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

[Walker]

While the video doesn't show the question asked, I see no indication that the question was an ambiguous one about family, do you? Both the article and video clip clearly state he was questioned about whether or not he had spoken to Rob and Charlene Spierer. (Unless I am missing something...?)

"... see no indication that the question was an ambiguous one ..."

But was the question clear and specific?

What would stop a relative of LS, perhaps someone in their same age bracket, from contacting JR at IU? How do we know that he refused to speak to any member of her (extended) family?

 

[holly2325]

If JR is guilty then talking with the parents, the PI, and especially coming back to Bloomington for school would add up to being extremely brazen and stupid acts.

If JR knows LS is unfindable he would have nothing to lose by returning to Bloomington nor meeting with the Spierers. To appear innocent he had to do both.

 

[TobyWong*]

If JR knows LS is unfindable he would have nothing to lose by returning to Bloomington nor meeting with the Spierers. To appear innocent he had to do both.

I expected nothing less. There is no way he is gonna do a thing to make it look like this has affected his life in any way. Just going about his business... tralala... He's had all summer to gather his bravado and to know that no one is searching anywhere near where Lauren is. I bet the first week back at school was nerve wrecking for him IMO. But after that and nothing changed, he prolly feels pretty invincible. IMO

 

[akh]

If JR knows LS is unfindable he would have nothing to lose by returning to Bloomington nor meeting with the Spierers. To appear innocent he had to do both.

The problem with this line of thought is he has attorneys to advise him. While he doesn't have to do what they say, if he doesn't why is he/family paying them? And if he doesn't follow their advice they are also likely to drop him. They aren't in the business to lose cases.

If he's guilty he's better to remain as far off the radar as possible. PR shouldn't be his priority at that point and I don't think his attorneys would allow him to think it should be.

So, IMHO.... He's at least convinced his attorneys he's innocent and there must be something to corroborate that because they wouldn't want him meeting with the parents otherwise. PR would be seriously down the list of priorities if his innocence could be called into question.

None of this means it can't be exactly what you say but I think it does tilt the scales away from it somewhat. At least from the outside looking in.

 

[imkeylime]

DNA could rule in or out a lot of things for JR, assuming that they ever find a body. It could prove that he did or did not rape LS (if they find evidence of a rape). It could also prove or disprove that she was defensive against him as an attacker, if DNA is discovered underneath her fingernails. Additionally, if they ever discover a crime scene, they could find DNA there.

My guess is that they already have his DNA. It's easy to collect without him knowing. They've been to his apartment. Not approaching him for a collection helps to put his mind at ease, making him feel less of a POI. That's the point when guilty parties start to get a bit more "sloppy" with their confidence.

Regarding the visit with the Spierers, it's very odd that he would meet with them if he's guilty. However, I also think of how many months he's had to "prepare" for that meeting with his attorney. An attorney could theoretically chew him up and spit him out over the last few months and turn a guilty person (or even "somewhat" guilty - in terms of drugs, etc.) into a fairly calm communicator, even on the hot seat. He wasn't under oath. It was a casual meeting - not a deposition. All questions posed were answered, but that could mean so many things, such as "I don't know". That's an answer.

At long as JR doesn't flee the country or go underground somehow, LE knows where to find him. And given the circumstances, that he's a POI with legal representation vs. a bona fide suspect, I doubt he'd do that. So LE probably isn't that worried.

While I do think it's odd he'd meet with the Spierers and their representatives if guilty, I didn't find JR to be that great of a communicator in his previous interview, where he gaffed about meeting with them "privately." I personally see him as a rather loose canon kind of guy, based on that interview at least. And that was after his return to IU rather than before.

IMO, JR probably didn't give the Spierers, et al, much knew info ... it's just that he gave it to them face to face. That's not something they ... or I ... would find impressive. IDK ... I still lean toward thinking that JR did see LS leave, just earlier and not necessarily toward home.

 

[Gabby66]

OK IF he's guilty (and while I keep him under my radar, I have other scenarios up there that are just as high), he's obviously proven himself to be bold and a risk-taker. Let's say he did something to Lauren or it was an accident and he helped with the cover up. Hiding a body is probably the most brazen thing anyone could do, so why would we think anything less of him, in terms of returning to school? It's common to return to the scene of the crime anyway, so naturally he'd want to be back in the area. I'm assuming that he plans to take any secrets to his grave.

