IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 - #14

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you read closely, they found several things consistent with the woman's story in Salt Creek (industrial plastic, bungee cords, knife). Some theorize that the woman and/or her two accomplices moved the body. All other evidence pointed to JB being on the south side of Bloomington with her bike, including people who saw her. No one ever saw her riding north, where her body was found. They also found the water bottle from her bike on the south side of town right after she disappeared. IDK, everything I've ever read/heard about it leads me to believe the man convicted was framed.

An ironic link between the JB and LS cases is that CR's attorney was the Monroe County Prosecutor during the JB case and he declined to pursue charges against the three who were originally suspected/confessed.

To think that an innocent man might be in jail for a crime he didn't commit makes my blood boil.

I also wonder if Lauren's friends lives are being dissected and they know nothing.

Then again, I know that the possibility that they do know something also exists and Spierer's parents seem to be focused on that.
 
The odds of being abducted by a stranger are much much higher if you have been abducted in the first place. We are in agreement that the act of being abducted by a stranger is in itself an extremely rare occurrence, but, if you have been abducted in the first place, clearly the odds that it was someone random are significantly lower then when you weren't abducted.\

Edit- probably still confusing. Try coming up with the number of missing adults and then figure the odds that it was a stranger off of that rather then coming up with the odds based on the population at-large.

Bx, I think what you're trying to get at is Bayes' Law, which is the conditional probability. You're interested in the probability of getting abducted by a stranger if you're abducted (A|B), rather than the probability of being abducted by a stranger (A) if you consider all US residents. However, if the number of abductions is constant, and being abducted by someone you know is C, then A|B and C|B are the same as A and C (as compared with each other - each probability will be lower than if you already know the person has been abducted).

If you're comparing probabilities across different situations, like the probability of being hit by lightning versus the probability of being abducted, the probability that you'll be hit by lightning is probably much smaller than the probability of being abducted by a stranger given that you've been abducted (A|B), since if you've been abducted there are only really two choices - that you've been abducted by a stranger or you've been abducted by someone you know. That is, the probability change based on prior related/known events.
 
If you read closely, they found several things consistent with the woman's story in Salt Creek (industrial plastic, bungee cords, knife). Some theorize that the woman and/or her two accomplices moved the body. All other evidence pointed to JB being on the south side of Bloomington with her bike, including people who saw her. No one ever saw her riding north, where her body was found. They also found the water bottle from her bike on the south side of town right after she disappeared. IDK, everything I've ever read/heard about it leads me to believe the man convicted was framed.

An ironic link between the JB and LS cases is that CR's attorney was the Monroe County Prosecutor during the JB case and he declined to pursue charges against the three who were originally suspected/confessed.

Right. It's obvious by the evidence that she was abducted from the South side of town and body and bike transported.
This would be a good case for researchers to revisit.

I'll read up on it myself just to catch up...thanks.
 
Bx, I think what you're trying to get at is Bayes' Law, which is the conditional probability. You're interested in the probability of getting abducted by a stranger if you're abducted (A|B), rather than the probability of being abducted by a stranger (A) if you consider all US residents. However, if the number of abductions is constant, and being abducted by someone you know is C, then A|B and C|B are the same as A and C.

If you're comparing probabilities across different situations, like the probability of being hit by lightning versus the probability of being abducted, the probability that you'll be hit by lightning is probably much smaller than the probability of being abducted by a stranger given that you've been abducted (A|B), since if you've been abducted there are only really two choices - that you've been abducted by a stranger or you've been abducted by someone you know. That is, the probability change based on prior related/known events.

Can you take the GMAT for me on July 18th? No, seriously, I suck at probability.
 
Can you take the GMAT for me on July 18th? No, seriously, I suck at probability.

Having been on both the applicant and admissions side of things, I can tell you with confidence that all they care about is either your quant or your verbal or both depending on the program - they pretty much toss out the analytical score. Off topic, I know, sorry.
 
Having been on both the applicant and admissions side of things, I can tell you with confidence that all they care about is either your quant or your verbal or both depending on the program - they pretty much toss out the analytical score. Off topic, I know, sorry.

Thanks. I am so upset with this test. It's driving me insane. English is not my first language but I'm a verbal person... which basically means my strenght doesn't help me much... and I need a 700 for the school I want to get into...

I love WS and you guys for allowing me to practice my verbal skills!!!

Sorry for the OT!
 
And how you can't trust LE's view 100%.

I think all the options should remain open. Yes, focus on the friends. Please. But keep the options open.

I agree 110%...someone posted earlier about the narrow views of some LE.

We don't know what all evidence they've collected in this case, however, we are all aware of the number of unsolved missing kid cases in this country. (I consider LS a kid)

LE needs everyone's help to turn the tide on these growing statistics.
 
Lately I've been reading more than posting and I just want to talk about a couple things that have come up during the time I've been reading...

