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

[rlc]

Consider the Elizabeth Smart case. People never gave up searching for her, even outside of UT. Several months later, someone recognized her in CA & reported it to the police.

Posters will often state that LS cannot be alive, because she would have called her parents by now. ES apparently had had opportunities to contact her parents, but didn't. Sometimes people are manipulated to behave in a way that one would not expect.

LS being alive is not impossible, however improbable it may seem to some observers.

I keep thinking about the runaway bride case. Remember that? The woman who made up a story about being kidnapped and then stayed away for awhile? I know it's not at all likely, but the part of me that wants a happy ending keeps thinking...maybe she just passed out somewhere, and by the time she spent 14 hours sleeping it off, there was already a full-out search going on for her and she was too embarrassed/ashamed to come forward.

 

[Gabby66]

I think that the hypothetical you posed in an interesting one, but yeah, I think that LE could arrest your neighbor in that case, especially if all the other neighbors were saying that this is something they did regularly. There's motive and opportunity.

Haha....it was "interesting"? I thought it was kinda dumb but all I could think of at the time LOL. I'm a little confused though. If my neighbors all said that she did this regularly (break into houses to steal food), then yes, I could understand her being arrested. But in the case with the boys, people aren't saying that they regularly hide bodies or kill people. They're saying that they regularly do drugs. So, wouldn't the presumption be on an arrest for drugs, rather than murder or concealing a body? Sorry - not trying to beat a dead horse - just very confused on this one. Thanks.

 

[cluciano63]

I keep thinking about the runaway bride case. Remember that? The woman who made up a story about being kidnapped and then stayed away for awhile? I know it's not at all likely, but the part of me that wants a happy ending keeps thinking...maybe she just passed out somewhere, and by the time she spent 14 hours sleeping it off, there was already a full-out search going on for her and she was too embarrassed/ashamed to come forward.

I can't imagine she would put her family through this...it's gone on way too long.

 

[Ven]

If they did the same amount of drugs it would not necessarily effect them in the same way. This is clear from the fact that in the scenario she would have OD'd and JR would still be living. Every substance is going to hit a 90lb person harder than most average people. The idea that drugs, especially cocaine, would proclude someone from doing someone from accomplishing something (especially when their entire life depends on it) is false.

I just have a hard time believing that someone all coked up, or whatever, could get rid of a body without making a scene about it, and get it out of the area undetected, etc.
If she did overdose, and he or anyone else wanted to cover it up, it seems to me like they would only be able to do so in a way that would give LE an easy trail to follow.

Just a guess though.

 

[Gabby66]

However, I do believe that someone has more information as to what 'probably' happened if not most of what happened. I don't think LE know who's responsible, or they'd have them.



I don't know......

(snip). I've thought about this last sentence a lot. I don't know that this is necessarily true. I think in a lot of cases, early on, LE "know" who did it. But this is early in this type of crime, to "have" them. LE has to make CERTAIN that they have enough evidence for conviction. They wouldn't want to make an arrest until they are certain, but to me that doesn't equate as the same as them not knowing who's responsible.

They said that they're in a 'new phase' and then all of a sudden today we had a search. I believe this is significant. Perhaps they've moved on from the information gathering stage and just looking for the hard evidence to support their theory??

 

[porchpile]

So then how does the 3:38 sighting play into this senario?

I'm not Tony, but the sighting at 10th and College is no more than 200 feet from the 5 North apts. It's literally right around the corner. I think it's possible that there was an after hours party of some sort going on there and LS could have wandered down to say hi to a buddy and then gone back. It could definitely fit into the timeline.

I also think the reason the witness was so specific as to the time because at one corner of 10th & college is one of those big digital clocks that show the time and temperature.

 

[bunnyesq.]

Can someone please explain this to me? If the attorney represented DR in the past, can he still represent MB now? What if DR turns out to be a "murderer", who claims that MB assisted him? Wouldn't this be malpractice for Chapman to represent a client who's being accused of something by a former client? Something like this could be a potential problem for him so I'd think he'd likely want to bow out now.

There are, potentially, many conflicts of interest at play here. A lot of different factors go into determining this, certain conflicts can be waived, etc. I would say that it's not a problem right now, as long as the situation you described doesn't occur. It could be a problem in the future though.

 

[rlc]

I can't imagine she would put her family through this...it's gone on way too long.

I know. The same way I know I am not going to win the MegaMillions tomorrow. But I still bought the ticket.

 

[plaidmom]

She had just met CR two weeks earlier.

Except that if LS met CR at the Indianapolis 500 (May 30th), as reportedly stated by HT, she had only know CR for four days.

One more little discrepancy.

HT being flakey/ditzy or just plain wrong? Or perhaps misquoted by the reporter? I won't discount misquoted as there has been a lot of sloppy reporting surrounding this case. Perhaps the reporter was bad at math. :crazy:

I don't think LS knowing CR for two weeks vs.four days really makes a difference in the case. Just another one of those little "whoops" moments, eh?

