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

[Alliecog]

So... I assume there's a bouncer or an ID checker that people have to go through... not just an open sandy area?

Yes there's a big black fence and at the entrance there is a bouncer checking IDs.

 

[Gabby66]

I've never heard anything either about where her shoes were found. IMO either she was asked to leave without her shoes (which I find unlikely) OR she was scared to death, necessitating she leave without them. Even if she had planned to just run back to SW to grab money or something, then return, I do not for a second believe she would have left her phone. Shoes maybe yes, but not her phone. If she was really THAT drunk/drugged up, I have a hard time believing any bar would just toss her out. I think they would have called the police or at minimum, made darn sure someone was with her to escort her home. OK so perhaps they didn't even see that she was barefoot (that's possible). However, that means that either LS was SO wasted she didn't even realize she was missing shoes/phone (I find hard to believe) to ask if she could get them. IF there was a supposed escort home, wouldn't he have noticed at some point that she was barefoot? If they were headed to SW, wouldn't he turn around to grab her shoes for her? Most guys would have done that. I keep going back to her leaving in a hurry - NOT her being thrown out.

MrTT also reminded me of a good point. CS clearly wanted everyone to know to KEEP IN MIND as we're reading her story, LS DID NOT use her phone after that call a bit past midnight. She wants us all to know that the entire time after LS left SW, went to 5 North, then went to Sports, and during the time she was there, NOT ONCE was her phone used. She didn't text JW, didn't reply to his texts (assuming he made some during that time), she didn't call a soul. This is odd for most kids her age, to not send one text in over two hours. This too, I believe is significant.

It means one of two things to me: She was either SO messed up that she couldn't even use her phone OR maybe it means she didn't even have a phone. There is SOME reason that CS is getting this message across. She isn't just saying, "This is the last time she used the phone." She's saying, "Listen people, let it BE KNOWN and keep it in mind when you read her story, this is the last time she used her phone." It's emphatic and had meaning. Going back to the conspiracy thing again, it's possible she didn't have her phone at all and that someone planted it at Sports, making it appear that's where she left it.

I'd love to know if JW or anyone else texted her between 12:16 and when she left Sports. If she received any texts but didn't answer, that would tell me she likely didn't have her phone. I think even a drunken/drugged up girl would attempt to text back, in a stupor. I'd bet my last dollar there are incoming texts, to which she didn't reply. I'd bet that CS knows that's out of character for Lauren to not reply. That's fishy and could be the reason she wants everyone to know WHEN LS last used her phone.

 

[:+:MrTT:+:]

I've never heard anything either about where her shoes were found. IMO either she was asked to leave without her shoes (which I find unlikely) OR she was scared to death, necessitating she leave without them. Even if she had planned to just run back to SW to grab money or something, then return, I do not for a second believe she would have left her phone. Shoes maybe yes, but not her phone. If she was really THAT drunk/drugged up, I have a hard time believing any bar would just toss her out. I think they would have called the police or at minimum, made darn sure someone was with her to escort her home. OK so perhaps they didn't even see that she was barefoot (that's possible). However, that means that either LS was SO wasted she didn't even realize she was missing shoes/phone (I find hard to believe) to ask if she could get them. IF there was a supposed escort home, wouldn't he have noticed at some point that she was barefoot? If they were headed to SW, wouldn't he turn around to grab her shoes for her? Most guys would have done that. I keep going back to her leaving in a hurry - NOT her being thrown out.

MrTT also reminded me of a good point. CS clearly wanted everyone to know to KEEP IN MIND as we're reading her story, LS DID NOT use her phone after that call a bit past midnight. She wants us all to know that the entire time after LS left SW, went to 5 North, then went to Sports, and during the time she was there, NOT ONCE was her phone used. She didn't text JW, didn't reply to his texts (assuming he made some during that time), she didn't call a soul. This is odd for most kids her age, to not send one text in over two hours. This too, I believe is significant.

