IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 - #23

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
My thoughts:
*She wants us to know that lauren made a call/text. I assume it was to DR. ?

*She may be thinking that laurens disappearance was in the works starting at this time or that her cell phone disappearance was intentional and put the crime into play. This crime could have included a roofie, etc. in her drink.

* For sure she knows something about the call and (if it was a text hopefully they got it early enough). She may have been directing this comment to this person.

Yes, I think you're right... It does sound like she's directing the "phone usage" at 1216am to someone specific. It could be a message with few words to indicate she knows that LS was not the one to make the call at 415am. I'm thinking it was a response to JR's statement yesterday. Perhaps a message that only the inside people would understand.
 
I've been keeping up with the threads, but haven't posted in awhile, but CS's quote from the insert had me thinking all night... She references the last phone call at 12:16 in response to "speculation" in the case. So my feeling is that her goal is to clear something up that has been inaccurately speculated about. There has been considerable speculation about drug use and LS being a partier who was perhaps seeking party supplies that night. Maybe CS is pointing out that LS was not making phone calls setting up meetings or opportunities to buy anything. She made her last call when she was still at home, not when she was at 5 North the 1 st time, even though she presumably still had her phone at that time. Maybe she is saying something about DR? From what we have heard, that's who LS was with at that point and for the next hour or so and then also who was called later. Maybe CS is suggesting that whatever happened was at least in part orchestrated by DR? I would really like to know who that phone call at 12:16 was made to!
 
Yes, I think you're right... It does sound like she's directing the "phone usage" at 1216am to someone specific. It could be a message with few words to indicate she knows that LS was not the one to make the call at 415am. I'm thinking it was a response to JR's statement yesterday. Perhaps a message that only the inside people would understand.

It couldn't have been a response because it was written long before he made that statement.
 
"Lauren Spierer's Mom tells FOX59"I have not spoken with Jay Rosenbaum. I was surprised to hear his comment."Jay says he speaks to parents"

http://twitter.com/#!/AnneFOX59/status/108363982389264384

Good catch.

So Anne Yeager tweets CS refuted JR's claim by saying "I have not spoken with Jay Rosenbaum. I was surprised to hear his comment."

But Anne Yeager reports "the mom said nothing" in response to JR's claim.

Which Yeager are we to believe? It underscores POIs aren't the only parties involved who may have credibility issues.
 
Good catch.

So Anne Yeager tweets CS refuted JR's claim by saying "I have not spoken with Jay Rosenbaum. I was surprised to hear his comment."

But Anne Yeager reports "the mom said nothing" in response to JR's claim.

Which Yeager are we to believe? It underscores POIs aren't the only parties involved who may have credibility issues.

Fox 59 reported the comment by CS after their 10:00 story last night. That story never said anything about CS not responding, so I take it that the comment about them not speaking to JR and being surprised by his comment is accurate.
 
Fox 59 reported the comment by CS after their 10:00 story last night. That story never said anything about CS not responding, so I take it that the comment about them not speaking to JR and being surprised by his comment is accurate.

Ahhh, but the first story they ran did.

http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-laur...-on-spierer-mystery-20110829,0,6562206.column

Watch the very end, starting at 2:37

"Jay said he spoke to both you and Bob privately" then:
"Her mom said nothing"

(hopefully Fox will leave this version in the archives).

So, something changed between this newscast (6 pm-ish) and the 10 o'clock news.

My guess is that CS really was surprised, but had to "clear" her response with LE and/or her attorney before speaking publicly.
 
If JR's first comments to the press were scripted by Voyels, I am putting that lawyer's name and number in my speed-dial!

Anyone familiar with the man's work ? I am not. But if he worked on that speech with his client, it's pretty damn brilliant. Love it or hate it.

I would say that, for the general public, those following this case, a statement by JR has been much anticipated. Heck, there is even a website devoted to the topic.

