LE came out and said they ruled it out. They only suspected it because they falsely believed it circled the block. It didn't.
IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 - #23
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
- Status
LE came out and said they ruled it out. They only suspected it because they falsely believed it circled the block. It didn't.
mamamia54
Inactive
Well then it wasn't the same vehicle, because in one picture the truck bed hasn't anything inside it, and in the other there is something back there.
You don't even see the whole bed of the truck in one of the photos. How do you know there is nothing inside it?
I wouldn't agree that circling the block is the ONLY reason it was suspected. I'd like to think that any vehicle in that vicinity at that time of morning, would be suspected. Yes, they came out and said that they had ruled it out, but I question - based on what? Their reason was that they identified the owner and that he showed them the route he drove, and that he had picked up someone on the way to work. They didn't elaborate about anything else. Did they verify that he really went to work? I'm just saying that it's possible and I'm not convinced that the BBP are investigating this case well so just hearing, "Yeah I own the truck and was on my way to pick up a co-worker." isn't enough for me, IF that was the extent of their "investigation".
If you go back and read my post #298, I explained why I think one has a cover and one doesn't. In the reflection, you can clearly see something round in the bed of that truck. The black top of the bed rails is visible (no cover). In the other pick, you cannot see the round object, presumably b/c it's covered by the cover. You cannot see the black on the top of the bed rails and what appears to me to be a cover is clearly overlapping the black (as a cover would do). There's also some "bunched up" material as though whatever, or whomever, is sitting in the bed, has pushed back the cover.
The police said they ruled the truck out. It only appeared in the area once, and the driver was picking up an employee. I presume they also checked his alibi further to see that they indeed arrive at work at the appropriate time. I am not sure what else is left there to discuss, since LE clearly stated it was ruled out.
bluebirdii
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2011
- Messages
- 54
- Reaction score
- -1
Thank you for this post. If the truck was indeed showed twice on surveillance, it could have easily been that the driver was called by someone to pick up "someone" and it was driving up and coming down looking for a specific place for pickup.:twocents:
I understand your position. I'm not convinced that it has a thing to do with the case either, but I'm just not convinced it doesn't. I'm just saying that I'm not entirely convinced that BBP are investigating this really well. Mistakes happen. I shared in the beginning of this case that when our home was broken into, I had a responding officer, a Detective with a crime dog, and an Investigator ALL tell me that they entered through an unlocked door (which I thought may have been left unlocked by one of my kids). These guys all searched in and around my home. Not ONE of them noticed what my husband discovered 3-4 days later - slashed window screens in our basement. Sometimes investigations are mishandled. If this was just a white truck driving through the area, I wouldn't be so adamant that it MAY be relevant. However, we have a white truck caught on camera that appears to have had a cover either added or removed at some point prior to being again caught on camera. That is weird. IMO ALL angles should continue to be discussed until Lauren is found. That's how cases are solved - keep going back and looking at EVERY detail until you find what you may have missed. I can say that personally, I've looked at these photos a million times and never noticed the cover being added or removed until today! I had previously thought it was always there but just perhaps pulled back. Now, I see differently. My point is that if we just rule things out and never revisit them, cases may not ever get solved.
It didn't show up twice. It only showed up once.
"Investigators, who received more than 500 tips since pictures of the truck were released last week, tracked down the owner and determined he had driven by the Smallwood Plaza area just one time about 4:15 in the morning of June 3, and had picked up an employee."
http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2011/06/20/news.qp-1784939.sto
Wow I have never seen people go so out of their way to discount others views. Why does it bother some people so much that others want to look at the truck again. Do people honestly believe everything police say? You don't think they might want to shift the focus off of people they want to investigate further?
Thank you for clarifying this for me. It's perplexing, obviously ... if not the white truck, maybe a POI's vehicle leaving for home the next day ... or maybe she never left Bloomington. One thing about the white truck: regardless if what's in the back, it has a double cab. A person laying down in the second cab wouldn't be visible.
Sometimes I wonder if she's not in Bloomington still ... beneath a construction zone or in a crazy person's house (like the Anthony Sowell case in Cleveland).
Cuoco7
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
- Messages
- 545
- Reaction score
- 1,134
I have been wanting to post these pictures of the truck. They have only been enhanced by colors and sharpness and saturation. Nothing else. However, we had let it go because it was heavily discounted. Now I see an opportunity to share. I realize that we all have different ideas and theories and things that we find unsettling. The truck is something unsettling for me. I enhanced this photo after my 7 year old son saw me looking at it in the middle of June. He asked who was in the back of the truck.
We have to ask ourselves why was there such a delay with the landfill search? Like us here at WS, LE has their own theories, and ALOT more information than us at home.
Does anyone know if any of the reporters asked about the picture and it's "contents"?
I'm posting this to show the warm and cool tones. In part of the truck, at the end of the bed, it appears empty. But it clearly shows something, of some shape, where a few of us see something.
I just find it disturbing and want to know...
#1 Why wasn't it addressed by LE? and I'm not talking the truck
#2 What else could it be? It appears to be very solid.
I know early on, someone suggested in was a roll of wire. But wire has holes and is not a "whole". It would show shadows and such. This is something solid.
I really want this piece cleared up, but by LE. It bothers me soooo much.
We have to ask ourselves why was there such a delay with the landfill search? Like us here at WS, LE has their own theories, and ALOT more information than us at home.
Does anyone know if any of the reporters asked about the picture and it's "contents"?
I'm posting this to show the warm and cool tones. In part of the truck, at the end of the bed, it appears empty. But it clearly shows something, of some shape, where a few of us see something.
I just find it disturbing and want to know...
