IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #29

[ellehill]

JR claims LS made the 2 phone calls. I know a lot of people don't believe this, but I want to throw this out there before it becomes a "fact" that he made the phone calls.
If LS made the calls it would have to be someone they both knew (from JR's contact list in his phone) or a number she knew by heart.

 

[SeeingForThe1stTime]

And why make two calls, observe her walking, etc. but not take the time and energy to walk six blocks (round trip) to see her home?

Maybe the 2nd call WAS to HT? Maybe.

 

[imkeylime]

Maybe the 2nd call WAS to HT? Maybe.

I think it was reported that the 2nd call was also to a guy. I'll try to verify.

 

[Kadence]

Here's the link to the other HT video I mentioned:

Spierer's roommate clings to hope - YouTube

ETA: I said this was a few weeks after Lauren went missing in my last post. It must have been right after -- days, not weeks.

Yes, this was 11 days after Lauren disappeared, that's pretty darn close to two weeks. I have seen this before but, again, it was good to watch it again, with "new" eyes and ears. Thank you for posting Abbey! It was interesting to listen to HT, it seems, IMO, that, in this interview, that she may have doubts about certain people but then quickly changes her mind and completely refocuses on a random abduction. She seems conflicted. Why? She definitively defends JW, that much is true.

Would anyone know whether she has taken a lie detector test and/or is represented by an attorney? I haven't seen anything with regard to either but I may have missed it somehow.

Many thanks!

 

[Kadence]

I think it was reported that the 2nd call was also to a guy. I'll try to verify.

You are correct Imkeylime!

"At Rosenbaum’s, Spierer picked up an iPod on a counter and mistook it for a cellphone, he said.

In the half-hour before she purportedly left, two calls were placed from Rosenbaum’s phone. Rosenbaum said Spierer placed both calls, one to Rohn and another to a male friend who also was with her earlier that night watching basketball at Smallwood.

Both were sleeping, neither picked up, and no messages were left."

From first reading this article until tonight it seems that things have been added that I don't recall reading before! Much more in-depth info I don't recall being mentioned in the original article!

http://www.lohud.com/article/20120603/NEWS02/306030045/Lauren-Spierer-mystery-New-accounts-say-she-staggered-away-after-night-heavy-drinking-drug-use

 

[akh]

I don't think the article has been updated. It's just that over time so much gets forgotten, words get changed, quotes mis-attributed, etc. and then we start discussing speculation on speculation, focusing on this person or that person to the point of tunnel-vision sometimes. Then you go back much later and read something like the above link and little details jump out at you because they'd been lost and forgotten and don't necessarily fit the narrative that's slowly developed (or evolved) with so little actual info to go on in the first place.

.02

 

[Ros]

OK - do I have this right according to the lohud one year anniversary article

Shoes and cell phone left at Klroy's (purse too?)
Keys and student ID dropped in lot
Fake ID and Smallwood key card with her at JR's

Was she wearing clothing with pockets?

It seems strange that she would be carrying four small items in her hand, and also strange that she would have any of them still with her by the time she got to JR's, considering her condition, falls, etc. But there are so many things about the evening that seem strange...

 

[Ros]

That's an interesting point about the lawyer's treatment of DR and MB. Considering the DR wasn't with her when something probably went down, it makes sense that he wouldn't have as much to consider in the case.

According to the lohud one year anniversary article Mike Beth did take and pass a private polygraph test:

"Lawyers for Beth, Rohn and Rosenbaum said their clients have cooperated with police and the private investigators, and that all of them have passed private lie-detector tests.

“They’ve been interviewed and interviewed and interviewed, and to say they’ve been less than forthcoming is just not accurate,” said Chapman, who represents Beth and Rohn."

From page 7 of the article below.

http://www.lohud.com/article/201206...ered-away-after-night-heavy-drinking-drug-use

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

OK - do I have this right according to the lohud one year anniversary article

Shoes and cell phone left at Klroy's (purse too?)
Keys and student ID dropped in lot
Fake ID and Smallwood key card with her at JR's

Was she wearing clothing with pockets?

