mystery man to LE.

That said, I know that the bar manager/witness says that she saw a photo lineup of the POIs, and that none of them matched the person she saw/gave a description for a sketch.

Even Mr. Tony Gatto, who first posted about this eyewitness, has posted on his blog that police discount this "mystery man." <modsnip>

 

[elmomom]

I'm with you.

thanks because its obvious my theory works since no one is trashing it, and ignoring it instead.

 

[Alliecog]

It was four days, is my understanding. The two week time period refers to the time between the Indy 500 and when the information was supplied to the news media.

I wonder if they met at Little 500 which is in late April here at IU. Big bike race and party weekend out here.

 

[jjenny]

It's because I find Tony's blog another interesting take on things. I don't feel that he is causing any misdirection on Lauren's case. Anything is possible in this case.

Well Mr. Gatto observed the press-conference and accepted that police discount the "mystery man." So why insist it could have happened?

 

[Darcyline]

Even Mr. Tony Gatto, who first posted about this eyewitness, has posted on his blog that police discount this "mystery man." Why is it still discussed here as if police believe it could have happened?

I am a little confused by that too. It feels like people are trying to force this to be true when it has been discounted, but I don't get why? High profile cases get so many mistaken or false tips. Why has the 338 one gained so much traction? I may have missed something-work for me has been busy lately so I haven't been able to read every page.

 

[elmomom]

Even Mr. Tony Gatto, who first posted about this eyewitness, has posted on his blog that police discount this "mystery man." Why is it still discussed here as if police believe it could have happened?

I am hoping that Tony Gatto will come and refute this, as I believe this to be a mischaracterization of what Mr Gatto said.

 

[jjenny]

I am a little confused by that too. It feels like people are trying to force this to be true when it has been discounted, but I don't get why? High profile cases get so many mistaken or false tips. Why has the 338 one gained so much traction? I may have missed something-work for me has been busy lately so I haven't been able to read every page.

I don't get either. Is it because "mystery man" somehow makes the case more exiting? Even Mr. Gatto accepts that police discounted this "mystery man."

 

[akh]

Is any of this true, or did I misunderstand? If it's true, that's why this part was confusing - unless of course there would be evidence. Make sense, or am I confusing you? LOL

So if one of the POI's admitted killing LS and disposing of the body somewhere that is not recoverable he'd have committed the perfect crime and not be prosecuted (because there's no evidence)?

IOW... you've been given bad information. More likely the point that got lost was that a person admitting to some small crime with no evidence to support it would probably lawyer up and not take the stand and leave the prosecutor with more trouble than the case would be worth to prosecute. ...But no way would you ever want to count on that as a guilty person thinking you could 'talk' about your bad acts with no fear of punishment.

 

[jjenny]

I am hoping that Tony Gatto will come and refute this, as I believe this to be a mischaracterization of what Mr Gatto said.

If you visit his blog, it's in a title of his blog post on June 22. I don't know how the title of the blog post can be mischaracterized.

 

[akh]

I think what the police have done is say that if this man does exist he's not a mystery man to them in this case.

 

[fedfan4life]

Regardless of whether the 3:38am incident happened or not, the clues to her disappearance lie w/Jay R. I agree w/the posters above - There is no reason for this individual to state that she was w/him around 4:30am, if it wasn't true (or based upon truth, anyway). I mean, why insert yourself into this drama unnecessarily?

 

[Ven]

There is nothing going on with the "mystery man", LE has discounted that, possibly because the witness gave the wrong time, and they saw the incident on video at an earlier time, and/or they have spoken to the person and ruled them out.

What happened at 5 North? Who else was there besides LS and JR?
Did JW and/or HT or any other friends "party" there that night, or show up in any other capacity?

If she did make it out of there alive, where was JW after 2:30 a.m.?

Does LE have corroborated evidence of where HT was at all times? Cell / internet records? Witnesses? Etc.

 

[Blythe]

thanks because its obvious my theory works since no one is trashing it, and ignoring it instead.

Same as LE is "ignoring" the witness story too, IMO.

 

[bunnyesq.]

Thanks. Not sure if I've heard that term or not....sounds vaguely familiar. I understand now (I think LOL). I thought that you were saying they could arrest them for murder, based on HERESAY for drugs.

