IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #29
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
New Posts
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #187
- Latest: photographer4
- Status
According to the source who saw the video from Smallwood, Lauren was 'incapacitated', stumbling and falling before she even left the building. Corey had to 'help' her up and out the door:
http://www.lohud.com/article/201107...lding-video-no-condition-help-friend-get-home
I'm pretty sure the rumor that CR left the building first and was followed out came from Gatto, before this article came out. Is that what you're thinking of? (I may be forgetting something...)
I don't know who his source could have been for this, since the other guys were on the 5th floor and as far as we have heard, there were no witnesses that saw them leave the building (just the video). In any case, most of the info that TG got from anonymous 'insider' sources has turned out to be wrong and he has said here that other than the witness who saw Lauren hit her head, his other sources were not reliable.
(I've said this before, but I suspect his anonymous source(s) were connected to CR -- JMO)
There's a difference between providing false information and HIGHLY exeggerating/coming up with a defense you're able to support. And in this case, they could use the fact he was punched in the face and fell to the ground as support for that defense.
I never believed Carl Saltzman's claim that CR suffered from memory loss- it seemed all too convenient. And the fact that CR was dumb enough to tell a reporter that isn't true---wow. While I don't believe much that CR has said, I am going to believe that statement. Why? Because A- Again, I didn't believe it when his lawyer claimed it, and B- There is absolutely no reason for CR to state that his lawyers statement isn't true---unless that statement is actually the truth. If anything, admitting that will really hurt him in the future, and if he truly lost his memory there's NO way a somewhat sane individual would claim otherwise....especially when his lawyer has already maintained that defense. While he doesn't appear to be the brightest bulb in the tanning bed; the combination of the reporter catching him off guard, his general hostility, and the mental effects of keeping this huge secret for two years probably just resulted in the words coming out of his mouth in a tauntingly manner (like Abbey suggested) in his pathetic attempt to come across as the victim.
My guess has always been that CR and LS were going to hookup.
CR and LS were on the 5th floor of Smallwood when CR got punched in the face by one of JW's friends. The fact they were clearly heading to her apartment together that late would definitely suggest they were going to hookup. (Side note- do we know if anyone in the group of boys that confronted CR actually lived on the 5th floor of Smallwood? As in perhaps they were literally awaiting their arrival, and it wasn't a by chance run-in?)
We don't know the exact words that were exchanged between everyone there.... but if they were JW's friends it shouldn't be surprising that CR and LS would leave, in attempt to avoid any kind of confrontation with JW. And to (potentially) hookup.
I can't believe any guy/boyfriend would want their girlfriend out alone with another guy that late at night....so I can imagine JW would be pretty ticked off. He probably sent her phone a bunch of....intense text messages, etc that could support a motive for JW hurting LS or something of that nature. He even could have showed up at Smallwood later that night, there's probably so much we don't know. Personally, I don't see him as being involved, but I definitely believe there's a reason we haven't heard much from him either.
elmorejames
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 176
- Reaction score
- -27
#23 is weirder! "Young woman finds love in overweight friend who lives near by."
While it's true you can sue anyone for anything, it's much less easy to win. So what would the family be suing the 5N guys for exactly? There's going to need to be much, much more than anything we've ever heard here (and that may well be available) to make any kind of case.
But if they go on a giant fishing trip with a lawsuit with little more than the stories we've heard here so far then that would be a risky move that could lead to LE closing the case for all intents and purposes (it will never be officially closed until solved but for all intents and purposes it would be a dead case).
For one thing, the 5N guys most likely still tell their same version of the story that we all know... only this time with seasoned attorneys arguing the case as well. Which could quickly change the dynamic of how the case is perceived by the public. If it's a wrongful death case then the family and their attorney has got to make that final missing connection. You'd think if that was really available, at least with any clarity and not just some murky supposition, then this case would already be further along in criminal court.
If it's not a wrongful death case then what kind of case would they bring that they really hope would accomplish anything?
There's always the chance the jury doesn't believe the 5N guys, doesn't like them, or feels so sorry for the family they accept something less than credible evidence to find for the plaintiffs. And at that point... so what? The 5N guys still claim their innocence. Nobody is going to jail from a civil proceeding. The family gets a judgment. And ultimately they are no closer to finding their daughter unless there was a Perry Mason moment in court.
Or possibly they lose in court. Nothing is ever tied together. The stories hold up (or at least nothing really can be proven to counter them). Nothing new is really discovered. The only change for anything might just be a more unified narrative from both sides is presented in their own voices and without rumors, misquotes, hearsay, and other noise for the public.