I do not believe any of these kids were terrible kids. If involved, I've always felt that they acted out of fear and impulsiveness and may have ever repented for their sin, somehow justifying to themselves that they can move on in peace. I think in their mind, they may even be excusing it away as being an "accident" and keep telling themselves that they are "good people" who do not deserve to be in a prison cell with those who are not. These are boys presumably from good families, getting college educations. If guilty, I do believe an accident was likely involved, and they probably justify it as not a crime. I think that they are probably telling themselves over and over something like, "It's not my fault. She was already dead. I just hid her body so that they wouldn't know that I gave her drugs. I didn't know she had a heart condition, etc. etc." For some reason, they probably are able to justify concealing the body, in their mind.

If my suspicions above are correct, then they have certainly not told their family nor friends, nor attorney that they are guilty. Sure, they may have shared with the attorney about the drugs, but it's highly doubtful they've said anything about a body. As a Mom, I'd be highly suspicious if my son DIDN'T want to return to school after all of this. I think they probably all felt compelled to return.

As for the Spierers "No Comment".....what if JR is really telling the truth? What if CS really did leave his apartment? Their "No Comment" doesn't really indicate to me that they think he had something to do with a cover up. I'm sure there was much more information they would have loved for him to share, such as, "What drugs did Lauren take that evening?" IN JR's mind, an "I Don't know" could have been justified. While he may have given her drugs, did he actually WATCH her "take" them? People can justify so much, ya know? I'd bet my firstborn that his attorney would be VERY cautious about how he could respond to those types of questions. We need to remember clearly, that a civil suit could evolve from this. NO good retained attorney will place his client in the midst of a potential civil suit, if he can help it. So, back to their comment....IMO this doesn't point to them thinking he's still guilty (or not). It only means that they weren't impressed by the information he shared with them. It could mean that he really is completely innocent, but they didn't feel he was forthcoming with what information he surely knows about that night.

We also need to remember that IF she really did leave his place that evening....there may be little more that he does truly know. He wasn't at Sports. He wasn't at SW. He presumably wasn't the one with her in the alley. He wasn't with her when she tucked in CR. From what we know, he was only with her in his apartment while they were watching the game (and may or may not have been privy to any drugs she may or may not have taken) and then again just before she walked out into the streets. Maybe she had plans to go somewhere, but didn't tell him. Anything more that he could have added was likely hearsay. So...perhaps he really didn't have much that he could share, or perhaps he's heard rumors and doesn't want to get anyone in trouble. The Spierers' attorney may see through that, giving more credence to why they seem unimpressed. I'm just pointing out that their "No comment" doesn't show me that they think he's necessarily guilty. Not that I'm letting him off of the hook. I'm just not ready to reel him in quite yet. I think there are a few other scenarios out there still that are just as viable.

 

[Gabby66]

Sorry, but I wanted to add another thought about the interview....while this wasn't a "deposition", my guess is that it was treated as such. When someone is being interviewed in this manner, his attorney would likely counsel him to answer the question "Yes" or "No". It's human nature for us to want to give much more information, which typically leads down the road to a whole new unwanted line of questioning. We really don't know JR's "demands" of this interview. It's entirely possible that his attorney agreed to the questioning, in front of the Spierers, but demanded a list of the questions ahead of time, saying no other questions could be asked. More reason to be less impressed.

I'm confidant that any good attorney would prep him EXACTLY "how" to answer these questions and if he began to go down a wrong path, he would have likely been pulled from the room, beaten up a bit by the attorney, then allowed to return. Let's say that the opposing counsel asked, "Do you know if Lauren took any drugs that evening?" Pay attention to that question. He may know that she was given drugs, and he may have even supplied them. He may have watched her put something in her mouth, but did he KNOW it was a drug? Did he even KNOW that she took the drugs he gave her? He may have been told by CR that he (CR) watched her take Xanex at Sports. Does that mean JR KNOWS LS took Xanex? No, that's hearsay. So, even with all of the information that JR may believe to be true, he could answer that question legally and honestly with an answer of "No". Now, we'd of course want him to say, "Well, I didn't watch her take them but I did supply Lauren with ABC" or "I heard she took Xanex at the bar". However, those types of answers would lead him down a path of new lines of questioning. Again, remember that he has an attorney. That attorney is being paid to keep him on track and to avoid a civil suit. All new paths of questioning can lead one towards a civil suit.

Having said that, it's very very frustrating for the opposing party to not feel that enough information was "pulled". It also depends heavily on how good the Spierers' attorney is. He needs to be on the ball with questions too, knowing how to exactly word them so that more information can be pulled to get all of the facts. My guess is that the PI is probably very good at investigating but may not have the line of questioning experience that a trial lawyer would. Therefore, it wouldn't surprise me for him to not get anything new.

