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

[LongTallTexan]

I believe that LE/PI/Spierers know what happened. I believe this because of the strong statements they continue to make toward POIs, the patience and poise they continue to demonstrate, but mostly....
The facts that they choose not to share in comparison to the facts that they have shared. >>The list of POIs, still not sure who made the list and who didn't, but there are others that are not being discussed, DB, ZO etc.
>>The recipient of the second call from JRs phone at 4:15...we know the first, but they've opted not to divulge the second.
>>The details of the video footage. Only through the PIs (IIRC) did we learn of some the details of the video footage, who else was seen, interactions between CR/LS
>>Who was where that night? Who was at JR's Pre-Game party, who was at Kilroys, who was with LS at SW before she left, and Who was at JRs later after Kilroys...my assumption, they know this.
....I believe this information is known, and much more that we don't even know to ask about, but that it leads to a pretty formidible theory, but no hard evidence (body), so they are keeping their case for prosecution in tact.
Finally, and not to judge, but RSs latest statement makes it sound as though he knows she didn't make it through the night...even the Cleveland Case didn't provide much hope, it just tells me he knows better. JMO.

 

[Jacobite]

The investigation of the Boston Marathon Bombing shows us a few things. For the first time, the government used new authority. They were able to check out all cellphone pings and activity in the area. They no longer had to obtain search warrants for each phone. So, they can now revisit this case and the bad boy may already be caught.

Also, the FBI was able to find a backpack in a Boston landfill. If they can do that, than, I'd say Lauren really was not in a landfill.

 

[Ixchel13]

Agree with your whole post, but especially this.

Nothing about that story about the hispanic guy at Kilroy's sounds realistic to me. I believe Jupiter heard this story, but my guess is that it's just a version of the two rumors that came from Gatto's blog: Dark skinned mystery man and the story about Lauren talking about drugs --both of which turned out not to be true.

Same with the House Bar. I might feel differently if there was a smidgen of evidence to support she went there. Or even left JR's. Or maybe even if the POI's stories actually made sense.

I am a little put off that VeryVeritas would say I implied Lauren was a coke w----
and was trying to get free cocaine at House Bar. Just the opposite, I am saying she might not have been as inebriated as rumor has it and that she was looking for her phone and JW.

Not saying this to Abbey, tried to get Very Veritas quote in there too, but Abbey was agreeing. It's ok to disagree with me, in fact please do, but please don't put words in anyone's mouth, or agree with anyone's words
put in someone's mouth. Very Veritas, you called her that and then quoted part of my post, which puts the implication out there that I called her a name and implied that she was "spreading it.......etc". I find that sentence disgusting and wrong and would never, ever say something like that about Lauren. If you want to say something vulgar, please say it on your own dime.

 

[Ixchel13]

Agree with your whole post, but especially this.

Nothing about that story about the hispanic guy at Kilroy's sounds realistic to me. I believe Jupiter heard this story, but my guess is that it's just a version of the two rumors that came from Gatto's blog: Dark skinned mystery man and the story about Lauren talking about drugs --both of which turned out not to be true.

Same with the House Bar. I might feel differently if there was a smidgen of evidence to support she went there. Or even left JR's. Or maybe even if the POI's stories actually made sense.

bolded and enlarged by me. this is how things get started and then get inserted as reality.

 

[akh]

The investigation of the Boston Marathon Bombing shows us a few things. For the first time, the government used new authority. They were able to check out all cellphone pings and activity in the area. They no longer had to obtain search warrants for each phone. So, they can now revisit this case and the bad boy may already be caught.

Also, the FBI was able to find a backpack in a Boston landfill. If they can do that, than, I'd say Lauren really was not in a landfill.

But the backpack was in there mere days whereas if LS' body was in the landfill it was there during the hottest part of the summer and for several weeks.

 

[Ixchel13]

thank you for that. there is a tendency for humans to frame situations in terms of "what are the chances of x happening?" -- you have to think in terms of "there is a good chance x has happened" and work backwards. in other words, we're not focusing on the 1000 girls who were out late at night that night, we're focusing on the one who did in fact go missing.