Either outcome then clouds any movement on the LE front and criminal prosecution. Barring that Perry Mason moment and some shocking new info or confession then LE won't be any more inclined to bring charges than they otherwise would be (if not less so). If the family prevails in civil court what if LE actually had a more likely suspect they were hoping for a break with? Now any criminal case would be tarnished because the family got a positive judgment against someone else. Or if police are still focused on the 5N guys but then the family loses in civil court (where there's a lower burden of proof) then what kind of signal would that send to LE as well as taint the jury pool for any future criminal proceedings.
Even if LE thinks the 5N guys are their chief suspects, clearly they don't have the smoking gun to act on it. So the family winning in civil court likely doesn't change that. And it's not a given they'd win.
I'm not sure I see an upside for a civil case as things stand now. Unless they've reached the point they feel it's time for a Hail Mary and a fishing trip might get it, or they feel getting a judgment would somehow get them some closure.
But if they go on a giant fishing trip with a lawsuit with little more than the stories we've heard here so far then that would be a risky move that could lead to LE closing the case for all intents and purposes (it will never be officially closed until solved but for all intents and purposes it would be a dead case).
For one thing, the 5N guys most likely still tell their same version of the story that we all know... only this time with seasoned attorneys arguing the case as well. Which could quickly change the dynamic of how the case is perceived by the public. If it's a wrongful death case then the family and their attorney has got to make that final missing connection. You'd think if that was really available, at least with any clarity and not just some murky supposition, then this case would already be further along in criminal court.
If it's not a wrongful death case then what kind of case would they bring that they really hope would accomplish anything?
There's always the chance the jury doesn't believe the 5N guys, doesn't like them, or feels so sorry for the family they accept something less than credible evidence to find for the plaintiffs. And at that point... so what? The 5N guys still claim their innocence. Nobody is going to jail from a civil proceeding. The family gets a judgment. And ultimately they are no closer to finding their daughter unless there was a Perry Mason moment in court.
Or possibly they lose in court. Nothing is ever tied together. The stories hold up (or at least nothing really can be proven to counter them). Nothing new is really discovered. The only change for anything might just be a more unified narrative from both sides is presented in their own voices and without rumors, misquotes, hearsay, and other noise for the public.
Either outcome then clouds any movement on the LE front and criminal prosecution. Barring that Perry Mason moment and some shocking new info or confession then LE won't be any more inclined to bring charges than they otherwise would be (if not less so). If the family prevails in civil court what if LE actually had a more likely suspect they were hoping for a break with? Now any criminal case would be tarnished because the family got a positive judgment against someone else. Or if police are still focused on the 5N guys but then the family loses in civil court (where there's a lower burden of proof) then what kind of signal would that send to LE as well as taint the jury pool for any future criminal proceedings.
Even if LE thinks the 5N guys are their chief suspects, clearly they don't have the smoking gun to act on it. So the family winning in civil court likely doesn't change that. And it's not a given they'd win.
I'm not sure I see an upside for a civil case as things stand now. Unless they've reached the point they feel it's time for a Hail Mary and a fishing trip might get it, or they feel getting a judgment would somehow get them some closure.
That's true but does that really accomplish anything? And can they get the videos from LE to give their argument the teeth it would need?
Finding something to sue for wouldn't be hard because as I said, you can sue anybody for anything, but winning is another matter. And in this case 'winning' wouldn't seem to be the ultimate goal anyway. That would be finding LS and learning what really happened.
If they'd decide to take this route they'd really need their ducks in a row because they could easily throw the LE investigation into chaos and accomplish nothing towards finding LS and ultimately hurt more than help.
I would think their PI's an attorney would be able to sort thru all of that and explain the pros and cons although the attorney's interests might be conflicted since he/she would stand to gain by bringing a lawsuit.
Finding something to sue for wouldn't be hard because as I said, you can sue anybody for anything, but winning is another matter. And in this case 'winning' wouldn't seem to be the ultimate goal anyway. That would be finding LS and learning what really happened.
If they'd decide to take this route they'd really need their ducks in a row because they could easily throw the LE investigation into chaos and accomplish nothing towards finding LS and ultimately hurt more than help.
I would think their PI's an attorney would be able to sort thru all of that and explain the pros and cons although the attorney's interests might be conflicted since he/she would stand to gain by bringing a lawsuit.
i agree with you. bringing a civil suit makes no sense unless they have good information as the defendants aren't required to answer any questions or even put up a defense. whatever claims the spierers would make would have to be backed up by evidence forcing the defendants to make a defense. even things like not providing aid, etc would be nearly impossible to prove as ls has never been found so you can't say for sure what happened to her.
doing something like that could go as awfully as the holly bobo case where the family enlisted the help of private investigators who managed to fubar the case beyond all recognition and likely caused le closed the case on the bobo's missing daughter.