It means one of two things to me: She was either SO messed up that she couldn't even use her phone OR maybe it means she didn't even have a phone. There is SOME reason that CS is getting this message across. She isn't just saying, "This is the last time she used the phone." She's saying, "Listen people, let it BE KNOWN and keep it in mind when you read her story, this is the last time she used her phone." It's emphatic and had meaning. Going back to the conspiracy thing again, it's possible she didn't have her phone at all and that someone planted it at Sports, making it appear that's where she left it.

I'd love to know if JW or anyone else texted her between 12:16 and when she left Sports. If she received any texts but didn't answer, that would tell me she likely didn't have her phone. I think even a drunken/drugged up girl would attempt to text back, in a stupor. I'd bet my last dollar there are incoming texts, to which she didn't reply. I'd bet that CS knows that's out of character for Lauren to not reply. That's fishy and could be the reason she wants everyone to know WHEN LS last used her phone.

Rossman claims he was punched so hard the morning she was last seen that he lost his memory of his time with Spierer; his lawyer said Spierer had to help him back to his apartment from her building, Smallwood Plaza.

Whom told the lawyer Spierer helped him back to his place at 5north?

The R guy said he could-not remember anything about his involvement with Lauren. And we know it was not Lauren herself because she is missing. So whom told the Lawyer.

Besides, according to LE she was seen leaving the alley towards 5 north on video around 3am about 15 minutes before passer-buyers found her key by the railing and placed it there.. And I don't recall LE saying they seen her with someone else leaving the alley.

It was my impression that she left small-wood that night.

And it is just a hunch. But i wonder if at 1216 she was calling someone to tell them she was leaving small-wood and heading to the bar and that was the last time she used it?

It was my impression that she left small-wood that night.
went to the bar, then back to small wood. the altercation occurred and the last Lauren was seen was entering and exiting the alley around 3am..........
​

 

[:+:MrTT:+:]

Yes there's a big black fence and at the entrance there is a bouncer checking IDs.

Can you tell us what time they closed that june3 morning?
Last call?

 

[:+:MrTT:+:]

I don't believe we were ever privy to that information. We know that her phone was found at Sports -- but not WHERE it was found... and I don't recall ever reading about her shoes being found....

that is so true
and is a fact as far as i know on both statements you made here.

 

[akh]

I've never heard anything either about where her shoes were found. IMO either she was asked to leave without her shoes (which I find unlikely) OR she was scared to death, necessitating she leave without them. Even if she had planned to just run back to SW to grab money or something, then return, I do not for a second believe she would have left her phone. Shoes maybe yes, but not her phone. If she was really THAT drunk/drugged up, I have a hard time believing any bar would just toss her out. I think they would have called the police or at minimum, made darn sure someone was with her to escort her home. .

FWIW there would be nothing at all surprising that if she was kicked out that she wouldn't be allowed to grab anything left in the bar that wasn't within arm's reach. Bar's that kick someone out are doing it for their own (bar's) protection. And if that happens, they want you gone immediately before whatever situation escalates. With that in mind bars absolutely will turn an extremely intoxicated person out on the street and make them someone else's problem. Their (bar's) concern is not being popped for serving an intoxicated person... let alone having a situation that brings police to their establishment.

That might not be morally right and might make some of you uncomfortable to think an establishment like a bar would operate this way, but it's the rule. Anything different would be the exception... and it would be a rare exception at that.

 

[Gabby66]

FWIW there would be nothing at all surprising that if she was kicked out that she wouldn't be allowed to grab anything left in the bar that wasn't within arm's reach. Bar's that kick someone out are doing it for their own (bar's) protection. And if that happens, they want you gone immediately before whatever situation escalates. With that in mind bars absolutely will turn an extremely intoxicated person out on the street and make them someone else's problem. Their (bar's) concern is not being popped for serving an intoxicated person... let alone having a situation that brings police to their establishment.

That might not be morally right and might make some of you uncomfortable to think an establishment like a bar would operate this way, but it's the rule. Anything different would be the exception... and it would be a rare exception at that.

Thanks. I would never have guessed this, so I appreciate your reply. It doesn't really make me uncomfortable, just surprised. Surmising from your post, the bars kick them out to avoid a legal battle, all the while possibly opening themselves to another legal battle. I understand your post and their reasoning, but avoiding being charged with serving a drunk, while opening themselves up to other, perhaps more serious civil suits, is just plain dumb.