The first volley has been served, and now it is up to LE and the family to either affirm or deny JR's statements.
Sorry but I would have to disagree.This is the same guy that made the statements that he supplied LE with the results of a lie detector tests and a statement from his client.Which means he has refused to take a test or failed a test given by LE.Also since LE wants to interview suspects multiple times and not be provided statements we can also assume he has refused to do that.He has done more to make it appear that his client has been uncooperative than LE and the Spierer family.As far as his statement of not talking to protect the case what is so brilliant about that.We hear the same tired statement from just about every municipality,police Dept or other person suspected of wrong doing.If I have heard the statement we can not comment while the investigation is ongoing once I have heard it a thousand times and when you get those type of comments it usually means they have big problems.When a police officer commits some heroic act LE is only to happy to talk about it all day long.It is only when they are accused of some wrong doing that the integrity of the investigation becomes so important.IMO his lawyer has a severe case of thinking he is the smartest guy in the room and the rest of us are idiots.
 
I've been meaning to ask this for about a week: Who do you think is the "acquaintance" on video with Lauren in the alley? And, if you think it's CR who would be your next guess? I'm not at all convinced it's CR.

Another comment/question: I'm wondering if there is a different or an additional reason Lauren stumbled out of the elevator, besides being intoxicated. My thought is CR went off on her, maybe shoved her or something like that. Thoughts?
 
I've been meaning to ask this for about a week: Who do you think is the "acquaintance" on video with Lauren in the alley? And, if you think it's CR who would be your next guess? I'm not at all convinced it's CR.

Another comment/question: I'm wondering if there is a different or an additional reason Lauren stumbled out of the elevator, besides being intoxicated. My thought is CR went off on her, maybe shoved her or something like that. Thoughts?

I thought they cleared that up and said CR helped her. Actually I heard or read somewhere that they helped each other. I read that she fell to the ground after exiting the elevator. It could have been deduced by the mere fact that they were both so messed up LS helping CR home would be a practical impossibility when she could barely help herself and CR was just as messed up.

I think the phone call issue that the parents are trying to convey is that Lauren used the phone last at 12:16. Perhaps a call for help? Everything after that would have been inbound calls/texts, unless one of the POIs got a hold of her phone. I doubt that considering that they called JW stating they had the phone. Are they alluding to the fact that someone was trying to find her and that someone is the person they want to speak to. I can only think of one person and I believe I am in the minority when I say the JW was texting her all night and those texts got nasty at some point, perhaps threatening... JMO I can't get my eyes off of the boyfriend.
 
This is in respone to the 12:16 phone usage by LS. Wouldn't this have been about the time the ball game was over? Maybe she contacted JW to let him know that they would not be getting together later and that she was going to meet up with the guys she met at Indy 500. If this was the case, I find it very difficult to believe that JW would not be upset with this. LS had befriended him on facebook, she went to Indy 500(without him) and met up with other guys, now she is partying(again without him)with these same guys. And he just goes to bed and sleeps. I know the threads have said that he has talked to LE and taken a poly, but he also has the motoviation to frame CR/MB and JR knowing she was with them. JMO.
 
I thought they cleared that up and said CR helped her. Actually I heard or read somewhere that they helped each other. I read that she fell to the ground after exiting the elevator. It could have been deduced by the mere fact that they were both so messed up LS helping CR home would be a practical impossibility when she could barely help herself and CR was just as messed up.

snipped

The only person who attempted to clarify CR/LS in the alley is his attorney, Salzmann, who I don't trust. Has he even seen the video? Who knows. No one, not even LE--that I am aware of--has identified the "acquaintance" in the alley video with her.

I've been thinking it could be any of the bystanders to the fight Floor 5 or anyone who might have been waiting outside. If it was CR, I wonder why LE did not use his name during the PCs because they had already placed her with CR as walking into SW together.
 