1. Many seem to doubt the OD theory either because A. they don't think the POIs would be able to successfully cover it up and leave no evidence behind or B. because they simply don't see a reason for the POIs not to call 911 rather than take the risk of trying to cover it up. Both of these doubts are understandable and rational. But many other posters have done a good job of pointing out problems with doubting an OD theory based on these reasons by citing other cases or personal experiences when even 'friends' of the victim decided not to contact authorities when the victim was ODing and when POIs who most of us would deem pretty incompetent to successfully conceal evidence from LE did just that. I really don't think we can discount the OD theory, as implausible as it might seem to us (when considering these things it is impossible for any of us to assign our own set of morals or our own idea of our ability to cover up a death to the matter because the POIs and the circumstances in this case are very different from us or anything we have encountered)

A big reason that the 'friends' might cover up an OD and work extra hard to do so: their DNA on the person who ODed. If there was any kind of struggle, physical contact (esp. sexual contact) with LS before/during/after an OD this would presumably make the person(s) with her more likely to want to conceal her death. Obviously, I know there are still problems with this, including the likelihood that those POI around were probably quite out of it themselves and not prepared to handle something of this magnitude. But a death/fear of getting charged with murder/rape, etc. is definitely a strong motivator to do everything in your power to cover up and I think would also be very sobering.

2. About the POIs not being able to get rid of her w/o a car, someone else has laid out very well the possibility that she could have been put in a dumpster and the dumpster emptied/taken to a landfill before she was even reported missing. Alternatively, we have no proof of exactly when/if or to what extent all POIs' cars were checked by LE. I personally doubt that JR's visitor's car has been checked, for instance. Of course it's very possible that LE knew about this visitor from the beginning and we did not but, for some reason, I just don't get that sense. I think that LE was not aware of the visitor until fairly recently and therefore would not necessarily have had access/reason to check his vehicle. If not him, there could be others whose vehicles have not been checked by LE. It has been well-established that there are not cameras in the parking area at 5 North or in many areas in the vicinity so it is definitely possible that LE is unaware of all cars that were in the area that night and therefore, would not have checked all of the cars that might have been there.

3. Like others have said, I too am frustrated about the alley video and the 'activity' it may reveal. However, FWIW, the quote used in the Fox article: "We have information from that video that again gives us an indication not only of the direction (of her travel) but the activities that have taken place from where that video shows” doesn’t necessarily mean that there was any kind of activity of interest ON the video but that from the video they may be able to predict/make a good guess about what activity may have taken place after they left the alley. He says ‘an indication’ of ‘the activities that have taken place’ so he doesn’t necessarily mean that they know with certainty what activity was taking place (it could have been something that was taken out of the alley/out of view of the camera)…just that they have an indication. At least that is my reading of that quote.
http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-surv...spierer-last-spotted-20110612,0,7227876.story

Anyway, that's all for now. I think the big missing information that is needed right now is all the who/what/why/how/where/when info regarding JR's out of town guest. I would be very surprised if he didn't have any thing of value to contribute to this investigation.
 
Since someone brought it up, I would also like to comment that I think that Jesse Wolffe might be who the parents are looking at it.

In the beginning, the father said that she had been in a loving relationship FOR YEARS.

But since this happened, Jesse doesn't seem to be presenting an united front with the family at all. That seems very weird to me. If they had been dating for years, he was probably part of the family and should have stayed in Bloomington a little more to support Lauren's parents.

A couple of other reasons to suspect JW (besides statistics):
- a crime of passion here would make sense where other scenarios may be considered "senseless"
- It's been rumored that JW and posse spent a couple days roaming the Hoosier Nat. Forest after LS disappeared...possibly looking for her...or?
- Either/or they had OnStar aboard...so maybe that is reason for focus on him/them.

My feeling is that he was looking for her.

From the parents perspective...everyone is a suspect..JW has to understand that.
 
Lately I've been reading more than posting and I just want to talk about a couple things that have come up during the time I've been reading...

<My snip>

Excellent. You make good sense. :takeabow:

I especially appreciate item #3. It's very telling. My mind jumped to an image of someone pulling out a bag of blow.
 
The skeptic in me wonders if this out-of-town friend is a recent fabrication; specifically, that JR sent word to the spokesperson HT which is why we're just now hearing about it. JR could deflect attention and suspicion or the pendulum could swing the other way and incriminate himself even more by having an accomplice with a vehicle. Okay, I just convinced myself of the latter.

Perhaps news of the out-of-town guest is a sign that the code of silence is cracking.
 
Bx, I think what you're trying to get at is Bayes' Law, which is the conditional probability. You're interested in the probability of getting abducted by a stranger if you're abducted (A|B), rather than the probability of being abducted by a stranger (A) if you consider all US residents. However, if the number of abductions is constant, and being abducted by someone you know is C, then A|B and C|B are the same as A and C (as compared with each other - each probability will be lower than if you already know the person has been abducted).

If you're comparing probabilities across different situations, like the probability of being hit by lightning versus the probability of being abducted, the probability that you'll be hit by lightning is probably much smaller than the probability of being abducted by a stranger given that you've been abducted (A|B), since if you've been abducted there are only really two choices - that you've been abducted by a stranger or you've been abducted by someone you know. That is, the probability change based on prior related/known events.

