But isn't the story that they were at her apt building, actual destination unknown to the public (not sure if LE knows or not), he was punched and dropped, he then ended up leaving and she followed after him?... <Snipped>
And if she did follow after him under her own power then IMHO it still leaves open the possibility she was able to leave JR's like he said she did at 4:30AM.
Indiana University sophomore Lauren Spierer was so incapacitated as she left her apartment building the morning she went missing that she stumbled out of her elevator, fell against a wall and had to be helped to her feet by a male friend who led her out of the building, a person who saw the video evidence told The Journal News on Thursday.
The account contradicts statements by friend Corey Rossman's lawyer, who said Spierer, a 20-year-old from Edgemont, helped his client walk home June 3 after he was punched in the face and suffered memory loss.
I know Carl Saltzman. I don't think he would lie. And, providing false information is called Obstruction Of Justice. That's a crime and a Class D felony. I don't think he did that.
"One question is why Rossman decided to take Spierer back to his townhouse early June 3, after she was stumbling and intoxicated.
“Why didn’t he take Lauren home?” she (Mrs. Spierer) asked."
That's a good question. They were at Lauren's apartment building, right? Why didn't he just take her to her apartment or just leave her there in the hall/lobby?
Thanks ... not sure how I missed this. I'm not sure how in depth we can discuss this here, but #7, Assignment 5 is interesting (and #18). However, I realize this was before LS disappeared, and I don't know the context of the assignment ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Around the same time, there was a similar case in California where a kid died of an overdose. When he started foaming at the mouth and passed out, his friends drove around calling other friends to try to get them to take him off their hands, but no one would. Instead of taking him to a hospital, they dragged him home and put him to bed and then went to a party. When they checked on him the next morning, he was dead. In that case, though the friends did not dump the body or cover-up what happened, they were charged with involuntary manslaughter because they didn't get him help when he obviously needed it.(Link to Griffen Kramer story). The prosecutor argued that even though GK was responsible for taking the drugs himself, he would have survived if his friends had taken him to a hospital, and when he passed out, they had a 'duty of care' that they neglected (link).
After reading about cases like these, I can imagine a scenario something like this unfolding. People who are high and freaked out can do really stupid and unthinkable things. And sometimes they get away with it. I can also imagine other possibilities. Maybe the POI did something worse that they are covering up. Or maybe they are telling the truth and Lauren was the victim of a random predator that night.
But even if she was taken by a stranger, I believe that the POI are still, to some degree, responsible, for the same reason given by the judge in the case described above. By the time Lauren left Smallwood, she couldn't even walk by herself, and by several accounts, had symptoms that went beyond just being drunk. Whether this was because she was slipped drugs, took drugs willingly, or had some unrelated medical reaction, she needed help to get home safely, and she probably needed to be taken to a hospital. Instead, in the most generous scenario, she was 'helped' away from her own apartment by CR, despite the protests of her friends and the concerns of total strangers on the street who were reassured things were 'under control'. She has to be carried to 5 N by CR because she can't walk on her own, but when they get there, CR is the one who is taken care of - "put to bed", by his roommate, who then passes Lauren off to a neighbor. A short time later, JR lets her walk out the door -- at 4 am, with no shoes, cell phone or money.
We don't have enough evidence to know what happened, only that she didn't make it home. I don't know if the 'duty of care' argument would hold the POI legally responsible in a criminal or even a civil case. But I think it should.