IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #26

[akh]

But again, that makes the assumption they have not provided everything they know.

Do the Spierers have a prepared list of questions they could present to the attorneys? That's probably the best they should hope for and I'd be curious if they've tried that or not. It would help if they could go to the media and say here are the questions we want answers to and they are refusing to answer these questions. Assuming the public looks at the questions and says... "Why wouldn't they answer those questions? They are simple questions that the family needs answers to" then that puts pressure on JR, MB, and CR. This back and forth about whether they've been cooperative or not doesn't sway me. Particularly when it sounds to me like they were cooperative to some point, allowed searches, JR had a meeting, etc.. I'd need to know what the Spierers think they aren't answering.

I don't know what the consensus of the forum was but I'd be shocked if any attorney would advise his client coming back to Bloomington was a good idea unless they were certain they are not guilty. It's pretty easy to say (quite truthfully) that this case would haunt them as students here at IU and they'd be dogged by questions and innuendo regardless of guilt. And if guilty, the IU campus would provide a pressure cooker and countless situations where they would always be under suspicion and their words watched and parsed continually that would eventually lead to their apprehension.

So, I cannot see an attorney advising them to return to Bloomington. You'd rather have the people of Bloomington thinking them guilty for not returning and a clean start on a campus far away where this story isn't in the news and without all the personal connections. Let alone without the watchful eye of law enforcement always nearby. If any attorney advised them to return, he's a fool IMHO.

 

[bx2]

The couple said they wish the four men who were among the last to see their daughter would come forward with more information and take a police polygraph test.
"They all have attorneys. None of the people of interest have any obligation to go in and speak with the police department," Charlene Spierer said

The parents specified in the interview that they believe JW has been as forthcoming as possible, so is the fourth man mentioned above DR?

 

[doubtingthomas]

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/30053489/detail.html

The parents specified in the interview that they believe JW has been as forthcoming as possible, so is the fourth man mentioned above DR?

My guess would be DR. Did he not go with LS to JR's before she went to the bar? Also, as far as we know JW did not see her that night.

 

[Jupiter812]

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/30053489/detail.html

The parents specified in the interview that they believe JW has been as forthcoming as possible, so is the fourth man mentioned above DR?

Yes, I believe so. The four mentioned in the concert video are: DR, JR, CR, MB (with photos of DR, JR, CR).

 

[Jupiter812]

My guess would be DR. Did he not go with LS to JR's before she went to the bar? Also, as far as we know JW did not see her that night.

Correct. She then met up with CR at JR's.

 

[Ros]

My guess would be DR. Did he not go with LS to JR's before she went to the bar? Also, as far as we know JW did not see her that night.

What about the possible guest from Michigan who was staying with JR according to HT? I never read any confirmation that JR did have a guest or that he did not have a guest.

This blog is about the only place I can find that person mentioned anymore.
http://legalpublication.blogspot.com/2011/06/lauren-spierer-disappearance-puzzles.html

 

[AnalyticalExaminer]

What about the possible guest from Michigan who was staying with JR according to HT? I never read any confirmation that JR did have a guest or that he did not have a guest.

This blog is about the only place I can find that person mentioned anymore.
http://legalpublication.blogspot.com/2011/06/lauren-spierer-disappearance-puzzles.html

Yes, I would imagine the guest is the fourth. His existence was reported by HT.

 

[Gabby66]

....the Spierer's are saying they want more information in order to better direct resources. If the boys are withholding information, and my bet is they are, then it could be they have been impeding the investigation for over six months and preventing the return of Lauren to her parents. This is not only morally reprehensible, it takes its toll on the community, in more ways than just taxes and public resources. ...

(snipped by me). I too believe that they likely are withholding information, and I agree with you from a moral standpoint. Their (POIs) moral compass should point them in the right direction. That said, we need to remember the role of the attorney. His role is not to get his client to help solve this crime, but rather to protect his client during the process. This doesn't mean to make a guilty man go free, but it does often involve keeping a client quiet until charges have been made. Ethically, I have a problem with that, which is why I couldn't be a criminal defense attorney, but it's what he is hired to do. Doing that job well, would mean keeping his client quiet because sharing some information could absolutely lead to a civil suit.....not saying I'm OK with that, but from a defense perspective, it is what it is.

As for whether or not attorneys told their clients to return to school, we should also presume that the attorneys might actually consider them innocent.

 

[OldSteve]

(snipped by me). I too believe that they likely are withholding information, and I agree with you from a moral standpoint. Their (POIs) moral compass should point them in the right direction. That said, we need to remember the role of the attorney. His role is not to get his client to help solve this crime, but rather to protect his client during the process. This doesn't mean to make a guilty man go free, but it does often involve keeping a client quiet until charges have been made. Ethically, I have a problem with that, which is why I couldn't be a criminal defense attorney, but it's what he is hired to do. Doing that job well, would mean keeping his client quiet because sharing some information could absolutely lead to a civil suit.....not saying I'm OK with that, but from a defense perspective, it is what it is.

As for whether or not attorneys told their clients to return to school, we should also presume that the attorneys might actually consider them innocent.

