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

[rlc]

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."

I think it's because after 2:51, there is no objective evidence. Just reports of 3 or 4 different parties, only one of which has no need to cover herself, which makes her the more credible of them.

 

[jjenny]

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.

So what do you think the guy giving the press conference meant when he said "witness accounts can be off." I don't know how much more clear LE can be.

 

[elmomom]

So I am wondering, if LE have said that the 3:38 sighting is no big deal, then why does it upset people so very much? Does it harm anyone's theory? Well, maybe JR, since if we accept that at some point LS was seen in such a bad condition, then it may mean that she could have never made it out of his place on her feet. And of course, it hurts the picture of the victim in this, though there is still the chance that she was drugged, and not a willing participant. I just don't get the angle that would want to eliminate all talk and consideration of this sighting.

 

[bx2]

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

Indeed. Small blonde girls that were around downtown that night, please come forward to LE and give a quick rundown of your night.

 

[Blythe]

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.

Or they do not want the PsOI or public to give it any significance, which is apparently working. Of course if a witness spotted this man, he may have spotted the witness as well. Perhaps JR used the time of 4:30 to distance LS from this sighting or to "prove" she was still alive by 4:30 and capable of making a phone call,

 

[cluciano63]

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.

I'm not sure it matters that much, unless she ran into him again after 4:30AM...

 

[bunnyesq.]

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

Exactly - using the logic of her being mistaken you can argue for or against who/ what this witness saw.


I'm apt to believe her time is correct though - Porch, didn't you previously say there is a giant digital clock on the corner, maybe above where she would have saw this happen?

 

[bunnyesq.]

I'm not sure it matters that much, unless she ran into him again after 4:30AM...

You're right. Unless he went back to JR's.

 

[Gabby66]

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.

Well I don't have to worry because I'm no criminal LOL. But the example above, I would think is different. If someone came forward and admitted that he killed her or disposed of her, she IS missing. I think that's entirely different from a person walking into the PD and saying, "I've done drugs." If it isn't different, then why have Politicians not been arrested when they have admitted to smoking weed in the past? :floorlaugh: It's a far cry from someone admitting to a crime when there is honest speculation that a crime occurred. Also, the next step of course would be for LE to get the man to take them to the spot where he disposed the body and most likely evidence would be found.

Remember the guy overseas who "admitted" he killed Jonbenet Ramsey? I vaguely recall those details but I seem to remember that he falsely admitted to her murder, so that he'd get an airplane ride back to the states ----something like that? Anyway, while he may have been arrested for filing a false police report, he was not arrested for murder, just b/c he came forward. For whatever weird reason, there are people out there who admit to things that they didn't actually do. I find it disturbing, but true.

 

[bessie]

Some of you have to learn to make your point and then move on. If you can't persuade others in one or two posts, give it up and proceed to another topic.

 

[jjenny]

Exactly - using the logic of her being mistaken you can argue for or against who/ what this witness saw.


I'm apt to believe her time is correct though - Porch, didn't you previously say there is a giant digital clock on the corner, maybe above where she would have saw this happen?

LE doesn't believe her timing is correct, even assuming she saw LS, it wouldn't have been at 3:38 am.

"Qualters addressed a blogger’s report of a “mysterious man” in the area of 10th and College at about 3:38 a.m. June 3. He said investigators have reviewed video evidence that does not support that either Spierer or anyone unknown to police was in that area at that time."
http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2011/06/22/news.qp-4391232.sto

 

[akh]

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

Nobody really knows what JR or anyone else told the police. So it could very well fit that this 'mystery man' and his role have been known almost all along. He might've came forward on his own to tell police he walked/carried her to the apartment at 3:38AM. JR might know this person helped her to his apartment and told that to police. The mystery man could be well known to several of these people so it might not be that strange for her to associate with him or to take her to JR's. And that assumes she didn't tell him to take her there.. It doesn't really affect the timeline adversely and since JR himself puts himself with her after that alleged event then it lowers the significance of the event. JR is still the last known person to see her.

Just because LE didn't want the public to know it doesn't mean they didn't already know that little detail. In fact, maybe if it wasn't for this guy JR could've said LS didn't show up at his apt at all.

 

[elmomom]

Of course, if LE really wants to keep this person on the down low so to speak, then it hurts LE to have us discussing it.

