IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #25

[bloom54]

But I have wondered if attorneys would have been hired early on, if they knew it would be many months afterwards with no answer.
Or it could have been that LE was just getting to close for comfort.
Such as asking for poly tests from POI.

Attorneys were hired by the boys' parents... probably as soon as they found out about the situation that might implicate their kids...

I would have done the same if my kid were involved in something like that simply to be sure they had representation.

 

[:+:MrTT:+:]

Attorneys were hired by the boys' parents... probably as soon as they found out about the situation that might implicate their kids...

I would have done the same if my kid were involved in something like that simply to be sure they had representation.

This is where i differ from most.
Since the boys were over 18 the police did-not need to ask the parents
to speak with the boys. So we can assume the boys called the parents and told them about there fear of being implicated in something they have not done.

If one of them were my boys, and called me and told me what they may had told there parents. I would have told them to get there rear down to headquarters and talk with the police. If they did nothing wrong they have nothing to worry about. But if they did do something wrong then they are going to pay the consequences for what they have done.

Especially now. over 4 months later and LS is still missing and no other leads have materialize that we know of. I would tell my boy, with the attorney to go to headquarters NOW with the attorney and talk with the police and clear your name and suspicion about your involvement in this matter once and for all.

How long are the parents planning on retaining these attorneys so LE cannot have access to the boys.
A year? 5years? forever?!
Or until the boys are grown and have there own jobs and can continue to pay attorneys for themselves. Eventually this has to stop. And someone has to come forward to speak, because the matter is not simply going to disappear over time.

You responded to my posting before i was finished editing it.
I also added the following.
​

Or had/has the hiring of attorneys early on caused this case to go on for many months and LS whereabouts still unknown.?

 

[bloom54]

If one of them were my boys, and called me and told me what they may had told there parents. I would have told them to get there rear down to headquarters and talk with the police. If they did nothing wrong they have nothing to worry about. But if they did do something wrong then they are going to pay the consequences for what they have done.

Unfortunately, that assumption that if they've done nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about is just not accurate. How many cases have we seen where truly innocent people have been railroaded? And... you have to remember these are high-powered families. They are used to allowing attorneys to manage the uncomfortable situations in their lives.

Especially now. over 4 months later and LS is still missing and no other leads have materialize that we know of. I would tell my boy, with the attorney to go to headquarters NOW with the attorney and talk with the police and clear your name and suspicion about your involvement in this matter once and for all.

If you were paying big bucks for an attorney, you'd be letting that attorney run the show. because if you don't, that attorney is going to say, "find another attorney!"...

And... we have NO IDEA who has actually met with LE with their attorneys and has possibly been given an all-clear...

Having an attorney "on retainer" is just a cost of doing business for these families... so I don't imagine that they're likely to cut those cords any time soon if they feel the need to protect their kids.

Or had/has the hiring of attorneys early on caused this case to go on for many months and LS whereabouts still unknown.?

I think it's safe to say that IF one of the boys is actually involved in the disappearance/hiding of the body, etc., the attorney involvement has certainly hampered the investigation -- simply because they shut the kids up.

 

[imkeylime]

quote...
I'm not sure how to arrive at where, since we don't know who the someone is...end of quote.

As a starting point with the POI. As defined by LE.


If I was in LE and looking to go back in time.
And pick an area to research as a starting point.
I would start where they were searching around the time attorneys were hired. If I remember correctly, they were hired after there had been searches. It could be just a mere coincidence. Or maybe perhaps someone was close and or in the area where she may be.
I don't know for sure of course, for I am just speculating.

But I have wondered if attorneys would have been hired early on, if they knew it would be many months afterwards with no answer.
Or had/has the hiring of attorneys early on caused this case to go on for many months and LS whereabouts still unknown.?
Or it could have been that LE was just getting to close for comfort.
Such as asking for poly tests from POI.
​

Well, we did discuss Bradford Woods in Martinsville awhile back, which is operated by IU and has a connection to DR's major. It's apparently an active place in the summer, which could rule it out. Parts of Martinsville were checked by LE after a mysterious odor was reported, to no avail. And there's been discussion of a fire in the area ... that's an area I'd check closely.

IMO, it's not unusual that the parents hired attorneys. It's common in my region (east coast) for parents to send in attorneys when their kids get called down for almost anything. I'm not sure why ... general distrust of the system maybe. Even if the PsOI aren't directly involved, they may be indirectly involved via drugs, etc. I don't see it as a sign of guilt (though they may be guilty).