Good points about defense attorneys. I do wonder if they are too extreme in their position of not saying anything.
Also wonder if a PI is able to get more info if (and here is a question) what is said to a PI is not admissible in court because it is hearsay?
Is there a way a lawyer allow might allow his client to speak to a PI but not LEO ?
With so many POI's the case seems perfect for a PI to work on them and their friends...

 

[Gabby66]

Good points about defense attorneys. I do wonder if they are too extreme in their position of not saying anything.
Also wonder if a PI is able to get more info if (and here is a question) what is said to a PI is not admissible in court because it is hearsay?
Is there a way a lawyer allow might allow his client to speak to a PI but not LEO ?
With so many POI's the case seems perfect for a PI to work on them and their friends...

Well it wouldn't be hearsay if a conversation is recorded. There are ways to do that (The PI would have to make certain that it's not considered a "private conversation" and depending on where the conversation is held, this can be done). Also, I do not believe IN is a "two-party consent" state, meaning that only one person (the PI) needs to be aware that the conversation is being recorded. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to assume that the attorneys wouldn't want their clients speaking with the PI.

Here is my take on what the kids know. I go back and forth between these, and combinations of them:

1. Some of them may know nothing about her end result, at all. They may have absolutely nothing more that they can offer. (In this case, they aren't speaking b/c there's nothing more to say).

2. Some may know nothing about her end result, but they are aware of her activities, and those of the people she was with that night. While they may think that info is insignificant, it might not be. (In this case, these people aren't speaking b/c they just downright don't know that what they have to offer is beneficial. Perhaps it's hearsay too). I could put MB in this category IF he really was home studying the whole time, IF she really put CR to bed, and then IF she left and he never saw her again, knowing NOTHING more about how she ended up missing.

3. One or more of them had a direct involvement in the case. They are lying to cover their own butt, or that of their friend(s). (It's obvious why these people wouldn't be speaking.)

4. Some may not be lying, and perhaps they had no involvement in her fate that evening (directly), but indirectly, they do know or think they have a good idea of what happened. This group is not necessarily covering their butts in the missing persons case (because they had no involvement with her being missing). However, they are likely covering their butts in an anticipated civil suit. Perhaps they were with her when they bought drugs together, or perhaps they themselves sold or gave her drugs, which later could have lead to an OD.

5. Some may not be lying, and had no direct or indirect involvement in the case, but based on what they know (or believe), they're too scared to talk. (This group may have overheard or seen something important. If there is a DD involved, there could be some serious repercussions if they speak. If there is a murder overseen/suspected, or a cover up caught, they may not want to talk, especially if they know they were seen by the criminals, who would know who reported them.)

I'm not saying that any of these reasons make it OK to not talk, but I can absolutely see where any of these reasons could be justified in a young adult's mind as to why he feels the need to keep quiet.

 

[AbbeyR]

<snipped>

I don't know what the consensus of the forum was but I'd be shocked if any attorney would advise his client coming back to Bloomington was a good idea unless they were certain they are not guilty. It's pretty easy to say (quite truthfully) that this case would haunt them as students here at IU and they'd be dogged by questions and innuendo regardless of guilt. And if guilty, the IU campus would provide a pressure cooker and countless situations where they would always be under suspicion and their words watched and parsed continually that would eventually lead to their apprehension.

So, I cannot see an attorney advising them to return to Bloomington. You'd rather have the people of Bloomington thinking them guilty for not returning and a clean start on a campus far away where this story isn't in the news and without all the personal connections. Let alone without the watchful eye of law enforcement always nearby. If any attorney advised them to return, he's a fool IMHO.

I don't know... I've read this kind of argument before here, but I just don't see it.

- I don't think it's really the attorney's job to advise their clients where they should live or finish school.

- I'm not even sure it's relevant whether a defense attorney thinks their client is innocent or guilty. I believe the advice would be the same, as they are doing their job.

- And finally, I'm not in Bloomington, but reading the news from afar it does not exactly seem like a pressure cooker situation for these guys. If they refuse to cooperate further with LE, there's nothing LE can do. And it's not like the media is hounding them... the only time their names surface is these sporadic appeals for information from the Spierers, and every time this happens, public criticism seems to be more focused on the Spierers than on the POI! I don't know what their day to day life is like, but it doesn't sound like they are being harassed by angry mobs or shunned at IU or anything.

 

[Ros]

Yes, I would imagine the guest is the fourth. His existence was reported by HT.

I found the link where CR's attorney says that 3 or 4 other persons saw Lauren after CR went to bed. This is the same article that refers to a second confrontation (between unknown parties) at CR's building. In it, CR's attorney also calls for the arrest of the person who punched CR.

So, if the Smallwood video shows someone battering CR and CR's attorney wants that person arrested, one wonders why either
1. no arrest was made or
2. no news of the arrest made it into the media.

Could the person doing the battering have been a juvenile? As far as I know, the only report that this person was ZO comes from an anonymous comment on the PT board. Other reports state that the person was an acquaintance of JW, and I do not know of a link between ZO and JW.

