elmomom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Messages
- 3,491
- Reaction score
- 8,114
yep looks like it to me. Why else does he have to duck answering the question?
JW doesn't answer
he replied,
IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 - #19
- Thread starter SheWhoMustNotBeNamed
- Start date
- Status
yep looks like it to me. Why else does he have to duck answering the question?
Ducking the question is an unfair characterization that implies he is intentionally avoiding an answer. Maybe he doesn't know who is behind administering the test and doesn't want to speculate. Maybe he no longer wishes to answer questions. It's a flustered interview that probably shouldn't be too heavily scrutinized imo.
elmomom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Messages
- 3,491
- Reaction score
- 8,114
Nah,,, I don't believe that for a minute. Flustered? It was by electronic communication. He could have taken as much time as he wanted.
Personally, I think you boys are all trying a little too hard to put lipstick on a pig here. His interview was a mistake, he did himself way more harm than good, but it is what it is, and you have to deal with it.
AnalyticalExaminer
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 578
- Reaction score
- 1
Did he? He wrote, "If I failed a polygraph everyone in the world would know." If it were a private polygraph, that would not be true. Perhaps this is why he responded to the follow-up question asking again whether it was LE-administered, "I don't think you are understanding what i just said to you."
Inspector Gidget
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,367
- Reaction score
- 866
Did I miss this on here or did anyone here about this one:
I heard from the person doing the searches that a man's wallet, containing Lauren Spierers fake ID, was found at at 12th and Walnut. Her age was given as 21, and her last name was misspelled. Her pic was on the ID.
http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/st...pZXMvMjAxMS8wNi8xMy9uZXdzLnFwLTc5NzYxNTcuc3Rv
I heard from the person doing the searches that a man's wallet, containing Lauren Spierers fake ID, was found at at 12th and Walnut. Her age was given as 21, and her last name was misspelled. Her pic was on the ID.
http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/st...pZXMvMjAxMS8wNi8xMy9uZXdzLnFwLTc5NzYxNTcuc3Rv
I'm certain that both he and his lawyer would know who was administering a polygraph.
I'm also certain that he would know that whatever he says to the media will be printed. If he didn't want to answer questions at all, he didn't have to. Or, he could have just as easily said something like "I have been in full cooperation with the police and I have no further comment." Given how hard the Spierers have tried to have the media on their side in their efforts to find Lauren, the fact that JW's only public comment is a big Eff you to reporters seems at the very least, distasteful and counterproductive. If he is 100% innocent and fully cooperating with the search for Lauren, he's sure not making it sound that way.
I'm also certain that he would know that whatever he says to the media will be printed. If he didn't want to answer questions at all, he didn't have to. Or, he could have just as easily said something like "I have been in full cooperation with the police and I have no further comment." Given how hard the Spierers have tried to have the media on their side in their efforts to find Lauren, the fact that JW's only public comment is a big Eff you to reporters seems at the very least, distasteful and counterproductive. If he is 100% innocent and fully cooperating with the search for Lauren, he's sure not making it sound that way.
AnalyticalExaminer
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 578
- Reaction score
- 1
Distasteful, perhaps. If he is innocent, however, that would seem to be his privilege given the likely death of his girlfriend. Counterproductive? How? If he were concerned about his appearance of innocence, wouldn't he have not responded or responded in a different manner?
elmomom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Messages
- 3,491
- Reaction score
- 8,114
Oh you know, everyone in the world would know only if LE gave it? Are u kidding me? They haven't even given us NAMES of the POIs, never mind info like who took and who passed or failed a polygraph.
yep he ducked it. Not answering once, well, maybe he got so "flustered" that he forgot to answer the first part of the question. Not answering it the second time? Ducking. Clear as day to me.
See the part of my sentence that you cut out.
Perhaps you have me confused with someone that has an agenda here. I have no problems shifting suspicion on to JW if facts warrant that. And IMO this interview is nothing of the sort. I'm always glad to get more news one way or the other and I can see how his responses can provide further support to whatever you may feel his role that night was, but thats because people tend to take what they want out of a story.
Darcyline
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2010
- Messages
- 1,300
- Reaction score
- 8
JW comes off as very immature, but I do have to think about the surrounding situation. He is probably being harassed and his family may even be harassed for something he may not have done. So, in addition to losing his girlfriend he is having to deal with being a suspect in a lot of people's eyes. This "interview" should not have happened, JW is not an eloquent person from what I have seen, but I still don't really think it indicates guilt necessarily. His lawyers do seem to have a much looser rein on him than they do CR/JR that is for sure.
AnalyticalExaminer
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 578
- Reaction score
- 1
I'm not arguing the accuracy of what he said, but rather its internal logic - the implication of saying everyone would know if he failed, to my mind, is that it was LE-administered. Regardless of whether LE announces results (and you're right that they likely don't, though I believe the implication is that if he had failed he would have subsequently been arrested), I don't think anyone believes everyone would know if it were privately-administered.
AnalyticalExaminer
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 578
- Reaction score
- 1
Actually, they have given us the name of one POI (via on-background confirmation for a single news article many many weeks ago) - JR.
elmomom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Messages
- 3,491
- Reaction score
- 8,114
Exactly. And the people on here that have ruled him out want to see this interview in the most positive light. I am sorry if I lumped you together with an agenda... but in no way does this interview give me reason to think JW is any more innocent than I did yesterday, and I think everyone who can say that is really reading it through rose colored glasses.
elmomom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Messages
- 3,491
- Reaction score
- 8,114
No, actually they mentioned two, they also confirmed that JW was a POI.
Agree. And we do at least get confirmation that he's taken a polygraph of some sort and that he talked to LE on Tuesday.
Barry
Registered Fence Sitter
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2010
- Messages
- 761
- Reaction score
- 10,187
Doesn't make him innocent or guilty of anything at all, but here's what's *not* in this interview:
"I miss Lauren"
Any plea at all for information as to her whereabouts or what happened to her.
Sympathy for the parents.
Given his age, I'm not sure if this means anything about him, in regards to my thinking towards involvement or not. His life may suck, but I wonder if he's given any thought to that versus not being alive at all, or having a child missing, and not knowing what happened. This *does* shape my thinking in regards to the nice guy image that was being portrayed.
I believe im thinking the exact same thing. I couldnt find the right words.
elmomom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Messages
- 3,491
- Reaction score
- 8,114
Since I was the one who posted the link to the story....
what gets me is that he is STILL talking to LE as of Tuesday. Don't you all see that as hard as it is for you (and ME) to fit him in to the puzzle somehow, LE is having a heck of a time trying to clear him. And that should be giving everyone pause. He is STILL talking to LE. And he may not even be talking - there isn't any way to know whether what he meant was that he supplied written answers through his lawyer to LE.
When I speculate about a theory of what I think happened that night, JW is usually not a part in it. But too many reasons keep coming up so that I cannot ignore the fact that I may just not know everything that LE does. WHY are they still interested in him? He should have been eliminated from suspicion fairly easily, but he has not been. Why, why why?
AnalyticalExaminer
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 578
- Reaction score
- 1
But did not name him (though his name was out there, yes).
- Status