If a civil suit would threaten a criminal case, I obviously don't think they should pursue this. But I'm not totally clear on how this would be the case. And since I don't think a criminal case will move forward until they find Lauren, it seems like there could be some advantages.
I don't know what evidence the Spierers have, but I believe they have enough to be certain that the POI are responsible for Lauren's disappearance. So on a general level, I hope they take legal action because:
- it will force the POI to commit to a story (or they still won't talk) and in either case, that will be telling
- If they gave Lauren alcohol and/or drugs, took her away from her home where she was safe, didn't call for help when she arrived at 5 N half- conscious and injured, and (at best) let her walk out the door at 4 am in a condition that she was clearly not competent to get home safely -- then I believe they should be held responsible for the fact that she didn't.
- I believe there is evidence for at least all of the above
- And last, I'm hoping that since the POI didn't act together in all of those things, and likely did not play totally equal parts in Lauren's disappearance (and possibly death), that the threat of legal action will be the point at which it's not worth it for the person least involved to cover for the others (if that's what's going on).
- If any/all of the POI are innocent, it will be a chance for them to tell the truth and clear their names.
As I said earlier though, I don't know very much about how civil suits work or what exactly the risks are if, for example, more evidence came to light afterwards. Akh, your post was helpful, but I'd like to know more. Do you (or does anyone else) know of a similar case that I could read about? Or is it uncommon for a family to file a civil suit in a missing person case? I really don't know.
I don't know what evidence the Spierers have, but I believe they have enough to be certain that the POI are responsible for Lauren's disappearance. So on a general level, I hope they take legal action because:
- it will force the POI to commit to a story (or they still won't talk) and in either case, that will be telling
- If they gave Lauren alcohol and/or drugs, took her away from her home where she was safe, didn't call for help when she arrived at 5 N half- conscious and injured, and (at best) let her walk out the door at 4 am in a condition that she was clearly not competent to get home safely -- then I believe they should be held responsible for the fact that she didn't.
- I believe there is evidence for at least all of the above
- And last, I'm hoping that since the POI didn't act together in all of those things, and likely did not play totally equal parts in Lauren's disappearance (and possibly death), that the threat of legal action will be the point at which it's not worth it for the person least involved to cover for the others (if that's what's going on).
- If any/all of the POI are innocent, it will be a chance for them to tell the truth and clear their names.
As I said earlier though, I don't know very much about how civil suits work or what exactly the risks are if, for example, more evidence came to light afterwards. Akh, your post was helpful, but I'd like to know more. Do you (or does anyone else) know of a similar case that I could read about? Or is it uncommon for a family to file a civil suit in a missing person case? I really don't know.
I also don't know much about civil suits so I have a question...
I believe the whole purpose of the Spierer's filing a civil suit (if they did), would be to depose the POI's ... not necessarily to "win" or even to have the case ruled in their favor. I believe the idea behind filing a civil suit would be to get depositions from the young men. My question is... if they have been lying this whole time, they could still lie while being deposed. So, couldn't the whole idea of getting answers via depositions be a moot point? Obviously lying under oath would be perjury, but the young men could not be charged with perjury unless it was proved that they lied (right?).
So unless you believe that these young men will all the sudden become honest, it could result in nothing new... right?
Although what Abbey said above about how a civil suit would force them each to "commit" to a single story and stick with it is true, I guess. So maybe it could be helpful in that respect.
I don't know, two years is a very long time-- but if I were the Spierer's I don't know if I would file the civil suit and risk ruining a criminal case. It seems like it may not be worth it? Then again, when/if Lauren s found it is questionable whether any type of evidence found along with her will be able to tell enough of a story to convict anyone criminally at that time either (the body/other evidence may be in bad shape if exposed to the elements all this time..).
I'm just rambling.
We are moving out-of-state this week so I may be MIA for a bit... I'll check on Lauren's thread when I can, I am thinking of her so much with the anniversary approaching.
I believe the whole purpose of the Spierer's filing a civil suit (if they did), would be to depose the POI's ... not necessarily to "win" or even to have the case ruled in their favor. I believe the idea behind filing a civil suit would be to get depositions from the young men. My question is... if they have been lying this whole time, they could still lie while being deposed. So, couldn't the whole idea of getting answers via depositions be a moot point? Obviously lying under oath would be perjury, but the young men could not be charged with perjury unless it was proved that they lied (right?).