I'll share an example....I know of one deposition where the plaintiff was giving too much information in her answers. This was regarding a personal injury settlement. She wasn't answering Yes/No and her attorney removed her. When she returned, everything was Yes/No. The opposing counsel asked, "Did the person from the insurance company ask you if he could record your conversation?" She said Yes. There were quite a few questions posed after that, which had to do with the conversation b/w her and the insurance company. Finally, the opposing counsel (OC) said, "I don't have a copy of that conversation." The plaintiff just sat there (good girl). The attorney was scrambling through paperwork, trying to locate transcripts of the conversation between her and the insurance company. It took quite a while. Finally, he said to her attorney, "Were you provided a taped copy of the conversation?" Her attorney said, "No". Then OC said to the plaintiff, "I thought you said that he taped the conversation." She said, "No. I did not say that." When looking back at his questions, he realized that he had asked her if the guy asked if he COULD tape her, to which she honestly answered yes. He HAD asked if he could tape her, but she told him No. However, she answered the questions EXACTLY as she was instructed by her attorney - to listen VERY carefully to the questions and answer EXACTLY the question that is being posed. Do not give them any more information. Naturally, this p'd off the OC, and he even snickered, realizing he was caught and that the plaintiff was no dummy. But it served the purpose. It was a distraction to the OC and also didn't lead down any new path. Those types of things are honest but they do lead to frustration on the other side. Certainly, they'd lead to a "No Comment" response, even IF the person was innocent.

 

[imkeylime]

I do not believe any of these kids were terrible kids. If involved, I've always felt that they acted out of fear and impulsiveness and may have ever repented for their sin, somehow justifying to themselves that they can move on in peace. I think in their mind, they may even be excusing it away as being an "accident" and keep telling themselves that they are "good people" who do not deserve to be in a prison cell with those who are not. These are boys presumably from good families, getting college educations. If guilty, I do believe an accident was likely involved, and they probably justify it as not a crime. I think that they are probably telling themselves over and over something like, "It's not my fault. She was already dead. I just hid her body so that they wouldn't know that I gave her drugs. I didn't know she had a heart condition, etc. etc." For some reason, they probably are able to justify concealing the body, in their mind.

If my suspicions above are correct, then they have certainly not told their family nor friends, nor attorney that they are guilty. Sure, they may have shared with the attorney about the drugs, but it's highly doubtful they've said anything about a body. As a Mom, I'd be highly suspicious if my son DIDN'T want to return to school after all of this. I think they probably all felt compelled to return.

Snipped by me. I got a lot out of both of your posts, Gabby. I agree that if involved the PsOI most likely acted out of fear and impulsiveness. But IMO, it doesn't matter what type of families the boys are from or whether they're getting college educations. We could say the same for many murderers, from the "Boston Strangler" to the recent "Craigslist Killer," who committed several crimes against women here in New England (he was a premed student at BU). Sometimes it seems like such boys are incapable of such crimes, hence their families doubt them. There was a heart-wrenching case involving another Lauren ... Lauren Astley ... in my area last July. Her ex-boyfriend, also from a good family and college-bound, apparently slit her throat. It was really inconceivable, yet it happened.

That said, I agree that the PsOI might talk themselves out of feeling responsible if LS had died accidentally (and they then hid her body). They may have not even known about her heart condition until after she was gone. I do think that's a possibility, although it doesn't seem impossible to me that JR watched her leave in some capacity, either, albeit maybe not at 4:30 am.

Also, while I'd react like you as a mom if my boy didn't want to return to college under these circumstances, we aren't representative of all parents. A mom in another case I follow actually paid off a previous victim. Desperate people sometimes do desperate things ...

 

[OldSteve]

I did think about the rape issue, but was thinking that -- hypothetically -- if rape was involved, JR could have admitted to having consensual sex which would make the DNA irrelevant if a body was found (God, I hate even typing that). However, I hadn't thought about the other points, especially the fact that they might have DNA already. Thanks, Gabby.

A group of guys with one gal who is under the influence is not good... things can get out of hand...
It would make sense to mention consensual sex if something had happened between just the two of them, but if more than one was involved (don't like saying that) a person may be scared to admit to any kind of sex...

 

[holly2325]

My suspicions begin with the 4:15 phone call to DR.

