For what unrelated charges could they be arrested? Stating that they've done drugs isn't a crime. Stating that they've even sold them isn't a crime. If they're CAUGHT with the drugs, or selling, that's another story. I would imagine that the minute they all very quickly cleaned out their rooms, cars, etc. I'd think that even drug residue isn't that difficult to clean up. Blood, bodily fluid, would be another story. I'd think that in order to arrest them, LE has to have proof - an NSF check, drug evidence, traffic arrest, etc. If they are interviewed and tell the truth about the drugs, the only unrelated charge that I can see is if they admit to giving or selling drugs to LS. Even given immunity, that could still be a crime related to her disappearance. However, I believe that a high-powered attorney would get the boy "off".
IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #10
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
- Status
I noticed that too, but I think that refers to DR being at JR's earlier in the night watching basketball, i.e., before LS and CR left for Kilroy's.
elmomom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Messages
- 3,491
- Reaction score
- 8,117
I agree that's the most likely explanation. I know I look at words of a reporter as f they are very carefully chosen and are exact. :banghead: Time and time again I have found that of late, the quality of the written word in news reporting isn't what it used to be.
AnalyticalExaminer
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 578
- Reaction score
- 1
I left out of my post some relevant information re POI identification from the video conferences:
6/7 conference (video: http://www.theindychannel.com/video/28157482/index.html)
Qualters' preliminary statement
[discusses facts including going to CR/MB's and then JR's, without mentioning them by name]
3:57-4:30: (re JR, not named) ...that was the last person to see her that we know of. She's never been seen since. Now of course as you might imagine what we've been doing is we've been interviewing everybody that was with her Thursday afternoon, Thursday evening, and Friday morning... interviewing them and re-interviewing them. They've, uh, cooperated fully with letting us fully search their places, search their cars; that's all been done.
Q&A
circa 8:40-9:05 (rough transcr)
Q: And those are - would those be those POI you talked yesterday - you said about 10 POI, they've been cooperative, anyone done any polygraph tests or anything like that?
A: I don't want to go into the exact details of where we are in the investigation, but we've had a lot of cooperation with the POI. We don't have anyone we characterize as a suspect, but we do have - people that were with her, of course, are POI.
6/8 news conference (video - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/video/indi...ren-spierer-news-conference-6-8-25510222.html)
circa 6:55-7:01
[following up re JW, not named]
Q: Is he currently here?
A: Yes.
Q: Was he here at the time; has he been questioned in connection with all this?
A: He is a person that we've interviewed, sure. (grimace?)
7:20-24
Q: How many polygraphs have you administered in this case?
A: We're working on the polygraphs now.
And additional content from Thu 6/9
~6:15-?
Q: ...do you have a better idea what may have happened to her than you, than you did on Monday?
A: I would have to say no. (shakes head; sad grimace)
And from Fri 6/10:
11:40-12:15
Q: Do you believe her boyfriend was with her at any point that night or during the early morning hours?
A: That's information that I don't want to go into the specifics of that yet.
Q: Have you spoken with her boyfriend?
A: Yes. (nodding head; open face?)
Q: And what's the situation there?
A: We continue to speak with him. He's cooperative.
Q: Is he one of the POI?
A: Certainly.
Q: Has he not been allowed to help with the search?
A: I don't know if he's - I think he's participated in the, uh, uh, volunteer searches.
[quick scan of the room; turns things over to the family]
6/7 conference (video: http://www.theindychannel.com/video/28157482/index.html)
Qualters' preliminary statement
[discusses facts including going to CR/MB's and then JR's, without mentioning them by name]
3:57-4:30: (re JR, not named) ...that was the last person to see her that we know of. She's never been seen since. Now of course as you might imagine what we've been doing is we've been interviewing everybody that was with her Thursday afternoon, Thursday evening, and Friday morning... interviewing them and re-interviewing them. They've, uh, cooperated fully with letting us fully search their places, search their cars; that's all been done.
Q&A
circa 8:40-9:05 (rough transcr)
Q: And those are - would those be those POI you talked yesterday - you said about 10 POI, they've been cooperative, anyone done any polygraph tests or anything like that?
A: I don't want to go into the exact details of where we are in the investigation, but we've had a lot of cooperation with the POI. We don't have anyone we characterize as a suspect, but we do have - people that were with her, of course, are POI.
6/8 news conference (video - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/video/indi...ren-spierer-news-conference-6-8-25510222.html)
circa 6:55-7:01
[following up re JW, not named]
Q: Is he currently here?
A: Yes.
Q: Was he here at the time; has he been questioned in connection with all this?