 

[SmoothOperator]

I addressed this 2 or 3 pages back - it was 2 weeks prior to the statement to the media, in mid-June, and 3-4 days prior to the events. There is no inconsistency there whatsoever.

Ok.thaTs GREAT.. But had zero to do with my point..

Thanks!

 

[Inspector Gidget]

No, please don't delete any posts! I'm not a very good sleuth myself, so I welcome everyone's opinions & theories. Even if we don't all agree (which we never will!)

Well some of my posts got deleted and I don't even know what I did wrong.

 

[cluciano63]

I have always thought that LE may have some video of LS being carried at some point, due to her bare feet...thinking that could be the activity, or part of it, that they say they have on tape.

 

[AnalyticalExaminer]

My 2 cents on the "mystery man." First, what I think is an accurate recitation of facts:

- Witness claims seeing LS with mystery man on or around the steps at 10th and College at precisely 3:38AM
- Precise timing of witness account is reasonable given that there is a large clock immediately overhead
- LE have confirmed that they have no video of LS after 2:51 and that the individual with her at that time is known to them (they don't use names but we all effectively know that he is CR). In reaching that conclusion, LE reviewed tape of the corner of 10th and College or areas very close nearby. However, we don't know the precise location (and by this I mean not location on a map but location on a building), target or variety of cameras at/near that location.
- LE have acknowledged the possibility that, camera evidence aside, the witness may have seen LS. That might be because a) the witness saw LS at her bar (which may or may not be "Sports"; do we know?), but did not see LS and any mystery man (either saw some other drunk girl or is making it up), or b) the witness may have seen LS and the mystery man where she claimed but her report cannot be corroborated through camera data because the camera did not look at the right place (at the right time, perhaps).

Second, my alternate theories, based on the facts:
1. This is a worthless report about an event that either has nothing to do with LS or never actually happened. LE has nevertheless acknowledged it in ambiguous fashion, including pointed references to an individual on camera that is known to them, because they wish to muddy the waters for one or more POIs, including JR, who is presumably responsible for the time period in question.
2. This is a substantive report that LE regards as potentially credible, even if it cannot be verified through camera evidence, and possibly even important to their investigation. LE nevertheless has sought to downplay the report, to conceal what they know, by not including it on the timeline and providing vague responses at the news conference, in order to muddy the waters for one or more POIs, including JR, who is presumably responsible for the time period in question.
3. This is a report that is unlikely to be credible given the nature of the camera evidence, but theoretically could be true, even if not verifiable. Nevertheless, LE does not regard it as important to their investigation, and Qualters' answers at the news conference are intended only to best inform the media and not send any messages to POIs.

I believe 1 or 3 are more likely than 2, but can't rule 2 out by any means. In fact, 2 may well be consistent with my potentially far-fetched theory of the case, which involves an overdose during the post-3AM time period, and disposal of the body by, with the aid, or at the direction of an unidentified individual associated with a criminal drug enterprise, almost certainly with the knowledge or participation of JR.

 

[elmomom]

Nobody really knows what JR or anyone else told the police. So it could very well fit that this 'mystery man' and his role have been known almost all along. He might've came forward on his own to tell police he walked/carried her to the apartment at 3:38AM. JR might know this person helped her to his apartment and told that to police. The mystery man could be well known to several of these people so it might not be that strange for her to associate with him or to take her to JR's. And that assumes she didn't tell him to take her there.. It doesn't really affect the timeline adversely and since JR himself puts himself with her after that alleged event then it lowers the significance of the event. JR is still the last known person to see her.

Just because LE didn't want the public to know it doesn't mean they didn't already know that little detail. In fact, maybe if it wasn't for this guy JR could've said LS didn't show up at his apt at all.

yes I agree all this could be true. But JR told his story presumably before police has this witness, so I cannot see how JR would have used this info to guide his story. But I could see how LE could use it to impeach his story if he did not reveal this to them.

 

[Gabby66]

I agree that the witness could have seen a different young girl. I hadn't thought too much about this since her outfit was shown and described. However, black leggings and a white top may have been fairly common on any given night, huh?

 

[plaidmom]

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

I wondered that too. But that would mean they would have been friends for over a month.

I still think AnalyticalExaminer had it right when he/she stated:

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

So the reporter in this case was stating two weeks.