So unless you believe that these young men will all the sudden become honest, it could result in nothing new... right?
Although what Abbey said above about how a civil suit would force them each to "commit" to a single story and stick with it is true, I guess. So maybe it could be helpful in that respect.
I don't know, two years is a very long time-- but if I were the Spierer's I don't know if I would file the civil suit and risk ruining a criminal case. It seems like it may not be worth it? Then again, when/if Lauren s found it is questionable whether any type of evidence found along with her will be able to tell enough of a story to convict anyone criminally at that time either (the body/other evidence may be in bad shape if exposed to the elements all this time..).
I'm just rambling.
We are moving out-of-state this week so I may be MIA for a bit... I'll check on Lauren's thread when I can, I am thinking of her so much with the anniversary approaching.
I'm not an attorney, so take what I say with many grains of salt.
I don't think a civil suit could be used to force the POIs to talk. If they do not respond to the suit, they Spierers would win by default. They'd have more money but not more answers. That's what happened in the case of Molly Dattilo.
Or the POIs could respond that the complaint is not valid under existing statutes (maybe hard to prove a wrongful death without first proving a death...). Proving negligence would be hard if the POIs did not have a duty to care for LS. There's no negligence if there's no duty to be neglected. Having an ethical obligation to care for a friend is not the same as a legal obligation to do so. However, if one creates a hazardous situation and someone is endangered due to that hazardous situation, the first person may have a duty to rescue the second. So if a POI gave LS a substance which caused her harm, that POI would have a duty to rescue her from that harm. But how could that be proved? Another possibility would be if JR could be considered as initiating the rescue of LS but not following through. Once someone undertakes the rescue of someone, one may have a duty to continue if a reasonable person would have done so. So if the reasonable thing to do would have been to walk her home or call an ambulance... But again, how could this be proven???
Unless the Spierers know a LOT more than the rest of us, I don't think there will be a civil suit.
I don't think a civil suit could be used to force the POIs to talk. If they do not respond to the suit, they Spierers would win by default. They'd have more money but not more answers. That's what happened in the case of Molly Dattilo.
Or the POIs could respond that the complaint is not valid under existing statutes (maybe hard to prove a wrongful death without first proving a death...). Proving negligence would be hard if the POIs did not have a duty to care for LS. There's no negligence if there's no duty to be neglected. Having an ethical obligation to care for a friend is not the same as a legal obligation to do so. However, if one creates a hazardous situation and someone is endangered due to that hazardous situation, the first person may have a duty to rescue the second. So if a POI gave LS a substance which caused her harm, that POI would have a duty to rescue her from that harm. But how could that be proved? Another possibility would be if JR could be considered as initiating the rescue of LS but not following through. Once someone undertakes the rescue of someone, one may have a duty to continue if a reasonable person would have done so. So if the reasonable thing to do would have been to walk her home or call an ambulance... But again, how could this be proven???
Unless the Spierers know a LOT more than the rest of us, I don't think there will be a civil suit.
Ixchel13
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,658
- Reaction score
- 1,146
BBM well they must have some sort of proof Lauren was actually at JRs,
like fingerprints, instead of not even making it there as some of us have speculated. LE has not shared any forensic evidence from any of the
apts, either to proove or disproove their stories. Like the last phone calls. If
she didn't make those calls, her prints would not be on the phone.
A couple thoughts...
A civil suit using only the evidence known to the public would probably not be great evidence in the traditional sense because it seems to be mostly circumstantial and unfortunately, the moment LS passed was not caught on video nor has her body been recovered.
Someone mentioned that the 5N boys should be held responsible for not getting her help. Morally, I agree, but in court they would have to tie it to some kind of crime and prove the elements using the evidence available. Civil court would be beneficial because the burden of proof wouldn't be as demanding, but again, it might be difficult depending on what kind of crime the Spierers would claim the 5N boys had committed.
However, I do agree that if the Spierers filed a claim trying to force one cohesive story, going that route may be beneficial. Of course, the boys could refuse to talk and allow a default judgment. IMO, even that might be meaningful to the Spierers. Personally, although these boys might be wealthy, most rational individuals do not throw money away for no reason if it can be prevented. It seems that the majority on this board agree that the known evidence isn't that great, so allowing a default judgment might be very telling if you are comparing it to the rational, reasonable person. If I were the Spierers, I would be even more critical of them and would use my time and money to dismantle their story rather than spend my resources elsewhere.