I was reading about the Cleveland abductions and it stood out that the police
quoted the perp as saying the abductions were not planned, but were crimes of opportunity. But, then the perp admits what a bad person he was, sex addict, cruel, etc. So you have this bad person driving down the street, sees a girl, decides to get her in the car. And he's not a wandering johnny-on-the-spot, but a local who lived in the same area as the victims.

With Lauren, IF she left JRs, you have her on perhaps CORNER ZERO, meaning bad corner that time of night for drunk weirdos driving by, and we are supposed to accept that the chances are very slim someone other than the POIs are involved. It could be a local perp.

Rather, I think the POIs disposing of her body after an OD is a logical first
response theory to a perplexing situation, and concurrently, the least painful
outcome for our victim.

However, we have no proof that Lauren OD'd.

 

[akh]

I believe that LE/PI/Spierers know what happened. I believe this because of the strong statements they continue to make toward POIs, the patience and poise they continue to demonstrate, .

Personally, I don't think the Spierers are on the same page as LE and the PI's. The Spierers seems fairly convinced the 3 at 5N are guilty. LE doesn't seem to have found the smoking gun and the PI's certainly seem to be keeping the options open (at least as of the interviews from last year).

 

[Ixchel13]

I was reading about the Cleveland abductions and it stood out that the police
quoted the perp as saying the abductions were not planned, but were crimes of opportunity. But, then the perp admits what a bad person he was, sex addict, cruel, etc. So you have this bad person driving down the street, sees a girl, decides to get her in the car. And he's not a wandering johnny-on-the-spot, but a local who lived in the same area as the victims.

With Lauren, IF she left JRs, you have her on perhaps CORNER ZERO, meaning bad corner that time of night for drunk weirdos driving by, and we are supposed to accept that the chances are very slim someone other than the POIs are involved. It could be a local perp.

Rather, I think the POIs disposing of her body after an OD is a logical first
response theory to a perplexing situation, and concurrently, the least painful
outcome for our victim.

However, we have no proof that Lauren OD'd.

sorry to quote myself! When I call this a bad corner that time of night, let me explain: 2 blocks north on College from the corner, you have 3 sex orientated places. College is 1 way going south, so anyone leaving these places at closing time must turn south and head towards the corner Lauren supposedly turned. None of the streets until you get to 11th will let you through to
Walnut, a main street going 1 way north out of town. So everyone leaving those places has to turn onto College regardless if they live north or south, and can't turn to go north until Lauren's corner. So, it's a conduit for weirdos
right to that corner! Whether they continue south out of town, from that corner, or turn left or right, doesn't matter.

Obviously, there are side streets that someone could go in and out of and alleys. But I'm illustrating how a would-be perp could commit a crime of opportunity, not pre-mediated but
always in the back of his mind to do something of this nature.
Oh, and anyone who has been drinking, drugging or up to no good would most likely turn east or west at that corner, because the Sheriff's Dept is 3 blocks south from there on College, almost right next to Smallwood, where Lauren and friends lived.

 

[AbbeyR]

bolded and enlarged by me. this is how things get started and then get inserted as reality.

I'm not sure what you are saying here? It doesn't help that you just made the text bigger... Could you clarify?

Those rumors game from Gatto. He admitted they weren't true/ weren't reliable.

 

[Jacobite]

But the backpack was in there mere days whereas if LS' body was in the landfill it was there during the hottest part of the summer and for several weeks.

True. But, keep in mind that this search was conducted by the FBI, not just local LE. Also, the Bloomington trash was not picked up till Monday evening and much of it was searched by then. Also, I spoke with Sears, the company that empties the 5 North Dumpster. They told me they were sure Lauren was not there. They made sure of that.

However, what if these guys put her in a Martinsville dumpster?

I suspect someone will go through the cellular data again. Perhaps the answer is there in that data?

 

[AbbeyR]

You really need to speak to an attorney you know and respect who will tell you exactly what I've told you so that you can get some clarity on this subject. Yes a lawyer works on behalf of a client. The lawyer is an advocate for his client.

A lawyer speaking to the press is not under oath. A lawyer paraphrasing, recalling, and ultimately using his own words when speaking to the press should never be considered to be the same as the client speaking for himself (or the attorney reading a prepared statement from his client).