 

[OldSteve]

Unfortunately, that assumption that if they've done nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about is just not accurate. How many cases have we seen where truly innocent people have been railroaded? And... you have to remember these are high-powered families. They are used to allowing attorneys to manage the uncomfortable situations in their lives.




If you were paying big bucks for an attorney, you'd be letting that attorney run the show. because if you don't, that attorney is going to say, "find another attorney!"...

And... we have NO IDEA who has actually met with LE with their attorneys and has possibly been given an all-clear...

Having an attorney "on retainer" is just a cost of doing business for these families... so I don't imagine that they're likely to cut those cords any time soon if they feel the need to protect their kids.



I think it's safe to say that IF one of the boys is actually involved in the disappearance/hiding of the body, etc., the attorney involvement has certainly hampered the investigation -- simply because they shut the kids up.

Good points! Also, as soon as one or more POI's get an attorney, the one(s) without would be at a disadvantage...
Good example of what happens when you don't have an attorney - Amanda Knox!

 

[Walker]

I think it's safe to say that IF one of the boys is actually involved in the disappearance/hiding of the body, etc., the attorney involvement has certainly hampered the investigation -- simply because they shut the kids up.

Not only attorneys would advise them to keep quiet. No one with normal intelligence would speak about how they got rid of someone's body. The reason that prisoners will often tell their associates about their crimes is that their intelligence is usually low, their impulsivity is high, and they socially identify with the other prisoners. Students are not prisoners.

Also, the consequences to the students would be much higher. The courts are unpredictable, and the judge might "throw the book" at them to score political points.

Let's imagine that some student, John Doe, gave LS some drugs before her death (if she is dead); but he was not heavily involved in drug trafficking, and he had no intention to do harm to her. Does anyone honestly believe that Doe should be placed in prison for 10-20 years, where he would be raped and abused, because he is different in background from the other prisoners?

However, JMO the students did not steal LS's body and improperly dispose of it somewhere.

The recent case in Laurel IN, in which Ison killed 5 people, seems to have been primarily motivated by money and drugs.

Could one of these drugs that the students (and apparently a large segment of the general public) is popping for recreation destroy the brain chemistry when taken in large quantities? Maybe Xanax is dangerous even at moderate dosage levels.

A middle-aged career criminal, Ison does not seem to have planned how to get away after the crime. He left evidence at his home. He didn't try to escape to another region. His father blamed his senseless behavior on drug addiction.

If Ison could shoot five people just to steal the drugs and cash, might not other low-level thugs abduct and kill someone just to steal their jewelry (for example)?

The body found near the recently demolished building might point to a murder perpetrated by someone involved in construction work. Perhaps some crime gang has cells that find employment in construction.

 

[imkeylime]

Could one of these drugs that the students (and apparently a large segment of the general public) is popping for recreation destroy the brain chemistry when taken in large quantities? Maybe Xanax is dangerous even at moderate dosage levels.

...

The body found near the recently demolished building might point to a murder perpetrated by someone involved in construction work. Perhaps some crime gang has cells that find employment in construction.

Snipped by me ...

I'm no expert, but I believe rx drugs used for recreation could mess with brain chemistry. What I read about Adderall indicates that it results in psychosis when abused. IDK about Xanax ... but even heavy alcohol use can affect brain chemistry.

Walker, are you referring to the woman found near a construction site in Hammond, IN? When I googled that, I found that she was a 28-year-old from Chicago who was reportedly being stalked by an ex-boyfriend. I haven't read anything further, though. But if we're talking about the same case, it looks more like a personal issue.

 

[Gabby66]

PlainJaneDoe, I also wonder if they realize it's illegal to take a rx drug if you're not the prescription holder. And even if you are, adding alcohol into the mix isn't smart. I remember reading an excerpt from the blog of the diplomat's daughter (17-year-old freshman at Parson's) who fell from a high-rise apartment in NYC last year. I'm not sure if she was taking Xanax the night she died, but she wrote how it didn't mix with vodka. Her death made me sad as well.

My understanding is that it's not illegal to TAKE the drug not prescribed to you, but it's illegal to give someone else your prescribed drug. When you give someone a prescription drug, you must hold a pharmaceutical license to do so. In other words, I do not believe these kids committed any crime by taking prescription drugs. The criminal would be the drug supplier.

 

[bloom54]

I do believe it's illegal to have it on your person... so that would, I imagine, also make it illegal to ingest it.

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/teenfaq/a/illegal_pills.htm

 

[elmomom]

It is completely illegal to take a controlled substance (i.e. prescription drug not prescribed to you)

Is abusing prescription drugs illegal?
Yes, it is illegal to use prescription drugs without a valid prescription

Quoted from:
www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs5/5140/5140p.pdf

And, while searching for this, I learned that what Gabby suggested is one of the most common myths amongst young people regarding drugs. So I see a place where the anti-drug campaign has failed to educate our youth properly!