Yes, allowing a default judgment does not mean that they in fact did anything. However, it would be insanely cruel on their part if they truly are not hiding anything (based on the most recent reaction from CR, that wouldn't surprise me either though). Legally, they may have no obligation to talk, I suppose, but the actions they have taken in the media just upset me so much. LS was at least JR's friend. CR was romantically interested in her. For a long time, I was mostly convinced something completely accidental happened. The longer this has endured and based on how the POIs have acted, I really am beginning to question if something more nefarious occured.
Also, I am of the opinion that a lawyer's statement is supposed to reflect your client's story in a positive manner (this does NOT mean lie). You are professionally and ethically obligated to perform in your client's best interest at all times, including when the media inquires, even off-handedly. CR's lawyer was experienced and aware that this was a high-profile case. CR's statement about his lawyer was extremely interesting to me because of this. I highly doubt the lawyer outright lied. If he had, CR should have addressed this a long time ago and should have filed a complaint with the bar. IMO, I think this might indicate that CR is changing his story. Hopefully he will explain what he meant by his most recent statements soon.
my opinion only.
A civil suit using only the evidence known to the public would probably not be great evidence in the traditional sense because it seems to be mostly circumstantial and unfortunately, the moment LS passed was not caught on video nor has her body been recovered.
Someone mentioned that the 5N boys should be held responsible for not getting her help. Morally, I agree, but in court they would have to tie it to some kind of crime and prove the elements using the evidence available. Civil court would be beneficial because the burden of proof wouldn't be as demanding, but again, it might be difficult depending on what kind of crime the Spierers would claim the 5N boys had committed.
However, I do agree that if the Spierers filed a claim trying to force one cohesive story, going that route may be beneficial. Of course, the boys could refuse to talk and allow a default judgment. IMO, even that might be meaningful to the Spierers. Personally, although these boys might be wealthy, most rational individuals do not throw money away for no reason if it can be prevented. It seems that the majority on this board agree that the known evidence isn't that great, so allowing a default judgment might be very telling if you are comparing it to the rational, reasonable person. If I were the Spierers, I would be even more critical of them and would use my time and money to dismantle their story rather than spend my resources elsewhere.
Yes, allowing a default judgment does not mean that they in fact did anything. However, it would be insanely cruel on their part if they truly are not hiding anything (based on the most recent reaction from CR, that wouldn't surprise me either though). Legally, they may have no obligation to talk, I suppose, but the actions they have taken in the media just upset me so much. LS was at least JR's friend. CR was romantically interested in her. For a long time, I was mostly convinced something completely accidental happened. The longer this has endured and based on how the POIs have acted, I really am beginning to question if something more nefarious occured.
Also, I am of the opinion that a lawyer's statement is supposed to reflect your client's story in a positive manner (this does NOT mean lie). You are professionally and ethically obligated to perform in your client's best interest at all times, including when the media inquires, even off-handedly. CR's lawyer was experienced and aware that this was a high-profile case. CR's statement about his lawyer was extremely interesting to me because of this. I highly doubt the lawyer outright lied. If he had, CR should have addressed this a long time ago and should have filed a complaint with the bar. IMO, I think this might indicate that CR is changing his story. Hopefully he will explain what he meant by his most recent statements soon.
my opinion only.
I will try to find my torts book, but your example reminded me of a case involving a guy who was out with another friend and they had been drinking and the friend was involved in some kind of fight. The guy left his friend in a vehicle and I am pretty sure he was held liable because he had taken on a duty when he took his injured friend and then left him where he was unlikely to be found and did not seek help for him. Sorry that is not the clearest, but it's been awhile. I'll search my notes to see if I can find the case name and the factors.
I do wonder if CR took on any duties by taking an injured, inebrited LS from her place of residence, took her to his private residence, and did not seek outside help, although it seems like MB and JR are attempting to show that no duty was taken on because LS was fine. The body of the friend was discovered in the case I'm thinking of. At this point, without a body, I think CR could pretty much point to the accounts made by MB and JR and could argue abduction or something.
Glad you brought this up though.
I posted about an overdose case a while ago (Griffen Kramer) where his friends were all charged with manslaughter because they didn't do anything to help. The judge in this case talked about the 'duty of care', and although there are some major differences, I always think about this in relation to what happened to Lauren that night.
Quoting from [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8650126&postcount=873"]this earlier post[/ame]:
Quoting from [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8650126&postcount=873"]this earlier post[/ame]:
The problem with any type of duty to care argument is it will be trumped by their story she wanted to leave if not even refused to stay. You can't hold someone against their will. So that is a hurdle for any type of case being made going down this path because there would need to be something to counter that. Supposition won't be enough.
- Status