This assumes the lawyer is trying to be truthful to the best of his recollection and understanding). There's also this:



Judge Alito goes on to say he doesn't agree with that approach ethically but that's not to say it's legally wrong.

So if Judge Alito agrees that attorneys can even lie to the media how does this support your position that we should always consider what an attorney says to the media as wholly accurate and as good as hearing from his client himself?

Thanks Akh. I'm familiar with that "Why Lawyer's Lie" article - it's a classic! There's an interview with the author on youtube somewhere that I remember seeing. Highly recommend.

Anyway, I think we are talking past each other. I'm not talking about what is said under oath or in court, I'm talking about what is said to the media. I understand very well that defense lawyers are not under any obligation to tell the truth. They are, however under obligation to represent their client. So for example, if MB did not want to share any details of the case with the public, that is his choice. Chapman should be telling MB's story, if he is telling an account of what happened that night. If he is not accurately representing MB to the public (i.e. the story that MB wants the public to know), that is MB's problem. We should be able to assume that there is a difference between a 3rd party account and a lawyer giving a statement to the media.
Lawyers know that everything they say on the record will be made public, so they are accountable for what they say. The lawyers relationship to the client is based on a contract, and what the lawyer can and can't say is governed by a code of ethics.

For the first year that Lauren was missing, the only 'official' statement we had was from MB (via CHapman) since CR had 'amnesia' and JR wasn't talking. The media took this to be a legitimate account, because it was from MB's lawyer. These became the 'facts' of the case, since MB's story also confirmed CR's alibi and JR's unofficial story told through HT.

A year later, we get an account from the PI's that is not just inconsistent, it's incompatible with the first account. I think this is significant. You may not. That's okay with me.

Peace.

 

[akh]

Abbey,
There's always the chance I'm forgetting some glaring inconsistency between what the attorney has said versus what the PI's said.

What point(s) are you seeing that is significantly different?

 

[Jacobite]

I'm sitting in a building full of lawyers right now. They say the Spierer's need to file a civil suit within two years if they want to depose these guys and force them to talk.

 

[AbbeyR]

@ Akh

Well, I see the only consistency as the one you pointed out earlier: that at some point in the night Lauren went from point A (MB/CR's) to point B (JR's).

Beyond that, every detail that MB's lawyer (and others) gave about what MB was doing was contradicted by the story from the PI's.

So for example, Either MB was home all night and didn't touch drugs or alcohol (Chapman), or he was hanging out at JR's and drinking that night (PI's).

Is this a big deal? Probably not, but the point is CHapman made the first statement at least twice to the media. Maybe he wanted to stress that MB was the sober alibi. Or that he wasn't hanging out with JR and company. But it turned out not to be true, at least according to what the PI say.

The bigger question is : When was the last time MB saw Lauren?

EITHERshe left while he was upstairs putting CR to bed (VS, the neighbor). OR she wanted to party, and when MB said no, she left and he watched her walk out the door. "End of story" (Chapman), OR Lauren arrived at his apt. totally messed up, MB called JR and brought Lauren over to his house, and the last time he saw her she was sitting on JR's couch.

There can only be one answer to this question. If you believe JR is telling the truth, the answer may not matter. Since I don't, the answer matters. I think that if you are making a public statement about the last time you saw a friend, you are one of the last two people who saw that person alive, and a Person of Interest in that case, you should be able to give a clear answer about where and when you last saw her.

Maybe it's the accounts that aren't true, and MB has some totally consistent story that makes sense. But why should I assume that's the case? MB himself could have made a statement himself at any time, or had his lawyer correct an earlier statement, etc. He is also under no obligation to do so -- I'm guessing he has bigger things to worry about than whether the public thinks he's a liar. But, I don't see why it's a big deal if I point out these inconsistencies or how this is "spreading misinformation".

This isn't a smoking gun, but it's at least based on the actual information we have and not just a guess about a hypothetical situation that possibly could have happened.

 

[AbbeyR]

OT, but here's the video I mentioned if anyone's interested.

Interview with Floyd Abrams on "Why Lawyers Lie" on The Open Mind
http://video.pbs.org/video/1512028887/#

 

[AbbeyR]

I'm sitting in a building full of lawyers right now. They say the Spierer's need to file a civil suit within two years if they want to depose these guys and force them to talk.