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

It is completely illegal to take a controlled substance (i.e. prescription drug not prescribed to you)


Quoted from:
www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs5/5140/5140p.pdf

And, while searching for this, I learned that what Gabby suggested is one of the most common myths amongst young people regarding drugs. So I see a place where the anti-drug campaign has failed to educate our youth properly!

Unfortunately, there are a lot of misconceptions about drugs out there (population in general). I include myself in this, as when I joined my current lab I discovered that many things I thought I knew about drugs weren't true!

 

[elmomom]

Unfortunately, there are a lot of misconceptions about drugs out there (population in general). I include myself in this, as when I joined my current lab I discovered that many things I thought I knew about drugs weren't true!

always are. when cocaine was "new" and in vogue in the early 80's most of us thought it was pretty harmless, and that was what everyone said. Then, when some young people would die from sudden cardiac arrest we were under the impression that it was only those who had an undetected enlarged heart... never mind that we were positive that it wasn't addictive!

But the legalities should be pretty easy to inform folks about, easier than convincing them that prescription drugs are harmful to you... at least I would think so..

 

[AnalyticalExaminer]

No matter that a case might be made that he passed the poly and told the truth or else we would know otherwise, the highly dubious notions that she could walk normally and JR watched her walking always cancels out the poly. I always come back to how unlikely both actions are.

I disagree very strongly.

I have no evidence that it is unlikely he could see her turn the corner other than the opinion a) of locals who have never been inside JR's apartment (we don't know where he viewed her from or how), and b) that seems inconsistent with the pictures we have been shown of the street - it looks to me very much like someone would be visible at the corner at least if viewed from the sidewalk. If it were impossible for JR to have seen LS, that would be a fact that could be easily established by LE, at which point his story would completely fall apart and he might now be in jail. None of this is to say that I believe that he did see her (although I think that may be more likely than not), only that he could have.

Similarly, I can not at all rule out that LS was in a position to walk steadily to the corner, despite her seemingly well-established condition nearly two hours (and perhaps one hour) earlier. As many have speculated, cocaine or adderall might be sufficient. Even time might be sufficient if in fact she regained some sobriety (but not all - even JR claims he was unsure how steady she was), but then died due to her heart condition or more drugs or some other means. Despite her condition, we do know that she traveled on camera three blocks North shortly after leaving SW, and I believe there probably exists polygraph testimony regarding her condition by someone many people believe was sober (MB).

Again, I think the possibility that JR is telling (part of?) the truth should be confronted.

 

[Walker]

always are. when cocaine was "new" and in vogue in the early 80's most of us thought it was pretty harmless, and that was what everyone said. Then, when some young people would die from sudden cardiac arrest we were under the impression that it was only those who had an undetected enlarged heart... never mind that we were positive that it wasn't addictive!

But the legalities should be pretty easy to inform folks about, easier than convincing them that prescription drugs are harmful to you... at least I would think so..

Back in the 70s, the Introduction to Psychology course at my university was taught by lecture to a group of at least 100 students. The prof insisted to this large group that cocaine was absolutely non-addictive. It made no sense. I asked myself, If people can get addicted to alcohol, how could a substance so much stronger than alcohol be safe? Sadly, many of my fellow students trusted his "authority" and the authority of other professors like him.

The problem with college programs, esp. in soft areas like social sciences and humanities, is that the professors do not necessarily base their opinions on reasonable evidence. Cocaine had been imagined to be non-addictive because prior to the introduction of crack (about 1985), cocaine was priced at such exorbitant levels that individuals generally could not afford to ingest the drug in sufficient quantities to cause addiction. Reports of addiction dating back to an epidemic of cocaine abuse in the 1920s were dismissed as exaggerated or mistaken. The psych professors did not objectively examine the chemistry of the drug, or the reactions it causes, or its history. They failed to ask the right questions; they failed to think critically, and they failed to advise caution. Instead they espoused opinions which were most popular, but hopelessly and tragically wrong.

 

[akh]

I don't think we even know that JR said he saw her round the corner. We just know it's been repeated that is what he said... correct? Maybe that's not what his official statement actually said.

And maybe he did say he saw her round the corner, unless he was just adamant about that then maybe in retrospect he didn't exactly see her round the corner even though he thought he did when trying to remember exactly what he'd seen.

It's not like at the time he would've thought there would be a test or any importance whatsoever on exactly what he would be seeing as she left his apt.