 

[AnalyticalExaminer]

There are, potentially, many conflicts of interest at play here. A lot of different factors go into determining this, certain conflicts can be waived, etc. I would say that it's not a problem right now, as long as the situation you described doesn't occur. It could be a problem in the future though.

It is my impression that Chapman does not represent DR in this matter, only in an unrelated one, though he has spoken to DR about it.

 

[cluciano63]

(snip). I've thought about this last sentence a lot. I don't know that this is necessarily true. I think in a lot of cases, early on, LE "know" who did it. But this is early in this type of crime, to "have" them. LE has to make CERTAIN that they have enough evidence for conviction. They wouldn't want to make an arrest until they are certain, but to me that doesn't equate as the same as them not knowing who's responsible.

They said that they're in a 'new phase' and then all of a sudden today we had a search. I believe this is significant. Perhaps they've moved on from the information gathering stage and just looking for the hard evidence to support their theory??

I hope the search is based on cell phone ping info...

And I still think that unfortunately almost anyone can put a body into a car, drive some distance, and leave it there. It doesn't take brains.

Look at Phylicia Barnes-however she died, there was no sign of it in the apartment, yet she ended up far away in a great big river...

 

[AnalyticalExaminer]

Except that if LS met CR at the Indianapolis 500 (May 30th), as reportedly stated by HT, she had only know CR for four days.

One more little discrepancy.

HT being flakey/ditzy or just plain wrong? Or perhaps misquoted by the reporter? I won't discount misquoted as there has been a lot of sloppy reporting surrounding this case. Perhaps the reporter was bad at math. :crazy:

I don't think LS knowing CR for two weeks vs.four days really makes a difference in the case. Just another one of those little "whoops" moments, eh?

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.

 

[TonyGatto]

So then how does the 3:38 sighting play into this senario?

What does the 3:38 am sighting by a witness, who police have confirmed they have interviewed, have to do with the 4:15am phone call? Not sure what you're asking, please elaborate.

 

[bessie]

READ THIS:
Speculating about the identity of another member, or their reason for being a member and posting, is a major offense at Websleuths. Consider this a fair warning to everyone on this thread right now.

 

[coltsgal]

I watched that video that someone posted yesterday about why you shouldn't talk to the police.

If HT truly is innocent...she is a prime example of why you shouldn't talk to police. Her stories are becoming inconsistent and she could be incriminating herself against a crime she didn't commit.

 

[Ven]

Tony, did you do any more digging into the "cannot see corner of 11th and College from JR's" story?
Some sleuth in an early thread said there is a hill that obstructs the view of that corner from JR's, he wouldn't have been able to see her round the corner.

2nd hand ... Just passing it along.

 

[mamamia54]

What does the 3:38 am sighting by a witness, who police have confirmed they have interviewed, have to do with the 4:15am phone call? Not sure what you're asking, please elaborate.

I suppose what I'm attempting to figure out, is how this person, who supposidly picked Lauren up and threw her over his shoulder, is connected to both Lauren and the boys in 5 North. If they are indeed connected in some way, then wouldn't the boys in 5 North recognize the discription that was given by the person who you interviewed? It's out there in the public pool now, but no one has come forward to identify that person.

I should add, not that we know about as yet.

 

[Salem]

From now on please do not mention trolls, do not post, "Do not feed the trolls" or mention trolls in any way shape or form

If you have the term "Troll" in your signature line please remove it.

There is no need to keep bringing up trolls and asking people to stop feeding them.

If you feel there is a troll on the forum hit the alert button. That's all you need to do.

It takes away from the discussion when you stop to post about Trolls along with the fact that it is name calling in a general sense.

We do not allow "Trolls" on Websleuths so if you feel there is trolling going on just alert us. Then our moderators will judge the situation.

Just because someone has a different point of view and wants to discuss it does not make them a troll.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Tricia Griffith
Websleuths.com

I brought this over from another thread and am bumping it so everyone will review it.

Thanks,

Salem

 

[elmomom]

(snip).
They said that they're in a 'new phase' and then all of a sudden today we had a search. I believe this is significant. Perhaps they've moved on from the information gathering stage and just looking for the hard evidence to support their theory??

yes I give this a fairly high probability in my mind. They are building their case and hoping the main piece of physical evidence (LS) shows up soon. Up until now I got the feeling they were still hopeful that someone would lead them to it.

 

[elmomom]

I suppose what I'm attempting to figure out, is how this person, who supposidly picked Lauren up and threw her over his shoulder, is connected to both Lauren and the boys in 5 North. If they are indeed connected in some way, then wouldn't the boys in 5 North recognize the discription that was given by the person who you interviewed? It's out there in the public pool now, but no one has come forward to identify that person.

I should add, not that we know about as yet.

Since LE was pretty clear that they have iD'ed everyone with LS, don't you think they may have figured out for themselves (from the sketch made) who this person may have been?