It's interesting b/c I've read (from several posters) that she was NOT kicked out that night. That said, I am intelligent enough to know that b/c of the possible civil suits, these posters could be the bar owners (or employees) trying to convince the public that she wasn't kicked out. If she WAS however, I'd still think that someone would have grabbed her shoes/cell. Now that I think about it though.......I said earlier that I found it odd that they had her phone, as opposed to it being stolen. It's possible that the bouncer told her he would get her phone and she could return for it the following day. Perhaps that is why they DID have it being held for her. Still though, I can't believe that they wouldn't have just let her wait outside so that someone could get her shoes. If this is what happened, they opened themselves up for a potentially huge can of legal worms IMO.

 

[Gabby66]

Whom told the lawyer Spierer helped him back to his place at 5north?​

Well, they have video showing her "making her way" with someone towards 5 North. We can only assume it's CR. Also, remember that MB was supposedly a witness to them returning home, and would be able to say that they walked in together, and that she tucked in CR.

And it is just a hunch. But i wonder if at 1216 she was calling someone to tell them she was leaving small-wood and heading to the bar and that was the last time she used it?

I understood that she left SW and went to JR's place, then left his place to go to the bar with CR. She didn't head to the bar from SW. She headed to JR's from SW, by my recollection. So, SW - JR's - Sports with or without CR (varying accounts) - SW (altercation between CR and boys) - alley - supposedly went back to 5 North - supposedly left on her own (according to JR)​

 

[akh]

Surmising from your post, the bars kick them out to avoid a legal battle, all the while possibly opening themselves to another legal battle

There could be any number of reasons a bar would kick someone out. It's not always to protect themselves legally because there might be situations where they kick someone out to protect their club's reputation. A bar owner could want trouble-makers out of their bar and have a very quick trigger to toss them before any trouble has a chance to take root. They could have no tolerance for any drug interactions (no dealing inside the club for example). No using.

But I'd say the two biggest reasons you'll see someone kicked out of a bar is either going to be too intoxicated or arguing/fighting.

Discovering someone is under 21 would be on the list too. Just getting through the door is only the first battle for kids trying to get inside the club and party. Just because you slipped past a doorman or he believed your fake ID doesn't mean someone working at the club won't recognize you and say something. Or that a skeptical bartender or manager won't also ask to see your ID.

Whether any of these situations applies here, or whether she was even kicked out at all, I have no idea. But when I did see recent the poster mentioning her getting kicked out from someone claiming some inside knowledge, along with memories of the Gatto report, it pretty much helped to explain how she'd leave the bar without her shoes or phone and it not solely be because she was too wasted to get them or even remember them.

I know many bar owners, bouncers, and managers and from that I know how the situation of someone being kicked out is handled and this would totally explain items left behind. There's be nothing at all odd about them not allowing her to retrieve items. I'd be more surprised to hear they started to kick her out and then allowed her to go back to her table or whatever and get her items. When you are kicked out you are escorted straight to the door.

And you are correct, if she complains about leaving anything the bouncer might tell her he'll get her items from wherever she'd say they were and she could send someone to the office to claim them or get them herself later. It might even be she was 'barred' from the club and not allowed back at all. Or if it was discovered she was under 21 they wouldn't allow her to come back for it herself either.

Hard to speculate without much more info on why she was kicked out (if she even was), even if it's only a consistent rumor as to the reason.

If this is what happened, they opened themselves up for a potentially huge can of legal worms IMO.

It's probably a legal catch 22. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Especially in regards to someone overly intoxicated. Plus, what if the bar thought CR was capable of helping her home? What if he volunteers that she'll be OK and he'll help her home? Does that change their bar's moral obligation? I'd say the bar fears more legally from having an overly intoxicated person in their bar than they fear by just getting them out the door. The odds are that person just becomes someone else's problem as opposed to something happening that ends up with a legal suit coming back on them. And they'd likely have insurance that would handle the civil suit. So, the standard operating procedure is what it is probably for those reasons.