It seems strange that she would be carrying four small items in her hand, and also strange that she would have any of them still with her by the time she got to JR's, considering her condition, falls, etc. But there are so many things about the evening that seem strange...

Jmo, except for the shoes and the cell, all of those items could be easily kept inside a wristlet or wallet, at least at first. (Actually even the cell phone could fit, maybe.) Then as she took them out to use for just a second, IMO, they could be easily misplaced. ...eg say you don't immediately secure the IDs back inside the wallet after showing/using them, then as you're leaving someone from the table shoves them toward you and you just grab them up on your way out, not bothering to secure them. Then if you do drop stuff later on, just my experience, it is easy enough to just pick up the big item (the wallet), forgetting that there are loose items too. I am actually quite paranoid about this when I am out and get teased for my incessant checking in my wallet. In fact I dunno if Lauren had pockets that night but many of my outfits don't and that's part of the problem. I had assumed that her pants at least wouldn't have pockets as they were, iirc, described as leggings.

ETA...Everything ^ is 100% just hypothetical, Jmo and keep in mind, I am someone who is constantly "losing" things right in front of my nose.

 

[Ros]

http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/indiana/skeletal-remains-found-behind-s-ind-church
http://www.courier-journal.com/arti...ound-wooded-area-behind-Jeffersonville-church
http://www.wdrb.com/story/21828592/sourc


Once again, the Spierers and many other families will be waiting for the identification of human remains found in southern Indiana. Hoping that the remains will be quickly identified. Speculation seems to be centering on the case of 27-year-old Stephen Reedy who disappeared in that area in September of 2011.

 

[imkeylime]

According to the lohud one year anniversary article Mike Beth did take and pass a private polygraph test:

"Lawyers for Beth, Rohn and Rosenbaum said their clients have cooperated with police and the private investigators, and that all of them have passed private lie-detector tests.

“They’ve been interviewed and interviewed and interviewed, and to say they’ve been less than forthcoming is just not accurate,” said Chapman, who represents Beth and Rohn."

From page 7 of the article below.

http://www.lohud.com/article/201206...ered-away-after-night-heavy-drinking-drug-use

But wasn't DR the only one to take an FBI-administered polygraph? I'm not even sure where I stand on polys ... despite what I've read here and there, I really don't have enough info to feel educated. And I don't want to stir up the polygraph debate again here, either, TBH.

Still, I can't help wonder why DR would be willing to take one type and the rest another. If I'm wrong about DR taking a public vs. private one, I apologize. I'll try to look it up, but my son just came home for Easter weekend, and I'm all over the place today.

 

[imkeylime]

Jmo, except for the shoes and the cell, all of those items could be easily kept inside a wristlet or wallet, at least at first. (Actually even the cell phone could fit, maybe.) Then as she took them out to use for just a second, IMO, they could be easily misplaced. ...eg say you don't immediately secure the IDs back inside the wallet after showing/using them, then as you're leaving someone from the table shoves them toward you and you just grab them up on your way out, not bothering to secure them. Then if you do drop stuff later on, just my experience, it is easy enough to just pick up the big item (the wallet), forgetting that there are loose items too. I am actually quite paranoid about this when I am out and get teased for my incessant checking in my wallet. In fact I dunno if Lauren had pockets that night but many of my outfits don't and that's part of the problem. I had assumed that her pants at least wouldn't have pockets as they were, iirc, described as leggings.

ETA...Everything ^ is 100% just hypothetical, Jmo and keep in mind, I am someone who is constantly "losing" things right in front of my nose.

Based on that first photo, she did have a jacket that night, though. There hasn't been any verification on where that ended up ... lost, at Kilroys, etc. I lose things, too, so I hear where you're coming from. In addition, my daughter has been known to leave the house purposefully barefoot (when walking a short distance in the neighborhood). But LS looked pretty put together that night, so I choose to think that she either couldn't find her shoes or planned on returning for them. But who knows about the other stuff ...

 

[akh]

But wasn't DR the only one to take an FBI-administered polygraph? I'm not even sure where I stand on polys ... despite what I've read here and there, I really don't have enough info to feel educated . And I don't want to stir up the polygraph debate again here, either, TBH.