 

[Gabby66]

- I'm not even sure it's relevant whether a defense attorney thinks their client is innocent or guilty. I believe the advice would be the same, as they are doing their job.

It's relevant. For one, If an attorney thinks a client is guilty (or told by the client that he is), he may advise the client to sit back and be quiet until charges have been filed. Even though a person may be guilty of a crime, there is nothing to "defend" if he hasn't been charged with that crime. If however, that same attorney feels confidant his client is innocent, and has nothing to hide even from a civil suit standpoint, he may accompany him to give a statement or even have a discussion with the Spierers.

 

[Ros]

I found the link where CR's attorney says that 3 or 4 other persons saw Lauren after CR went to bed. This is the same article that refers to a second confrontation (between unknown parties) at CR's building. In it, CR's attorney also calls for the arrest of the person who punched CR.

So, if the Smallwood video shows someone battering CR and CR's attorney wants that person arrested, one wonders why either
1. no arrest was made or
2. no news of the arrest made it into the media.

Could the person doing the battering have been a juvenile? As far as I know, the only report that this person was ZO comes from an anonymous comment on the PT board. Other reports state that the person was an acquaintance of JW, and I do not know of a link between ZO and JW.

Forgot to include link:
http://www.lohud.com/article/201106...ion-has-no-memory-their-last-moments-together

 

[AbbeyR]

It's relevant. For one, If an attorney thinks a client is guilty (or told by the client that he is), he may advise the client to sit back and be quiet until charges have been filed. Even though a person may be guilty of a crime, there is nothing to "defend" if he hasn't been charged with that crime. If however, that same attorney feels confidant his client is innocent, and has nothing to hide even from a civil suit standpoint, he may accompany him to give a statement or even have a discussion with the Spierers.

My point is, the examples you are giving are not an indication of guilt or innocence or of the lawyer's belief in his/her client's innocence. There are a lot of reasons why a lawyer could advise a client to do these things and it doesn't necessarily mean they have nothing to hide.

 

[Gabby66]

My point is, the examples you are giving are not an indication of guilt or innocence or of the lawyer's belief in his/her client's innocence. There are a lot of reasons why a lawyer could advise a client to do these things and it doesn't necessarily mean they have nothing to hide.

You are right. My comments weren't intended to serve as an indication of guilt or innocence, nor were they regarding whether the attorneys think clients are guilty or innocent. I was merely indicating that an attorney's knowledge of the situation impacts the advice he gives. I was commenting in regards to your earlier post. You said above:

"I don't think it's really the attorney's job to advise their clients where they should live or finish school."

AND

"I'm not even sure it's relevant whether a defense attorney thinks their client is innocent or guilty. I believe the advice would be the same, as they are doing their job."

I was commenting only on why it's relevant whether an attorney thinks a client is or isn't guilty and I only gave one reason, out of many. Yes, there are many reasons why an attorney will give advise. BUT - if the attorney has reason to believe a client is guilty (especially if that client has admitted that fact to him), you're surely mistaken if you think that doesn't have an impact on the advice he gives to that client.

 

[cspring]

I found the link where CR's attorney says that 3 or 4 other persons saw Lauren after CR went to bed. This is the same article that refers to a second confrontation (between unknown parties) at CR's building. In it, CR's attorney also calls for the arrest of the person who punched CR.

So, if the Smallwood video shows someone battering CR and CR's attorney wants that person arrested, one wonders why either
1. no arrest was made or
2. no news of the arrest made it into the media.

Could the person doing the battering have been a juvenile? As far as I know, the only report that this person was ZO comes from an anonymous comment on the PT board. Other reports state that the person was an acquaintance of JW, and I do not know of a link between ZO and JW.

Ive always wondered why no charges(that we know of) have been brought against the person who supposedly hit CR. They have it on video right?

On another note-im so glad to see that pretty much everyone is still coming here to check on things. I know Lauren is in ur hearts&minds as much as she is in mine-especiallly during the holidays. I hope everyone got time w/ their families&treasured every single second of that time.
I pray daily that there is an end to this nightmare soon.
And if the Spierers happen to read this-i send u all my love&prayers.....i know we all do. I dont know u but i love u<3

 

[AbbeyR]

Ive always wondered why no charges(that we know of) have been brought against the person who supposedly hit CR. They have it on video right?

I don't know... but I'm not sure that it would be in CR's best interest to press charges. His 'memory loss', potential involvement with drugs and the fact that it seems likely that he doesn't want the subject of the 'altercation' to be known would all make pointing fingers at others a little awkward, I think....

 

[AbbeyR]

Message from the Spierers:

To the Person who took Lauren: During this season of being with family and friends, we are without Lauren. If by some miracle, YOU, the person who knows where Lauren is at this very second, are reading this, we once again beg YOU to tell us where she is. As you sit across the table from your loved ones, we are sitting across from an empty chair where Lauren should be, enjoying her loved ones. Let today be the day YOU do the right thing.

Rob, Charlene and Rebecca Spierer

http://www.findlauren.com/updates#announcements

 

[OldSteve]

Message from the Spierers:

http://www.findlauren.com/updates#announcements

Sounds like this message is directed at one person, and that person has a good family and social life.