But again, I know how the typical situation would be handled of someone getting kicked out of a club.... not whether she was kicked out or how it was handled in this particular incidence. So it's just speculation.

 

[Mophebius]

I have problems and questions with alot of the information out there in this case. One thing that has troubled me is the fact that CR's attorney made a statement early on that I still cant figure out. Did he make it to protect his client and deflect attention elsewhere, or did he make it with knowledge or a specific hunch in mind? Salzmann (CR's attorney) said "The answer in a good 90 percent of these cases is someone that they are intimately involved with." he told Fox News. (link below) Was that comment a legitimate assessment based in fact? Or is Salzmann just working to again, take the attention off of his client? I know because of the way small towns operate are that sometimes even defense attorneys can be more privvy to more case critical information in an ongoing investigation than they would be in a larger city. Just something to ponder...
I also would love to know what the cell phone "ping" information actually showed, if anything? We heard early on in the case about possible POI's cell phone "pings" occuring 45 miles away from Bloomington near Martinsville on the night in question (june 3rd after 4 am) link below. I believe it was rumored to be JR's cellphone. I have never heard that any of the POI's voluntarily aknowledged leaving town that night, at least publicly. So this would seem to be fairly damning information if it were true and it may well be.
I posted several times on this particular topic because I have a working knowledge of ping tech as I have worked as a volunteer in search and rescue missions in the Pacific North West. Ping Technology can and does help find people that are lost and cant be found, or are on the run and dont want to be found. It really has become a very valuable tool that you dont hear alot about from law enforcement. My theory is that LE does have information that is quite contradictory to what they have been told by specific POI's, but without a body to tie the whole thing together they are having difficulty making a move on the perp(s).
I have many other questions and concerns about the case that I will post about later. Thankyou everybody for your continued interest and support in this case!

http://tonygatto.wordpress.com/2011...here-lurks-an-evil-a-cruel-heartless-element/


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ng-Man-seen-memory-moments.html#ixzz1bgR3S5Rd

 

[Tr.]

I have problems and questions with alot of the information out there in this case. One thing that has troubled me is the fact that CR's attorney made a statement early on that I still cant figure out. Did he make it to protect his client and deflect attention elsewhere, or did he make it with knowledge or a specific hunch in mind? Salzmann (CR's attorney) said "The answer in a good 90 percent of these cases is someone that they are intimately involved with." he told Fox News. (link below) Was that comment a legitimate assessment based in fact? Or is Salzmann just working to again, take the attention off of his client? I know because of the way small towns operate are that sometimes even defense attorneys can be more privvy to more case critical information in an ongoing investigation than they would be in a larger city. Just something to ponder...
I also would love to know what the cell phone "ping" information actually showed, if anything? We heard early on in the case about possible POI's cell phone "pings" occuring 45 miles away from Bloomington near Martinsville on the night in question (june 3rd after 4 am) link below. I believe it was rumored to be JR's cellphone. I have never heard that any of the POI's voluntarily aknowledged leaving town that night, at least publicly. So this would seem to be fairly damning information if it were true and it may well be.
I posted several times on this particular topic because I have a working knowledge of ping tech as I have worked as a volunteer in search and rescue missions in the Pacific North West. Ping Technology can and does help find people that are lost and cant be found, or are on the run and dont want to be found. It really has become a very valuable tool that you dont hear alot about from law enforcement. My theory is that LE does have information that is quite contradictory to what they have been told by specific POI's, but without a body to tie the whole thing together they are having difficulty making a move on the perp(s).
I have many other questions and concerns about the case that I will post about later. Thankyou everybody for your continued interest and support in this case!

http://tonygatto.wordpress.com/2011...here-lurks-an-evil-a-cruel-heartless-element/


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ng-Man-seen-memory-moments.html#ixzz1bgR3S5Rd

Have you searched for Lindsey Baum?

 

[Gabby66]

There could be any number of reasons a bar would kick someone out. It's not always to protect themselves legally because there might be situations where they kick someone out to protect their club's reputation. A bar owner could want trouble-makers out of their bar and have a very quick trigger to toss them before any trouble has a chance to take root. They could have no tolerance for any drug interactions (no dealing inside the club for example). No using.