1. JR probably says that he saw LS leave at 4:30 based on her alleged departure relative to the 4:15 call. If he is incorrect about her departure time, he is lying about who placed the call.

 

[Jupiter812]

My suspicions begin with the 4:15 phone call to DR.

1. JR probably says that he saw LS leave at 4:30 based on her alleged departure relative to the 4:15 call. If he is incorrect about her departure time, he is lying about who placed the call.

Glad you brought this up. I keep returning to that call since hearing this recent PR letter. I think the lie starts with her making the call.

 

[ellehill]

Body of a white female found today in the Ohio River/Trimble County KY (IN-KY border)

link: http://www.wlky.com/news/29687168/detail.html

Not sure what to hope for on this, but at least somebody's loved one was found.

 

[holly2325]

The problem with this line of thought is he has attorneys to advise him. While he doesn't have to do what they say, if he doesn't why is he/family paying them? And if he doesn't follow their advice they are also likely to drop him. They aren't in the business to lose cases.

If he's guilty he's better to remain as far off the radar as possible. PR shouldn't be his priority at that point and I don't think his attorneys would allow him to think it should be.

So, IMHO.... He's at least convinced his attorneys he's innocent and there must be something to corroborate that because they wouldn't want him meeting with the parents otherwise. PR would be seriously down the list of priorities if his innocence could be called into question.

None of this means it can't be exactly what you say but I think it does tilt the scales away from it somewhat. At least from the outside looking in.

I totally agree with you. But maybe at this point atty needs to be satisfied with JR prepped to stick to the round the corner story and assurance that LS is unfindable. With LS unfindable, PR could now be further up on the list. If JR (or someone on his behalf) went to the trouble of hiding LS to protect his future, then a bold faced PR campaign would probably be the logical next step.

 

[holly2325]

"... see no indication that the question was an ambiguous one ..."

But was the question clear and specific?

What would stop a relative of LS, perhaps someone in their same age bracket, from contacting JR at IU? How do we know that he refused to speak to any member of her (extended) family?

I think that when JR says that he communicates with the Spierers privately he means that he equates sending his written statements to LE with communicating with the Spierers.

 

[bloom54]

I think that when JR says that he communicates with the Spierers privately he means that he equates sending his written statements to LE with communicating with the Spierers.

hmmm... I always thought he meant... "in my head"... :floorlaugh:

 

[Gabby66]

But IMO, it doesn't matter what type of families the boys are from or whether they're getting college educations. ...

Yes, of course it shouldn't matter. I was using that not as a means by which to exonerate them, but as a way to show how they may think that they are different from most criminals. IF this was some accident, in their mind, they might think they are not deserving of prison b/c they're "good kids", as opposed to the many die-hard criminals, and that they didn't mean to commit a crime (whereas many do). I'm not at ALL saying that's OK, and yes, college kids can be criminals. I was just showing how these kids may rationalize things.

 

[bloom54]

Yes, of course it shouldn't matter. I was using that not as a means by which to exonerate them, but as a way to show how they may think that they are different from most criminals. IF this was some accident, in their mind, they might think they are not deserving of prison b/c they're "good kids", as opposed to the many die-hard criminals, and that they didn't mean to commit a crime (whereas many do). I'm not at ALL saying that's OK, and yes, college kids can be criminals. I was just showing how these kids may rationalize things.

Something happened in Bloomington yesterday that really brought that home to me.... a Pizza X driver was shot and later died. He was shot when he tried to stop someone from breaking into a co-worker's car in the parking lot. So this young man, age 22, with 3 little kids, is dead.

But what's also very sad, IMHO, is that the person who shot him probably never intended to kill him... but in a panic at getting caught, went from being a petty thief (albeit an armed one!) to a murderer in a split second....

LS' friends, if they were involved in her death, moved quickly and probably without much thought from being kids who abused alcohol and drugs to people who caused or aided in the death of a friend....

Fear... it's a powerful thing....

 

[AbbeyR]

The problem with this line of thought is he has attorneys to advise him. While he doesn't have to do what they say, if he doesn't why is he/family paying them? And if he doesn't follow their advice they are also likely to drop him. They aren't in the business to lose cases.

If he's guilty he's better to remain as far off the radar as possible. PR shouldn't be his priority at that point and I don't think his attorneys would allow him to think it should be.

So, IMHO.... He's at least convinced his attorneys he's innocent and there must be something to corroborate that because they wouldn't want him meeting with the parents otherwise. PR would be seriously down the list of priorities if his innocence could be called into question.