Still, I can't help wonder why DR would be willing to take one type and the rest another. If I'm wrong about DR taking a public vs. private one, I apologize. I'll try to look it up, but my son just came home for Easter weekend, and I'm all over the place today.

If someone has other ways of proving their innocence then there would be no reason to worry about the results of a poly and a lawyer would be more likely to allow a client to take a LE poly and subject themselves to not only an on point poly but likely round about questioning as well.

In this case I wonder if the security cams at his apartment showed his movements to the point it confirmed whatever alibi(s) he might have. Plus there could be more things confirming his alibi such as maybe he wasn't alone for example. Maybe online activity would mitigate the chances of involvement as well.

Last point, who is to say his attorney didn't put some stipulations on the poly? He could've said you can ask any questions you want about what he knows (or not) about her disappearance but any questions that involve his own use of drugs will immediately end the discussion. Or maybe the attorney secured a deal that any admissions of illegal activity like drug use (or something else he might be worried about) would not be used against him?

It would be hard to worry about being railroaded or being too nervous during a poly to obviously pass and put yourself in LE's crosshairs if you knew the questioning would be limited to something you know nothing about, you won't be asked about any illegal activities that have nothing to do with her disappearance (or they wouldn't be used against you), AND you know that solid evidence exists to show you couldn't have been directly involved in the first place. You're simply trying to clear your name from having any knowledge whatsoever of what happened... but if you inexplicably fail the poly you still have hard evidence showing at best you couldn't have been directly involved.

It would basically be a win-win scenario. A failure could call into question the results of the poly more than the person taking it. At best it could only muddy the waters to the point they'd already been muddied even without the poly.

 

[imkeylime]

... Last point, who is to say his attorney didn't put some stipulations on the poly? He could've said you can ask any questions you want about what he knows (or not) about her disappearance but any questions that involve his own use of drugs will immediately end the discussion. Or maybe the attorney secured a deal that any admissions of illegal activity like drug use (or something else he might be worried about) would not be used against him?

It would be hard to worry about being railroaded or being too nervous during a poly to obviously pass and put yourself in LE's crosshairs if you knew the questioning would be limited to something you know nothing about, you won't be asked about any illegal activities that have nothing to do with her disappearance (or they wouldn't be used against you), AND you know that solid evidence exists to show you couldn't have been directly involved in the first place. You're simply trying to clear your name from having any knowledge whatsoever of what happened... but if you inexplicably fail the poly you still have hard evidence showing at best you couldn't have been directly involved.

It would basically be a win-win scenario. A failure could call into question the results of the poly more than the person taking it. At best it could only muddy the waters to the point they'd already been muddied even without the poly.

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. The only experience I've had with polys is with the Oakland County Child Killer (OCCK) case, which I've followed for more than 30 years (big sigh). The strangest twist (and there have been a lot) in that case is that the polygraph expert who administered a private polygraph to pedophile Christopher Busch recently told another polygrapher that he was surprised Busch wasn't further investigated because he himself felt Busch had NOT passed the private polygraph. For whatever reason, LE didn't view that private poly the same way (lots of speculation on that, but who knows ...).

I do realize that polys aren't the most reliable tools .. they can give false reads, be prepared for, etc. IMO, there was most surely some type of activity going on that night that the POIs don't want everyone privy to. OTOH, in the Lohud article, JR claimed that DR did Klonopin with LS, which I suppose might have come up on an LE-administered polygraph. JMO, but DR seems more willing to share.

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

Based on that first photo, she did have a jacket that night, though. There hasn't been any verification on where that ended up ... lost, at Kilroys, etc. I lose things, too, so I hear where you're coming from. In addition, my daughter has been known to leave the house purposefully barefoot (when walking a short distance in the neighborhood). But LS looked pretty put together that night, so I choose to think that she either couldn't find her shoes or planned on returning for them. But who knows about the other stuff ...