A: He is a person that we've interviewed, sure. (grimace?)
7:20-24
Q: How many polygraphs have you administered in this case?
A: We're working on the polygraphs now.
And additional content from Thu 6/9
~6:15-?
Q: ...do you have a better idea what may have happened to her than you, than you did on Monday?
A: I would have to say no. (shakes head; sad grimace)
And from Fri 6/10:
11:40-12:15
Q: Do you believe her boyfriend was with her at any point that night or during the early morning hours?
A: That's information that I don't want to go into the specifics of that yet.
Q: Have you spoken with her boyfriend?
A: Yes. (nodding head; open face?)
Q: And what's the situation there?
A: We continue to speak with him. He's cooperative.
Q: Is he one of the POI?
A: Certainly.
Q: Has he not been allowed to help with the search?
A: I don't know if he's - I think he's participated in the, uh, uh, volunteer searches.
[quick scan of the room; turns things over to the family]
"The best-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".[2] Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".[3] Notable in this definition is a lack of requirement for public position or public authority of the individual making the recognition, allowing for use of the term by citizens and/or the general public."
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause"]Probable cause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
No need for proof of anything to arrest them. As I previously stated, I am saying the police could arrest them. NOT saying they should.
AnalyticalExaminer
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 578
- Reaction score
- 1
Given that and the prior post, I think that we can say that the following are POIs and characterize their level of cooperation as follows:
HT (and anyone present with LS at beginning of evening or afternoon - AR?) - has been interviewed, reinterviewed, apt and car, if any, searched, and described as fully cooperative as of 6/7. We know nothing to indicate she has not subsequently been cooperative. She has spoken extensively to media, including on camera. Left Bloomington 6/17.
DR - has been interviewed and reinterviewed, apt and car, if any, searched, and described as fully cooperative as of 6/7. Has provided access to cell phone. We know nothing to indicate he has not subsequently been cooperative, and has spoken on camera to media regarding his participation in search. Left Bloomington 6/17.
CR - has been interviewed, reinterviewed, apartment and car searched, described as fully cooperative as of 6/7, polygraphed 6/8, and "voluntarily" provided a DNA sample at LE request 6/10. Unknown when/if subsequently left Bloomington.
MB - has been interviewed, reinterviewed, Apt and car, if any, searched, described as fully cooperative as of 6/7, polygraphed 6/8, provided a DNA sample at LE request on or before 6/10, and subsequently re-reinterviewed 6/10. Unknown when/if subsequently left Bloomington.
JR - has been interviewed and reinterviewed, apartment and car, if any, searched, and described as fully cooperative as of 6/7. No indication has been polygraphed (I believe polygraphs began 6/8; unclear whether present in Bloomington at that time), but also not clear has not been. DNA sample has been requested, but no indication it has been supplied. It is my understanding he has left Bloomington, but I do not know when.
JW - Has been interviewed, reinterviewed, and described as cooperative as of 6/10. Unclear whether has been polygraphed, but present in Bloomington on 6/8, the day polygraphs of at least CR and MB were conducted. DNA sample was requested, and no specific indication it was given, but described as cooperative on same day it was supplied by CR and MB - unclear whether this was before or after (report came later in the day, though). Left Bloomington at indeterminate time between Fri 6/10(?) and Tues 14.
1-3(?) Unidentified person(s) (but rumored to include ZO) present at the Smallwood confrontation, assuming LS was also present (which I think must be the case given that LS and CR arrived together and did not enter LS's apartment, though I can't say that for sure) - to the extent they were known as of 6/7 (and LE statements seem to indicate that they all were), have been interviewed, reinterviewed, apts and any cars searched, and described as fully cooperative as of that date. Unclear whether polygraphs administered or DNA requested, or whether requests complied with, subsequent to that date.
1-2+(likely at least 2) persons who had been identified but not been interviewed as of 6/10. These would include members or all of the altercation group, if LS was not present there (but I believe she was). If not the same as that group, I believe that this group contains:
a) one or more individuals who were with JW until 2:30 when he went to sleep (ie who provide his alibi) - I believe I know the identity of one of these individuals but the name has not been made public and I won't specify
b) perhaps one or more individuals who may have been present at 5NT but did not encounter LS, such as KT (who gave a media interview on 6/9 and I believe probably had already been interviewed by LE and therefore would not be part of this group, though he may be a POI, nevertheless)
Possibly 1 or more unknown person(s), as per 6/10 news conference. But this would probably not include AA(+friend), given that AA told media he had not spoken to LE as of his media interview that day.