But I'd say the two biggest reasons you'll see someone kicked out of a bar is either going to be too intoxicated or arguing/fighting.

Discovering someone is under 21 would be on the list too. Just getting through the door is only the first battle for kids trying to get inside the club and party. Just because you slipped past a doorman or he believed your fake ID doesn't mean someone working at the club won't recognize you and say something. Or that a skeptical bartender or manager won't also ask to see your ID.

Whether any of these situations applies here, or whether she was even kicked out at all, I have no idea. But when I did see recent the poster mentioning her getting kicked out from someone claiming some inside knowledge, along with memories of the Gatto report, it pretty much helped to explain how she'd leave the bar without her shoes or phone and it not solely be because she was too wasted to get them or even remember them.

I know many bar owners, bouncers, and managers and from that I know how the situation of someone being kicked out is handled and this would totally explain items left behind. There's be nothing at all odd about them not allowing her to retrieve items. I'd be more surprised to hear they started to kick her out and then allowed her to go back to her table or whatever and get her items. When you are kicked out you are escorted straight to the door.

And you are correct, if she complains about leaving anything the bouncer might tell her he'll get her items from wherever she'd say they were and she could send someone to the office to claim them or get them herself later. It might even be she was 'barred' from the club and not allowed back at all. Or if it was discovered she was under 21 they wouldn't allow her to come back for it herself either.

Hard to speculate without much more info on why she was kicked out (if she even was), even if it's only a consistent rumor as to the reason.



It's probably a legal catch 22. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Especially in regards to someone overly intoxicated. Plus, what if the bar thought CR was capable of helping her home? What if he volunteers that she'll be OK and he'll help her home? Does that change their bar's moral obligation? I'd say the bar fears more legally from having an overly intoxicated person in their bar than they fear by just getting them out the door. The odds are that person just becomes someone else's problem as opposed to something happening that ends up with a legal suit coming back on them. And they'd likely have insurance that would handle the civil suit. So, the standard operating procedure is what it is probably for those reasons.

But again, I know how the typical situation would be handled of someone getting kicked out of a club.... not whether she was kicked out or how it was handled in this particular incidence. So it's just speculation.

Thanks so much again for your insight! I too know bar owners and believe they would have handled this situation quite differently, however I'm guessing that the college scene gives cause to less tolerance, understandably.

I agree that they could be passing the buck in terms of legal responsibility, if someone (CR perhaps?) vouched for her safety. It's surprising that more people aren't talking about this. I've read a couple of claims from people having "inside info" stating that she was kicked out, and yet a couple also having "inside info" stating that she wasn't. Which is true??

I just completely struggle with her leaving that bar alone. Let's assume CR was with her. If he wasn't kicked out, and had a right to return, why didn't he go back to get her shoes/phone? There are only four reasons that I can think of:

1. He wasn't with her.
2. He was with her but he was also kicked out. If so, why?
3. He was with her but they were both so smashed that neither really were aware things were left behind, or didn't care. (This is hard to believe).
4. He was with her but they were both so scared about something, fleeing for "protection" at SW, and didn't have time to grab her things.

I believe that someone was likely with her when she left/got kicked out. I believe it's possible that the bouncer agreed to get her things. However, I think it's far more likely that if a person was with her, they'd allow him to retrieve them for her, assuming he wasn't also kicked out. I've read the rumors that SHE was kicked out. Have there been any rumors that HE was as well? I don't think I've seen any stating that they both were and I think that's significant. If he wasn't with her, who was? I'm still now leaning towards the "they fled quickly" theory.