I don't know anything about civil suits. Do they mean to be effective, or is there some kind of official limit? What if more evidence comes up in the future? Right now Lauren is only officially 'missing'.

 

[akh]

Abbey,
That's pretty much what I recall and I consider the differences between what the lawyer said and what the PI's said to inconsequential at best. I just don't see a 'there' there. Particularly without hearing directly from MB in either case. In fact, I consider the two versions basically consistent. The differences to me, and I'm hesitant to even call them differences to be honest with you, are simply a more thorough, filled in, account. That is my take.

The account allegedly told by a neighbor that says MB told her he went upstairs to put CR to bed and when he returned LS was gone, that would be a glaring difference in my book. The problem there is we don't know how accurately this person heard and understood the story and then recalled it for the reporter. Let alone how accurate the reporter was in relaying the story.

Is there even an upstairs in MB's apartment? That would be the first question I'd wonder about. But past that was this neighbor combining the different accounts of MB, CR, and JR and confusing a few things? I'd like to hear that person questioned thoroughly to see how certain of that comment they really are. I'd like to hear MB explain what he claims he told her to see if there's some room for misunderstanding. And in fact I bet LE (and PI's) have done exactly that.

 

[Darcyline]

The little minor differences, to me, all seem like creative license taken to mold the story to be more sympathetic to the boys. Like, at first the narrative was CR was so out of it and injured that LS had to literally help him home and tuck him into bed. Then we get video that shows CR literally carrying LS at times and her being the one out of it. That isn't necessarily a difference, but one is definitely a WAY more flattering picture of CR than the other.
I am not sure if it is significant beyond people jockeying to portray themselves as innocent (or their clients/friends doing it for them). Or if there is something more sinister driving all the tweaks in the story.

 

[imkeylime]

'

True. But, keep in mind that this search was conducted by the FBI, not just local LE. Also, the Bloomington trash was not picked up till Monday evening and much of it was searched by then. Also, I spoke with Sears, the company that empties the 5 North Dumpster. They told me they were sure Lauren was not there. They made sure of that.

However, what if these guys put her in a Martinsville dumpster?

I suspect someone will go through the cellular data again. Perhaps the answer is there in that data?

I've always wondered if LS could have been stashed by the 5N dumpster and then picked up and moved elsewhere. A definite twist would be if elsewhere was a dumpster in a different place or even a construction dumpster.

I wonder if the construction sites were checked closely enough. When I visited West Bloomfield, MI (where JR and DB are from), that summer, the construction zones were almost apocalyptic. I'm not suggesting LS is or was there, just that it struck me how a body could be concealed or even transported in such an environment.

 

[AbbeyR]

Abbey,
The differences to me, and I'm hesitant to even call them differences to be honest with you, are simply a more thorough, filled in, account. That is my take.

Either MB last saw Lauren at his apartment or at JR's apartment.

Either MB was at JR's when Lauren was there, or he wasn't.

These are objectively differences, no? In fact, not emphasis. What you're saying, I think?, is that you don't think those differences are important. Denying you were at the last place someone went missing from (and then admitting it later after more evidence has come out) is suspicious in my books. That's also an opinion. So we can agree to disagree!

Don't get me wrong though, I do think some of the discrepancies in MB's accounts could be the mistakes of others. I'm not assuming the witness statements for example, are totally accurate. I'm just wondering where they came from.
When it comes to statements from the POI or from their lawyers, I feel a little differently. I just don't feel any obligation to give them the benefit of the doubt and ignore the sketchy parts of their sketchy stories, since they all have options they could have (and still could) take if they wanted to clear their names. (Mike Beth, you reading any of this? Want to know how to get strangers on the internet to stop calling you a liar? Take an LE polygraph )

I'm assuming LE has already been able to get statements and talk to the witnesses. So perhaps they have cleared this all up. Or perhaps they haven't, and that's why MB is a POI. They won't tell us. Given the Spierer's recent statements, it doesn't sound like they've ever been able to get a believable story from the guys at 5 N though.

Ok, I've said my piece about MB now. Carry on!