The above list may add up to more than 10, but I believe the list may have grown as per LE's refusal to specify an exact number on 6/9 (despite subsequent questions re 10 POI that were not corrected), perhaps the 6/10 acknowledgment that not all POIs' identities are known to LE, and the timing wrt AA. Counting them up, we have:
1(+?) HT (and any others present with LS at beginning of evening - AR?)
2. DR
3. JR
4. CR
5. MB
6. JW
7(-8+?). JW alibi(s) (no initials) and possibly one or more JR neighbor(s) (KT?)
8+ or 9+ or 10+. probably Smallwood crowd (ZO?)
11+?. "Mystery man" and/or speculative/unidentified JR associate(s)? AA(+friend)?
HT (and anyone present with LS at beginning of evening or afternoon - AR?) - has been interviewed, reinterviewed, apt and car, if any, searched, and described as fully cooperative as of 6/7. We know nothing to indicate she has not subsequently been cooperative. She has spoken extensively to media, including on camera. Left Bloomington 6/17.
DR - has been interviewed and reinterviewed, apt and car, if any, searched, and described as fully cooperative as of 6/7. Has provided access to cell phone. We know nothing to indicate he has not subsequently been cooperative, and has spoken on camera to media regarding his participation in search. Left Bloomington 6/17.
CR - has been interviewed, reinterviewed, apartment and car searched, described as fully cooperative as of 6/7, polygraphed 6/8, and "voluntarily" provided a DNA sample at LE request 6/10. Unknown when/if subsequently left Bloomington.
MB - has been interviewed, reinterviewed, Apt and car, if any, searched, described as fully cooperative as of 6/7, polygraphed 6/8, provided a DNA sample at LE request on or before 6/10, and subsequently re-reinterviewed 6/10. Unknown when/if subsequently left Bloomington.
JR - has been interviewed and reinterviewed, apartment and car, if any, searched, and described as fully cooperative as of 6/7. No indication has been polygraphed (I believe polygraphs began 6/8; unclear whether present in Bloomington at that time), but also not clear has not been. DNA sample has been requested, but no indication it has been supplied. It is my understanding he has left Bloomington, but I do not know when.
JW - Has been interviewed, reinterviewed, and described as cooperative as of 6/10. Unclear whether has been polygraphed, but present in Bloomington on 6/8, the day polygraphs of at least CR and MB were conducted. DNA sample was requested, and no specific indication it was given, but described as cooperative on same day it was supplied by CR and MB - unclear whether this was before or after (report came later in the day, though). Left Bloomington at indeterminate time between Fri 6/10(?) and Tues 14.
1-3(?) Unidentified person(s) (but rumored to include ZO) present at the Smallwood confrontation, assuming LS was also present (which I think must be the case given that LS and CR arrived together and did not enter LS's apartment, though I can't say that for sure) - to the extent they were known as of 6/7 (and LE statements seem to indicate that they all were), have been interviewed, reinterviewed, apts and any cars searched, and described as fully cooperative as of that date. Unclear whether polygraphs administered or DNA requested, or whether requests complied with, subsequent to that date.
1-2+(likely at least 2) persons who had been identified but not been interviewed as of 6/10. These would include members or all of the altercation group, if LS was not present there (but I believe she was). If not the same as that group, I believe that this group contains:
a) one or more individuals who were with JW until 2:30 when he went to sleep (ie who provide his alibi) - I believe I know the identity of one of these individuals but the name has not been made public and I won't specify
b) perhaps one or more individuals who may have been present at 5NT but did not encounter LS, such as KT (who gave a media interview on 6/9 and I believe probably had already been interviewed by LE and therefore would not be part of this group, though he may be a POI, nevertheless)
Possibly 1 or more unknown person(s), as per 6/10 news conference. But this would probably not include AA(+friend), given that AA told media he had not spoken to LE as of his media interview that day.
The above list may add up to more than 10, but I believe the list may have grown as per LE's refusal to specify an exact number on 6/9 (despite subsequent questions re 10 POI that were not corrected), perhaps the 6/10 acknowledgment that not all POIs' identities are known to LE, and the timing wrt AA. Counting them up, we have:
1(+?) HT (and any others present with LS at beginning of evening - AR?)
2. DR
3. JR
4. CR
5. MB
6. JW
7(-8+?). JW alibi(s) (no initials) and possibly one or more JR neighbor(s) (KT?)
8+ or 9+ or 10+. probably Smallwood crowd (ZO?)
11+?. "Mystery man" and/or speculative/unidentified JR associate(s)? AA(+friend)?
Respectfully, Snipped
CONCLUSIONS
Higher adolescent SES [socioeconomic status], as measured by parental education and household income in adolescence, is associated with higher rates of binge drinking, marijuana and cocaine use in early adulthood.