I do not think that the 12:16 phone use "clue" was stated to point out that anything sinister occurred, such as pre-meditation, as some have suggested. This info alone may have meant that to me, however CS also said something like "911. Three numbers that could change your future." (paraphrasing from memory). CS was quoted as though someone had a CHOICE to call 911 and didn't. This choice is usually made after an accident, or a murder that was done spontaneously. People don't generally pre-plan a murder, then chose to call 911. It's clear to me that CS believes this was an accident and that someone made the decision to not call 911, and that that decision will affect the rest of his/her life.

As to what the "clue" is really pointing to, I think it has something to do with a connection between two important statements:

1. You should ALWAYS have your cell phone with you.
2. Lauren last used HER phone at 12:16 (but didn't leave it behind at Kilroy's until two hours later).

Put those two together, and I think that's the "clue". If Lauren ALWAYS kept her cell on her, and used it often (as has been described), why the heck wasn't sure using it for two hours, during which JW was supposedly trying to reach her. This tells me that either CD thinks that JW was NOT texting her as he says, she was ignoring him, or she wasn't using her phone. If it's the latter - why?

As for JR, his statement to the effect of nobody wants him to talk to ruin the case, I think that's pretty big. I think he would likely have said, "My attorney has requested that I not speak with you." if it was regarding himself. However, IMO this sounds as though he's been asked by many to not give any statements. Having been the victim of a crime myself, I know that LE will often ask you to not discuss the case (even when there isn't much of one). We do not know what they have, however. Perhaps there's more of a "case" than we suspect and maybe the landfill was just served to find the evidence they need to convict - a body. If they do not think that they have enough evidence for a conviction, they won't make an arrest yet, so they may have enough info, but just need the body. When CS keeps requesting that people talk, it could mean that she wants someone to tell them where the body is. They do seem to keep saying, "We have to find Lauren" as opposed to "We want to find whoever did something with her", even though at this point, I think it's pretty clear that they know that someone did do something. JMO
 
The following excerpt from another one of Shawn Cohen's articles (we discussed previously) is especially relevant now.

"Wolff ... told friends that he had planned to get together with Spierer early on June 3, but they couldn't reach each other that morning because, as he learned later, she'd left her cellphone at a bar.

He was the person bar employees called later in the morning to report they had her phone, after seeing several text exchanges between the couple.

http://www.lohud.com/article/201107...he-s-taken-polygraph-mother-issues-new-appeal
 
Thanks, Jupitar. Perhaps I may not be remembering well (and I have no link), but I was under the impression that they contacted JW not because of text "exchanges" but because the bar employee noticed that someone kept texting LS, and he replied back to JW that he had her phone. I am not sure if I didn't read well or why I had that impression. Perhaps it was just an assumption on my part. Clearly however, if there were "exchanges" then she was texting JW at least prior to 12:16.
 
Thanks, Jupitar. Perhaps I may not be remembering well (and I have no link), but I was under the impression that they contacted JW not because of text "exchanges" but because the bar employee noticed that someone kept texting LS, and he replied back to JW that he had her phone. I am not sure if I didn't read well or why I had that impression. Perhaps it was just an assumption on my part. Clearly however, if there were "exchanges" then she was texting JW at least prior to 12:16.

What I recall is JW called LS the next morning and the bar employee picked up the phone; however I don't know is that is fact or fiction. The article could be wrong too.

Edited to add: Why and whether the bar employee texted or called is not the salient point. I am interested in the content I put in red above. (I do find it curious if a bar employee took the initiative to text. Very invasive if you ask me. Picking up a call is not so.)
 
Thanks, Jupitar. Perhaps I may not be remembering well (and I have no link), but I was under the impression that they contacted JW not because of text "exchanges" but because the bar employee noticed that someone kept texting LS, and he replied back to JW that he had her phone. I am not sure if I didn't read well or why I had that impression. Perhaps it was just an assumption on my part. Clearly however, if there were "exchanges" then she was texting JW at least prior to 12:16.

Exactly how I remember it Gabby66 as far as the bar employee texting him back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
135
Guests online
2,196
Total visitors
2,331

Forum statistics

Threads
600,791
Messages
18,113,653
Members
230,990
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top