Yeah, as I said, the shoes and cell I really dunno about. I had forgotten about the jacket but even if it did have pockets....I have been known to lose things that fell out of pockets when I had the piece of clothing slung over my shoulder, draped over my arm, over the back of a chair, etc...honestly I'm very bad about it which is why I get paranoid when I'm out. But I have never lost my phone (for more than ten min) or shoes! I do take my shoes off a lot, even when I'm out, because I usually sit with my legs crossed under me, but it is really hard to walk away barefoot and not realize that something's missing...right?

 

[AbbeyR]

I think the most we can really get out of any of this HT stuff is that even though the media repeatedly used the phrase, 'one of Lauren's best friends' that probably was only based on the fact that they were 'suite-mates'. Most anyone that's ever lived with room mates can tell you that it wrong to automatically assume two girls are close simply because they live together and socialize in the same circles and that it's more often than not very very far from the reality of situation. My take away is that she probably didn't really even care much for Lauren for any number of reasons. Personality differences, envy, whatever, and if she knows anything then JR has talked her into believing that there was nothing he could have done and that it was really HIM that was in the wrong place at the wrong time and it would just be an even bigger tragedy to ruin more lives over something that wasn't really his fault 'i.e. because it was really Lauren's own fault for 'taking it to far this time' and that it's because of Lauren that they've all been put in this bad situation. I also think this because of the fact that she's apparently never involved herself in the follow up events. I know if it was my best friend, who I feel is the closest thing to a sister I have and feel she IS my family, that I would be right there with her family at every single event where they would have me and most all the women I know feel that same way about their best friend. We've seen none of that from her.

BBM: Is this a fact? How do you know?

One problem I have thinking through the 'covering for JR' theory -- How would she actually know what happened? Since she wasn't there, that would mean that when she called JR looking for Lauren he both told her what really happened and convinced her to cover for him? Seems a little unlikely to me. Why take the risk of telling HT? And let's say he did and she wanted to cover for him. Wouldn't the easiest way to do this be to not talk at all?

 

[SeeingForThe1stTime]

BBM: Is this a fact? How do you know?

One problem I have thinking through the 'covering for JR' theory -- How would she actually know what happened? Since she wasn't there, that would mean that when she called JR looking for Lauren he both told her what really happened and convinced her to cover for him? Seems a little unlikely to me. Why take the risk of telling HT? And let's say he did and she wanted to cover for him. Wouldn't the easiest way to do this be to not talk at all?

Nah, not fact. Probably should've worded that differently but I was trying to use the word 'apparently' to say that 'it doesn't appear that'. That's based only on what I've seen and not seen. I just inferred because I hadn't seen any indication anywhere the she had been involved. Maybe she has been. I don't know.
Good point about the covering for JR. You're right it doesn't seem like it would be worth the risk to JR to tell HT if he was involved or knows what happened. Then again, nothing about any of this makes much sense. Who knows. HT could know more, but it's just as likely, or more likely really, that she's just an insensitive idiot with bad communication skills. I really think her statements point more to her just not being that close to LS and maybe not even liking her that much. More than it points to some kind of cooperation with JR. anyway.

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

Maybe meaningful, maybe not, but what exactly was HT up to that night?

Notice that HT was at the indy 500, so BOTH HT & LS were there.
Jr introduced BOTH HT & LS to MB & CR (at the indy 500).
HT says, "WE used to always be at his (JR) apartment last year." (although also: she says SHE (HT) was good friends with JR - NOT WE (she and LS) were good friends with JR)

Finally, note that HT was with LS up until LS heads out for the night. It just seems odd to me that HT was not present at JR's at any point when it seems like she would normally be. Why? Was something going on at HT/LS apartment? Did HT have a reason to not want to be at JR's?

Again though, why didn't JR call HT?