This study offers evidence that wealthier students may be at risk for substance use problems in the future, particularly for binge drinking, marijuana and cocaine use. As previous evidence shows that students with more spending money might be more likely to engage in substance use into adulthood, access to allowances and other forms of spending money may be issues that parents can address if they are concerned with the possibility of substance abuse among their children.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2924306/
elmomom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Messages
- 3,491
- Reaction score
- 8,117
this was depressing.
I still am reasonably hopeful that she will be returned to her family. Not resembling that picture of a happy light-hearted young woman on her way, for certain.
OK I understand where you're coming from. I think you may be right in some cases about the desperation and maxing out credit cards, etc. in order to maintain lifestyle/imagine.....But for that assumption to mean that people of higher incomes would try to cover up a crime to protect their image, would mean that these people are also unethical. Maxing out a credit card is one thing, but I don't think income equates to ethics. I think many may think that, but it's wrong. Having lived in many areas of the country, I can say that ethics vary widely in all groups. This is another assumption turned into a stereotype that many hold. I get it, but I don't buy it. A person may need a high powered attorney to help him be found innocent. But he doesn't necessarily need him to help cover up a crime. That little girl in Florida I believe (Haleigh) is a fine example of that. Those kids didn't really have two rocks to rub together. They still managed to cover up a crime and do lots of drugs.
When it comes to people who have actually commited a crime, I think either you want to do the right thing or you don't. For those who want to do the right thing, socioeconomic status makes no difference. For those who don't, socioeconomic status can make a huge difference--you have more resources available. I was thinking more along the lines of people who were not directly involved, but who have information that could help but would also harm their image or reputations. That's where I think there could be a difference in motivation. Does that make sense?
Thanks. I understand this. However, I assume you mean "Probably cause to commit murder (or something related)". In order to have a "reasonable belief", LE would presumably need evidence to make it "reasonable". I don't think having a bunch of kids say that the POIs were "partiers" is going to provide "reasonable belief" that they gave drugs to LS. They're going to need more.
AnalyticalExaminer
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 578
- Reaction score
- 1
I believe it's uncontroverted that LS and DR went to JR's at 12:30AM, and that DR returned to Smallwood when LS headed to the bar.
AnalyticalExaminer
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 578
- Reaction score
- 1
I believe this individual is what is known in the Latin as as an "attention *advertiser censored*."
Blythe
Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2011
- Messages
- 481
- Reaction score
- 12
Add to this the not necessarily true assumption that our honor role students are honorable.
Yes, this makes sense. Thanks. I understand your position better. I agree that affluent people have better exposure to resources. I guess it boils down to how they want to use them, huh? I feel sad for innocent people who have no means to defend themselves too.
While it's the ethical thing to come forward, I guess I can see how some of these kids don't want to be involved. They probably think that their one little piece of info is insignificant (when it could be what breaks the case, honestly). So, they keep quiet. Think about the kid who found the keys. I understand that he has dark skin so some suspect him since this was the witness description of one seen with LS. That's understandable. But really, what if he has NO bearing on the case whatsoever? He did the right thing to come forward and say that he found the keys. Let's assume that's ALL of his involvement with this case.....the poor kid is being discussed on message boards and is now a POI. I know that people keep wanting to say they're "not kids" but age has nothing to do with this. These are not adults who've experienced the real world. The adult brain doesn't develop until in the 20's and the male's is like at 25. It would be tough for them to handle these accusations if they are innocent. I personally still find the key "finding" to be strange, so I'm guilty of a part of that myself. I'm just saying that it's kind of no wonder no one wants to talk......
Jupiter812
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,744
- Reaction score
- -15
That description of DR may be incorrect. Or they know something we don't. Early Friday is really late Thursday night. They partied Thursday into the wee hours of Friday morning.
Blythe
Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2011
- Messages
- 481
- Reaction score
- 12
For me, there is an insight here. I am realizing that my own adolescents withheld a great deal of information from me, not criminal, of course, but information in which I might have given them support or, even, actually have praised them and been proud.
SmoothOperator
Sadly what connects all these puzzles is that ther
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 5,591
- Reaction score
- 76
Am still catching up but just wanted to post gitan1's reply to my asking about getting search warrants where JR is concerned..(she is a verified lawyer)
So my question is with him in Michigan how are things such as car search warrant being executed?
If they're not then it's likely Jay's not our guy.. Why else would LE not be immediately searching these items..
So my question is with him in Michigan how are things such as car search warrant being executed?
If they're not then it's likely Jay's not our guy.. Why else would LE not be immediately searching these items..
- Status