None of this means it can't be exactly what you say but I think it does tilt the scales away from it somewhat. At least from the outside looking in.

I have a different reading of all this. I don't think PR in a case like this is any indication of innocence. His innocence has already been called into question, and that's why he has defense attorneys. Voyles is known for his work in high profile cases -- this *is* what they are paying him for.

Staying off the radar is only a good move if it's an option. JR already tried that, but hasn't been able to escape the public backlash. While his lawyers can (and likely have) shut down blogs that call him out for not cooperating with the investigation, having a victims parents publicly do the same, and accuse you of lying, is far more damaging. This is not just about reputation. Negative publicity can affect things like plea bargains and whether or not a case ever goes to court. So in cases with a lot of media attention, PR can be a key part of defense strategy.

Finally, if JR is guilty, what exactly is the risk of him meeting with LS's parents? It seems they may already question his innocence, so that's not it. He has his defense attorneys present, and they would not allow him to reveal information that would implicate him. This is their job, whether or not that information exists.

On the other hand, the benefits seem pretty clear. The fact that it was JR's defense lawyers who notified the media is a good indication that this meeting was in JR's interest. We don't know what (if anything) he shared with the Spierers, all we know is what his lawyers chose to share with the media. And that is a glowing report of JR's cooperation with the investigation. For those of us following this case, there is nothing else new about the extent of his participation in this press release, they just make it sound a whole lot better and use textbook strategies (like reframing "no comment" to "we are not allowed to disclose any more information") to imply further cooperation.

And apparently, this seems to have worked, given the reactions.

Anyway, my intention here isn't to insist that JR is guilty but to give my opinion that the overall goal of this kind of 'cooperation' appears to be managing the media and JR's defense, and as a result, only tells me that his lawyers are doing their job.

 

[Jupiter812]

Something happened in Bloomington yesterday that really brought that home to me.... a Pizza X driver was shot and later died. He was shot when he tried to stop someone from breaking into a co-worker's car in the parking lot. So this young man, age 22, with 3 little kids, is dead.

But what's also very sad, IMHO, is that the person who shot him probably never intended to kill him... but in a panic at getting caught, went from being a petty thief (albeit an armed one!) to a murderer in a split second....

LS' friends, if they were involved in her death, moved quickly and probably without much thought from being kids who abused alcohol and drugs to people who caused or aided in the death of a friend....

Fear... it's a powerful thing....

The shooter must not be too smart, ya know? It only takes casing out a joint such as a pizza place parking one time to know the chances of being seen or caught are high. I wonder if the thief/killer was high on meth or crack.

:tears:

What is happening to our fair city? :sick:

But back to Lauren, your explanation makes sense. It's important for us to never lose sight of these things.

 

[Jupiter812]

I have a different reading of all this. I don't think PR in a case like this is any indication of innocence. His innocence has already been called into question, and that's why he has defense attorneys. Voyles is known for his work in high profile cases -- this *is* what they are paying him for.

Staying off the radar is only a good move if it's an option. JR already tried that, but hasn't been able to escape the public backlash. While his lawyers can (and likely have) shut down blogs that call him out for not cooperating with the investigation, having a victims parents publicly do the same, and accuse you of lying, is far more damaging. This is not just about reputation. Negative publicity can affect things like plea bargains and whether or not a case ever goes to court. So in cases with a lot of media attention, PR can be a key part of defense strategy.

Finally, if JR is guilty, what exactly is the risk of him meeting with LS's parents? It seems they may already question his innocence, so that's not it. He has his defense attorneys present, and they would not allow him to reveal information that would implicate him. This is their job, whether or not that information exists.

On the other hand, the benefits seem pretty clear. The fact that it was JR's defense lawyers who notified the media is a good indication that this meeting was in JR's interest. We don't know what (if anything) he shared with the Spierers, all we know is what his lawyers chose to share with the media. And that is a glowing report of JR's cooperation with the investigation. For those of us following this case, there is nothing else new about the extent of his participation in this press release, they just make it sound a whole lot better and use textbook strategies (like reframing "no comment" to "we are not allowed to disclose any more information") to imply further cooperation.

And apparently, this seems to have worked, given the reactions.

Anyway, my intention here isn't to insist that JR is guilty but to give my opinion that the overall goal of this kind of 'cooperation' appears to be managing the media and JR's defense, and as a result, only tells me that his lawyers are doing their job.

Hear, hear. I choose to take my cues from the Spierer's, not Jim Voyles.