One other thing comes to mind though....I was once told by a Cop/friend that it's not a crime to SAY/admit you've done drugs. He also said it wasn't a crime to admit to selling drugs, and that if a kid says "John Doe sold me drugs." John Doe couldn't be charged unless there is evidence. I was told that saying you did something isn't punishable by law, however, if a kid has drugs in his possession and says that John Doe sold them to him, that could be entirely different. Is any of this true, or did I misunderstand? If it's true, that's why this part was confusing - unless of course there would be evidence. Make sense, or am I confusing you? LOL

This depends on so many surrounding circumstances, it's hard to answer. I think that, in the absence of evidence, there would be no charges (e.g. for drugs). However, LE could still arrest someone based on that information. There's a difference between being arrested and being charged - you can be arrested without being charged with anything. I maybe shouldn't have said "trumped up charges," lol. A district atty looks over what info LE has gathered and decides if/what to charge a person with. Sometimes they can't charge a person with what they really suspect them of, so they charge them with something they can.

 

[Alliecog]

Maybe he's not a mystery man to LE.

That said, I know that the bar manager/witness says that she saw a photo lineup of the POIs, and that none of them matched the person she saw/gave a description for a sketch.

I'm under the impression that he in known to LE. they said in the pc that the time did not line up with what video evidence they had... And everyone on the video with LS is known to them

 

[porchpile]

I think the point is that police don't necessarily believe that it couldn't have happened, but that it doesn't damage the existing timeline significantly enough to pursue further. Or perhaps they have pursued it to their satisfaction.

The police don't believe the 3:38 sighting to be of high significance obviously. But that doesn't mean it's not plausible.

 

[jjenny]

I think the point is that police don't necessarily believe that it couldn't have happened, but that it doesn't damage the existing timeline significantly enough to pursue further. Or perhaps they have pursued it to their satisfaction.

The police don't believe the 3:38 sighting to be of high significance obviously. But that doesn't mean it's not plausible.

It would have been of high significance if it had happened.
It's clear to me police don't believe it did.

 

[Gabby66]

I think the sighting happened. But I think the "Mystery Man" was someone LS knew, and I doubt he's a "mystery" to LE. I also think this happened earlier than 3:38. I believe this Manager/Witness knew of the time b/c she was getting off of work......but people can be mistaken. Maybe it happened when she took a cigarette break. I'd guess she saw LOTS of drunk people that night. This may not have been a rare exception, and the memory only triggered the next day when she began to hear skuttlebutt about a missing person and saw the photo. It may have been the one and only time she'd ever seen Lauren. Her memory was jogged back to this event, but honest, maybe she didn't recall that it really happened earlier. There could be a myriad of reasons. The reason I believe the sighting is b/c she was willing to go on record and even mentioned what she does for a living and perhaps even which bar she works at. That's REALLY 'putting herself out there' and I just don't think that she would make this up.

 

[jjenny]

I think the sighting happened. But I think the "Mystery Man" was someone LS knew, and I doubt he's a "mystery" to LE. I also think this happened earlier than 3:38. I believe this Manager/Witness knew of the time b/c she was getting off of work......but people can be mistaken. Maybe it happened when she took a cigarette break. I'd guess she saw LOTS of drunk people that night. This may not have been a rare exception, and the memory only triggered the next day when she began to hear skuttlebutt about a missing person and saw the photo. It may have been the one and only time she'd ever seen Lauren. Her memory was jogged back to this event, but honest, maybe she didn't recall that it really happened earlier. There could be a myriad of reasons. The reason I believe the sighting is b/c she was willing to go on record and even mentioned what she does for a living and perhaps even which bar she works at. That's REALLY 'putting herself out there' and I just don't think that she would make this up.

Using the same logic, she could have seen a completely different person. LS is not the only small blonde girl on that campus.

 

[bunnyesq.]

I think the point is that police don't necessarily believe that it couldn't have happened, but that it doesn't damage the existing timeline significantly enough to pursue further. Or perhaps they have pursued it to their satisfaction.

The police don't believe the 3:38 sighting to be of high significance obviously. But that doesn't mean it's not plausible.

Well said. I'm not 100% sold on there being a "mystery man," but I think that the 338 witness is credible, and whatever interaction she saw took place. I guess who was in the interaction is the question.