 

[Gabby66]

I have problems and questions with alot of the information out there in this case. One thing that has troubled me is the fact that CR's attorney made a statement early on that I still cant figure out. Did he make it to protect his client and deflect attention elsewhere, or did he make it with knowledge or a specific hunch in mind? Salzmann (CR's attorney) said "The answer in a good 90 percent of these cases is someone that they are intimately involved with." he told Fox News. (link below) Was that comment a legitimate assessment based in fact? Or is Salzmann just working to again, take the attention off of his client? I know because of the way small towns operate are that sometimes even defense attorneys can be more privvy to more case critical information in an ongoing investigation than they would be in a larger city. Just something to ponder...
I also would love to know what the cell phone "ping" information actually showed, if anything? We heard early on in the case about possible POI's cell phone "pings" occuring 45 miles away from Bloomington near Martinsville on the night in question (june 3rd after 4 am) link below. I believe it was rumored to be JR's cellphone. I have never heard that any of the POI's voluntarily aknowledged leaving town that night, at least publicly. So this would seem to be fairly damning information if it were true and it may well be.
I posted several times on this particular topic because I have a working knowledge of ping tech as I have worked as a volunteer in search and rescue missions in the Pacific North West. Ping Technology can and does help find people that are lost and cant be found, or are on the run and dont want to be found. It really has become a very valuable tool that you dont hear alot about from law enforcement. My theory is that LE does have information that is quite contradictory to what they have been told by specific POI's, but without a body to tie the whole thing together they are having difficulty making a move on the perp(s).
I have many other questions and concerns about the case that I will post about later. Thankyou everybody for your continued interest and support in this case!

http://tonygatto.wordpress.com/2011...here-lurks-an-evil-a-cruel-heartless-element/


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ng-Man-seen-memory-moments.html#ixzz1bgR3S5Rd

Thanks for this. I look forward to reading your other questions/concerns and it's nice to have your experience here. The truth is, we don't know what JR or anyone has told LE. It could be that JR is innocent and has already acknowledged leaving his house right after LS supposedly left. I'm not feeling that's likely, but just saying that it's so hard to guess since we're not privy to the information shared.

I do believe that LE probably has evidence but without a body, they wouldn't have a conviction. However, I used to STRONGLY believe that this evidence was pointing to one or more of these boys and now I'm just not so sure. When I watch Nancy Grace and learn of other missing persons, it seems that there is much more info shared from LE as it happens. The quietness seems odd to me. Does it to anyone else? I fully realize that they need to be quiet about some things to protect their case. However, let's look at the Baby Lisa case. They've already announced that a cadaver dog "indicated" in the home. They still have no body. It seems to me that these types of details are usually shared publicly. Why haven't they been in this case? It is starting to seem strange to me.

 

[AnalyticalExaminer]

that means that either LS was SO wasted she didn't even realize she was missing shoes/phone (I find hard to believe) to ask if she could get them.

I don't, considering what we've heard about her condition on a video taken 20 minutes later (during which time she had not had anything more to drink).

IF there was a supposed escort home, wouldn't he have noticed at some point that she was barefoot? If they were headed to SW, wouldn't he turn around to grab her shoes for her? Most guys would have done that.

Not necessarily, if they were wasted too. Remember, CR can't remember anything as of just before he left the bar - a point that might be untrue, but presumably has been the subject of a polygraph, something to which I believe you would not submit if you are not telling the truth.

It may well be true that they left because they were fleeing someone(s) - we have heard that the confrontation began somewhere between the bar and SW, giving possible credence to that notion. But it also appears much more in evidence that at least one and perhaps both of them were pretty wasted.

She didn't text JW, didn't reply to his texts (assuming he made some during that time)

This is an unfounded, and I believe incorrect, assumption.

She isn't just saying, "This is the last time she used the phone." She's saying, "Listen people, let it BE KNOWN and keep it in mind when you read her story, this is the last time she used her phone." It's emphatic and had meaning.

As I've said before, she explicitly said that she was not making a point about the case, but about students protecting their own safety. And if she is in fact making a point about the case, that point could well be that LS was too wasted to use or remember her phone.

 

[AbbeyR]

Just thinking about Akh's comments above and remembering times I have seen people kicked out of bars (it's true, I have never seen a bouncer/ bar staff concerned with whether or not the person had their belongings. Usually this is because they were kicked out because of fighting or causing some kind of disturbance and were pretty literally thrown out the door).