#1 Why wasn't it addressed by LE? and I'm not talking the truck
#2 What else could it be? It appears to be very solid.
I know early on, someone suggested in was a roll of wire. But wire has holes and is not a "whole". It would show shadows and such. This is something solid.
I really want this piece cleared up, but by LE. It bothers me soooo much.
Attachments
Actually, I think it's our job to stay open-minded. LE may want to shift focus ... or LE may make a mistake. It's happened. Last week the grand jury for the OCCK (Oakland County Child Killer) requested ABC film footage from 35 years ago! The current suspect was "cleared" that many years ago (and then committed suicide), but "new" evidence was found this year. However, one key piece of evidence found in the suspect's room way back when has been lost (ligatures). Just saying ...
(snipped). Thank you SO much for these pictures! I have a huge favor, if it's not too much work. Could you please post similar photos of the truck in the shot that was taken from the other angle (refection in the window)? The reason I ask is b/c in that shot, there is clearly something in the back that I do not see in these photos. It's a rounded object which some believe to be a tire. If your enhancement shows it from one camera angle, and not the other, then it's very suspicious to me that someone did in fact remove (or add) a cover at some point during their trip, in between the time the video was shot.
What is not clear to me is why would this person come forward IF it's really a person in the back of his truck? Obviously he'd seen the photos b/c he knew it was him for whom they were searching. He wouldn't know how well they could enhance those shots. Therefore, if he is driving the truck, and he knows that's his buddy in the back with LS, why would he come forward to admit it was him? I'd think that he'd be concerned that they would be able to enhance the photos well enough to see what was going on, unless of course he said, "I didn't have room in the cab b/c of such and such, so when I picked up my buddy, he jumped in the back." If that's the case, then WHY is he on the side towards the front? If you would jumping in the bed of a truck, wouldn't you more likely jump in from the back, rather than side? The fact that he came forward is really the ONLY thing that makes me think LE may be right.
This may be a little far out but ...
That barn that caught fire was connected to some trucking company, and the son of the owner goes to/went to Ivy tech. Let's assume for a minute that LS did end up there.
Is it so crazy to imagine that a trucking business has two or more of the same model of pickup truck? It would be really easy for someone involved to pay off a worker and bring a "duplicate" truck to LE - one that wouldn't contain a trace of evidence - and tell them to have at it.
Even if the white truck has nothing to do with the barn fire trucking business, these POIs are well-connected enough that they could produce a duplicate truck and guy with an alibi if given a couple of days.
I know certain people on here will insist that it's been discounted and we all need to move on, and I'm really not a conspiracy theorist for the most part, but obviously someone is hiding something significant. Obviously great lengths have been reached to throw off LE, the media, and the general public.
For a police department that has gotten their own story wrong on more than one occassion, I think opening oursleves up to the possibility thaty they could have been fooled is not that far out.
Jupiter812
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,744
- Reaction score
- -15
How do you know "it didn't even travel at a location where LS was supposedly last seen"???
She was supposedly last seen at 11th and College. The truck was caught on camera at Tenth and Morton. This is the same square block.
They originally believed it circled the block, but it didn't. LE clearly stated the truck had been eliminated. Unless people think LE is completely incompetent the truck clearly had nothing to do with it. The owner of the truck has been very cooperative and I presume his alibi checked out completely for LE to be able to eliminate it quickly. If it was going to work it must have shown at work at appropriate time.
With all due respect to you and the BPD, I think your response would be more accurate if phrased like this:
They originally believed it circled the block, but now they believe it didn't.
The distinction is you are assuming that they made a BIG mistake the first time, and yet at the same time assuming that they are a thorough enough PD that you can take their second account as fact.
Jupiter812
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,744
- Reaction score
- -15
I am among those who have never seen her in the bed of the truck. I've heard people in person say they see her. These are people who I consider to be level-headed, who generally err on the conservative side of stuff like this. Still, I never saw her. If I use my imagination I see a 250-pound guy. He has big arms. Those are not Lauren's arms.
However, for the first time, today I looked at this photo on my phone and the one thing I saw that I haven't seen before is what could the be part in her hair and the dark area on both sides of the photo. Pedrosmom post #290--the arrow points to this. Exactly the same as the insert photo of her on the left. Use your phones to look at the photo. It's smaller but crisper on mine.
I am suspicious of the truck for a different reason and that is it's 4:15 pick-up time of the employee. Too early. A couple of months ago I read a poster's rundown of how that time could be spent, and I didn't buy it. Also, it took what I consider to be too much time for the driver of the truck to come forward in what was a huge media blitz.
FWIW the driver is either a contractor and doesn't take his truck on-site of an outside job because it's so shiny and clean or he works inside, in a clean construction business. BB, ZO and AB's roommate, supposedly works at such a job in Indy. Still, 4:15 is too early to go to Indy.
However, for the first time, today I looked at this photo on my phone and the one thing I saw that I haven't seen before is what could the be part in her hair and the dark area on both sides of the photo. Pedrosmom post #290--the arrow points to this. Exactly the same as the insert photo of her on the left. Use your phones to look at the photo. It's smaller but crisper on mine.
I am suspicious of the truck for a different reason and that is it's 4:15 pick-up time of the employee. Too early. A couple of months ago I read a poster's rundown of how that time could be spent, and I didn't buy it. Also, it took what I consider to be too much time for the driver of the truck to come forward in what was a huge media blitz.
FWIW the driver is either a contractor and doesn't take his truck on-site of an outside job because it's so shiny and clean or he works inside, in a clean construction business. BB, ZO and AB's roommate, supposedly works at such a job in Indy. Still, 4:15 is too early to go to Indy.
- Status