Heh. Exactly. The extremely high odds against disappearing in the first place are now at 100%, which makes abduction via any method a lot higher chance.
 
Just popping in with a possible scenario posted on the TG blog this morning (in comments to TG’s witness story). Click links for full comments. In a nutshell:

LS leaves CR’s apt, goes to JR’s, parties with JR and mystery hometown friend. LS leaves with JR’s friend around 3:30. He may not have known about the alley so they walked down College- no cams there. She’s so drunk she can’t even tell him where she lives. She’s losing it...they sit down on steps at Tenth & College. The witness sees them there at 3:38. He lifts her and carries her back to JR in a panic. Bad things happen- they call DR but he doesn’t answer. Alibi: I’ll say she left at 4:30- let’s say LS made the phone call.

http://tonygatto.wordpress.com/2011...at-tenth-and-college-at-338-a-m/#comment-2220

http://tonygatto.wordpress.com/2011...at-tenth-and-college-at-338-a-m/#comment-2199

http://tonygatto.wordpress.com/2011...at-tenth-and-college-at-338-a-m/#comment-2200

Apologies for quoting myself. This scenario wouldn't work if JR's hometown friend was female. I just assumed friend was a male. Anyone have any confirmation one way or the other? Lohud article June 25:

(p 2) "Another friend from Rosenbaum's hometown was also staying at the apartment, said Tamir, who has spoken to Rohn and Rosenbaum. Capt. Qualters did not respond to inquiries Friday about whether police were aware of, or had interviewed, Rosenbaum's visitor."

http://www.lohud.com/article/201106...-nets-few-leads?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|News
 
Apologies for quoting myself. This scenario wouldn't work if JR's hometown friend was female. I just assumed friend was a male. Anyone have any confirmation one way or the other? Lohud article June 25:

(p 2) "Another friend from Rosenbaum's hometown was also staying at the apartment, said Tamir, who has spoken to Rohn and Rosenbaum. Capt. Qualters did not respond to inquiries Friday about whether police were aware of, or had interviewed, Rosenbaum's visitor."

http://www.lohud.com/article/201106...-nets-few-leads?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|News

Good point! Others have also posed questions about whether the POIs have girlfriends (could the visitor have been JR's gf?). Others have also asked about whether the POIs have any history of assaulting/attempting to assault women or taking advantage of incapacitated women...too bad there is basically no way for us to determine this...it could both tell a lot about both their character and lend credence to an idea they could have been involved in LS's disappearance. I also go back to wondering if the party was still going on at JR's when LS returned later in the night/if anyone else besides JR/visitor was there, were there any girls there? Just curiosity...I don't know exactly how these things would be relevant in figuring out what happened but so far this discussion has been almost entirely about all the male friends/acquaintances involved and I tend to believe there must be some females who know something as well.
 
The skeptic in me wonders if this out-of-town friend is a recent fabrication; specifically, that JR sent word to the spokesperson HT which is why we're just now hearing about it. JR could deflect attention and suspicion or the pendulum could swing the other way and incriminate himself even more by having an accomplice with a vehicle. Okay, I just convinced myself of the latter.

Perhaps news of the out-of-town guest is a sign that the code of silence is cracking.

Interesting. I really hope you are right that this is a sign of someone breaking down and starting to talk...maybe, maybe.
 
How I'm feeling right now...

The "mystery man" is the same man who is in the 2:51 video and it is not CR and the "mystery man" has nothing to do with Lauren's disapperance.
 
I did ask for people to show me otherwise, but you have NOT done so. I used real published data not my "feeling" about what I see reported on TV.
The odds of being abducted and murdered by a stranger are at least 1,000 times higher than dying from prescription medication. So, while either is POSSIBLE, which is most PROBABLE?

Quick post that may offer some clarification -- feel free to ignore and no offence intended to anyone.

This is (laterally) my research field. Statistical frequency may not be useful in determining probability -- it's really an indicator of how often (with what freq) a defined phenomenon happened over a given slice of time. Statistics concerns rich data yielded by long lenses, so to speak, whilst probability is about the chance that some event will or will not obtain.

ODs may occur more frequently (in the US annually) than do fatal abductions by random stranger. But in this case, under these particular circumstances, either may have been more likely. That's what evidence does -- aggregated, and carefully interpreted, it points towards likelihoods in a particular case. Probability here, then, might endorse the (seemingly) prevailing LE viewpoint that the evidence here, such as it is, points to the group close to and peripherally linked to LS. This does not, of course, rule out a stranger abduction -- one turn of events, sadly, that statistics can do nothing to predict.

s
 
How I'm feeling right now...

The "mystery man" is the same man who is in the 2:51 video and it is not CR and the "mystery man" has nothing to do with Lauren's disapperance.

Is this to say that you think the 3:38 mystery guy is in the video at 2:51?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
218
Guests online
224
Total visitors
442

Forum statistics

Threads
609,023
Messages
18,248,662
Members
234,529
Latest member
EcomGeekee
Back
Top