Together with Gabby's comments, this has me thinking about the early rumors about the 'altercation' starting before they arrived at SW. I've wondered before whether rumors about being kicked out could have been related to a conflict starting at the bar. [Total speculation ahead, but] this kind of scenario would actually make way more sense to me than the idea of the bar kicking LS out for talking about drugs or being messed up (as some have suggested). For example: CR and LS run into Lauren's (and/or JW's) friends, there's some arguing/ shoving, CR gets kicked out, Lauren runs out after him.

Or... take being kicked out out of the equation. We know Lauren was talking to other friends in the bar (from TG's witness, at least), so her shoes and phone were probably left at a table with other people (hence not being stolen). There's some kind of tension or conflict (actual or anticipated) between CR and these other guys and Lauren doesn't want to be seen leaving with him - or maybe she doesn't want others to know she has left at all and plans on coming back. Any of these type of situations could explain why she didn't go back for her shoes and why no one ran after her with them.

Or... maybe she was just out of it enough at that point not to care about shoes. And maybe her 'friends' didn't care either. After all, we know that several people (not just CR) saw her leave Smallwood shortly afterwards and it doesn't look like any of them ran after her to make sure she had shoes or was okay either

Anyway, I'm not even sure if it matters why/how they left the bar, but I've always felt like the 'altercation' at SW may help to explain some of the odd events on either side of it in the timeline. Like Gabby, I think there's probably more to the story than simply being messed up.

 

[AbbeyR]

Good questions in your post, Mophebius. I'm also very interested in the ping rumors, and wish we knew if they were true.

<respectfully snipped> One thing that has troubled me is the fact that CR's attorney made a statement early on that I still cant figure out. Did he make it to protect his client and deflect attention elsewhere, or did he make it with knowledge or a specific hunch in mind? Salzmann (CR's attorney) said "The answer in a good 90 percent of these cases is someone that they are intimately involved with." he told Fox News. (link below) Was that comment a legitimate assessment based in fact? Or is Salzmann just working to again, take the attention off of his client? I know because of the way small towns operate are that sometimes even defense attorneys can be more privvy to more case critical information in an ongoing investigation than they would be in a larger city. Just something to ponder..

I don't think I ever saw this, but I did see a similar comment from Salzmann that implied they had more information. Since there is still nothing implicating JW, I think the bolded part is probably what was going on, but it's interesting in any case to see defense strategies at work.

 

[phantomthought]

As someone who has worked the door at a bar I would say of course you have someone get her cell phone and shoes.You do not want some drunk (possible under age) girl standing on the street making a scene attracting the police or contacting the police themselves.You want to get rid of them as quickly and quietly as possible.Having said that I do not think she was kicked out.I think CR led her out of there just like he did at SW 15 Min later and it was not because he was scared of anything.He had just gotten LS wasted enough for his own purposes.

 

[Gabby66]

This is an unfounded, and I believe incorrect, assumption.

As I've said before, she explicitly said that she was not making a point about the case, but about students protecting their own safety. And if she is in fact making a point about the case, that point could well be that LS was too wasted to use or remember her phone.

Sorry, I don't know how to quote what you were referring to (my quote). I'm confused why you think that her not texting JW is unfounded. CS explicitly stated that the LAST time LS USED her cell was 12:16 (I believe that was the right time). Therefore, from that statement, I concurred that she didn't text JW at anytime after 12:16. What am I missing?

 

[AbbeyR]

Originally Posted by Gabby66 View Post
She didn't text JW, didn't reply to his texts (assuming he made some during that time)

This is an unfounded, and I believe incorrect, assumption.

I thought AE was referring to the bolded part -- that JW texted Lauren. But I'm still curious to know why this is believed to be incorrect. I thought JW's story (via HT) was that they had potential plans for later in the night, but when he couldn't get in touch with her (because her cell phone was left at the bar), he just went to bed.

*this was in a Lohud article that is no longer online, but I'm sure it's been quoted a million times in previous threads.

 

[bloom54]

Just thinking about some of these new scenarios... if LS was chatting with friends at Sports - and left her phone... wouldn't a friend have picked it up with the intent of returning it to her?? Would they really have left it at the bar?