This is probably stupid, and just jumping off the quoted post, but...I have wondered a lot about HT. With regard to "she just went too far this time" (paraphrased) I have been wondering if it could be explained as HT maybe believing that Lauren did OD or trust the wrong people when partying, which is what led to her disappearance. Maybe (or not, just speculating) HT had believed that she (Lauren) had had "near misses" related to her partying in the past. Or maybe she (HT) was freaked out by Lauren's disappearance and was trying to make sense of it in a way that allowed her (HT) to minimize how vulnerable she felt...sorry, not sure how to say this concisely! Eg., jmo, it is in some sense less threatening to one's own sense of security if we can blame the victim for an apparently random or unpredictable or inexplicable misfortune. It is not easy to admit that we can do everything "right" to keep ourselves safe but still become a victim. It is not easy to admit that even the people we feel comfortable with, our friends, could be the bad guys. It is not easy to hear Lauren's story and think, "It could've been me!" we like to think we control what happens to us, and as a result we let ourselves think that other people control what happens to them, too...so when I think of HT saying Lauren took it a little too far, I sort of hear her distancing herself from the situation, not in a mean or deceitful way, but just because that's how her mind is rationalizing a chaotic situation.

Jmo, of course, and sorry for the long-winded ness...and no one needs to tell me there's a lot of projection on my part. :blushing:

 

[AbbeyR]

I have also wondered about what Lauren's friend BW might know. She made some strange remarks about wanting to be "left out of this" and made complaints about the media putting out "false names," remarks that appeared on TG's site in June 2011. <snipped>

Like HT's comment, taken out of context it sounds strange. But the comment was a response to Tony Gatto:

In response to an offer from TonyGatto.com to come forward, anonymously, with information. Wallach replied, &#8220;You have put false names out in the media. Leave Hadar and I out of this and do not contact me.&#8221; Wallach did not elaborate on what she meant by &#8220;false names.&#8221;

http://tonygatto.wordpress.com/2011...e-to-stonewall-leave-hadar-and-i-out-of-this/

Also like HT's comment, this comment is framed in the original article in a way that makes it seem suspicious. TG implies that HT and BW are part of the friends who 'continue to stonewall' despite the pleas of LS's parents for her friends to come forward. But HT and BW were obviously not the 'friends' that the Spierers and LE were referring to. They had also given a number of interviews to other news and TV stations, so if they were 'stonewalling' anyone, it seems it was only TG.

I'm guessing "False names" means 'false accusations', and isn't that true? In the week before this, Tony had published the article about the witness at Kilroy's and the 'mystery man' story that both turned out not to be true, and he was dropping names of many people who were not POI on his blog and here on WS. So on their side, why should they be compelled to give an interview to someone who is not affiliated with a known news station, who is using what could be seen as questionable tactics in journalism (i.e. publishing 'breaking news' based on anonymous sources), and who had already publicly questioned HT's motives (That was here, not on his blog) while claiming that Corey Rossman seemed the most 'forthcoming' of the group (?). Furthermore, the fact that he would then publish this blog post seems to vindicate their response, since it seems like a somewhat dishonest and spiteful thing to do just because someone doesn't want to be interviewed. The story in itself is not the kind of 'news' you would expect from someone who claims to be an award winning journalist...

Then again, let's take TG's side: TG was probably the first person to notice that HT was really only speaking up for JR and JW and called her out on it here. When BW/ HT refused to speak to him, I'm guessing he felt that they (HT specifically) were avoiding 'real' questions and trying to control the story that was released in the media. (ETA: Also to be fair to TG, I think the regular media was doing a pretty bad job and with LE not releasing information, his blog brought a lot of attention to the case. Maybe he thought getting all the info out there would be the best thing to do, and then the media or LE would be compelled to verify or challenge the info. If this was the strategy though, it didn't really work, which is why I think it would have been good for him to follow up on these articles as the information developed)

So, I think the quote does allude to a bigger story, but it's not that BW knows anything about Lauren's disappearance, it's this conflict over how information was being released in the media/ blogs. JMO

 

[AbbeyR]

Oh, by the way, I noticed following the comment about Linked In that HT's degree is in Public Relations and Communication studies. That means she's probably not the naive girl who had never spoken to the media that some of us were imagining (myself included!).

This is the kind of course that is offered in that program:

Effective Media Strategies: Contemporary communicators in need of mediums of communication in addition to face-to-face interaction require an expanded knowledge of rhetorical strategies. This course will have a special focus on the effective use of media as a means of persuasion.

Maybe she thought she was the best prepared to be the 'voice' for Lauren (and/or JR)?