And one of things he could be hiding could be as simple as he knew she was extremely trashed when she left his place, could barely walk or talk, and he let her go anyway so he doesn't exactly want to say he should've known she was in no shape to be walking alone at night. Maybe there's even some fear of legal culpability of letting her leave in that condition? Or maybe the fear is it would be argued it's his fault that she was in that condition.

Few of you seem to think that LE and the family promising some type of limited immunity against charges/drug charges and potential civil suits should be put forth in exchange for information. So without LS being found I'm starting to believe that LE has nothing. What they do have must be extremely limited and probably doesn't fit with other info and theories they'd like to believe.

It's understandable why any PsOI wouldn't want to talk freely about the night because if they did anything wrong (involving drugs for example) they'd likely face trumped up charges from LE/prosecution thinking that overcharging them would lead to them accepting a deal if they told what they know. But what if they've already told what they know? Then they'd be over-charged for a crime and have nothing to offer to get those charges reduced. Meanwhile, LE would be under pressure to seal the deal with the PsOI they have in custody.

As much as JR would be high on anyone's list of PsOI the fact that he came back to IU gives me some pause to wonder why he'd do that if he was really involved in her disappearance?

 

[bloom54]

Few of you seem to think that LE and the family promising some type of limited immunity against charges/drug charges and potential civil suits should be put forth in exchange for information. So without LS being found I'm starting to believe that LE has nothing. What they do have must be extremely limited and probably doesn't fit with other info and theories they'd like to believe.

I think it's been discussed here (tho not lately) that offering immunity would be a good thing -- and I don't recall there being a huge outcry against that. And perhaps that's happened? We just don't know....

I would imagine that the parents are more interested in getting to the truth than in filing civil charges.

 

[AnalyticalExaminer]

I don't think we even know that JR said he saw her round the corner. We just know it's been repeated that is what he said... correct? Maybe that's not what his official statement actually said.

No, we do know he said that, as LE said he did (without naming him). Perhaps that got modified somehow in a later statement (especially if he had been out of it at the time), but that seems unlikely to me, and I don't even know for sure that he's given more than one statement.

 

[bessie]

The body found near the recently demolished building might point to a murder perpetrated by someone involved in construction work. Perhaps some crime gang has cells that find employment in construction.

Walker, are you referring to the woman found near a construction site in Hammond, IN? When I googled that, I found that she was a 28-year-old from Chicago who was reportedly being stalked by an ex-boyfriend. I haven't read anything further, though. But if we're talking about the same case, it looks more like a personal issue.

respectfully snipped for focus
I've been following that story since it broke. My first thought was Lauren, but that seems doubtful now. The building was recently demolished after sitting abandoned for ten years or so which leaves many possibilities. Police Chief Brian Miller stated the remains have been there for "years".

In an impromptu news conference at the site, Hammond Police Chief Brian Miller called the inquiry a “death scene,” rather than a murder investigation. Miller said police assume, but are not yet certain, that the victim is a petite female, judging by the size and style of the ring and the finger on which it was found. While he could not say how long the victim has been dead, he said it has been years. Miller said the victim’s bones were scattered throughout the demolition site by the earthmover.

http://posttrib.suntimes.com/photos...-search-for-clues-about-hammond-skeleton.html

Imkeylime, I think you're referring to a different case. No ID has been made on the skeleton found in Hammond, IN (Whiting, actually) last week.

 

[Jupiter812]

I think it's been discussed here (tho not lately) that offering immunity would be a good thing -- and I don't recall there being a huge outcry against that. And perhaps that's happened? We just don't know....

I would imagine that the parents are more interested in getting to the truth than in filing civil charges.

I would think so too, especially as time goes by. I suspect that CS especially is interested in exactly what happened; unfortunately, that may never be possible given how wasted the key players may have been.

 

[bx2]

I have no evidence that it is unlikely he could see her turn the corner other than the opinion a) of locals who have never been inside JR's apartment (we don't know where he viewed her from or how), and b) that seems inconsistent with the pictures we have been shown of the street - it looks to me very much like someone would be visible at the corner at least if viewed from the sidewalk. If it were impossible for JR to have seen LS, that would be a fact that could be easily established by LE, at which point his story would completely fall apart and he might now be in jail. None of this is to say that I believe that he did see her (although I think that may be more likely than not), only that he could have.

It's not impossible, just extremely unlikely (if viewed from street level). Its also pretty easy to talk yourself into seeing what you believe to have happened even if you didn't actually see it (as in, she said she was going home and he saw her start walking that way). We just don't know enough of his end-of-night story to draw any conclusions here imo.