IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #31

[imkeylime]

I don't know, I still think it is odd. MB knew JR had a party that night and probably knew that JR had out of town visitors. Why dump a girl in LS' state on a guy who might still have other people over he's dealing with and definitely has guests over? And by LS' state, I mean the one the 5N boys describe: a girl who was very intoxicated. Dumping her on a friend after he's just had a party and has people over seems like it would be a really uncool thing to do just because you don't want to deal with her. I think JR would be even less thrilled considering it was MB's roomie who brought her back.

Also, I know CR and LS had recently met each other, but is it possible that CR was actually the one she felt the most comfortable around anyway? It might have been a bad judgment call, but it sounds like JR and LS were friends of friends (HT being the mutual friend), whereas there was something between LS & CR, she was with CR the entire night, and who knows, maybe she really was going to go to bed until she found out CR would be at JR's. Did JR actually know her better? Why is MB taking a girl CR has expressed interest in to JR's instead of just letting her stay at their place?

It's too bad MB's case got thrown out because I think the answer to the why he took her to JR's could be key if they were involved.

CR would definitely not be a guy that I'd want my daughter to hang out with ... but I'll be honest and say I don't "get" the appeal of some guys my daughter has hung out with, LOL. So I agree LS may have felt comfortable enough with CR to follow him out of SW at least.

I personally think MB took her to JR's because he was freaking out about her condition. If CR was indeed in a bad place (and I'm willing to consider that, although as duly noted, I don't buy the amnesia), he may have just not been able to cope. That thought, however, makes me extremely skeptical of JR's claim that he thought she was OK to walk home. I just don't buy it.

 

[Jupiter812]

I don't know, I still think it is odd. MB knew JR had a party that night and probably knew that JR had out of town visitors. Why dump a girl in LS' state on a guy who might still have other people over he's dealing with and definitely has guests over? And by LS' state, I mean the one the 5N boys describe: a girl who was very intoxicated. Dumping her on a friend after he's just had a party and has people over seems like it would be a really uncool thing to do just because you don't want to deal with her. I think JR would be even less thrilled considering it was MB's roomie who brought her back.

Also, I know CR and LS had recently met each other, but is it possible that CR was actually the one she felt the most comfortable around anyway? It might have been a bad judgment call, but it sounds like JR and LS were friends of friends (HT being the mutual friend), whereas there was something between LS & CR, she was with CR the entire night, and who knows, maybe she really was going to go to bed until she found out CR would be at JR's. Did JR actually know her better? Why is MB taking a girl CR has expressed interest in to JR's instead of just letting her stay at their place?

It's too bad MB's case got thrown out because I think the answer to the why he took her to JR's could be key if they were involved.

Yes, JR and Lauren knew each other from several years at camp, didn't they?

Your second question is an excellent one and well put. I think MB was looking out for his bro first and foremost. Who knows, he might have even been a wee bit jealous of Lauren or blamed HER for CR's state. Because after all, the initial narrative was that Lauren was the one who escorted CR out of Smallwood. Apparently she was a liability for MB--so much so that he lied and said she wanted to party; that she left when he wasn't watching. Notice how MB makes himself scarce in the second lie? Read between the lines and what he was really saying is "There was nothing I could do because she left without my knowing it." He makes her wrong again and makes himself innocent.

 

[sammi89]

Yes, JR and Lauren knew each other from several years at camp, didn't they?

Your second question is an excellent one and well put. I think MB was looking out for his bro first and foremost. Who knows, he might have even been a wee bit jealous of Lauren or blamed HER for CR's state. Because after all, the initial narrative was that Lauren was the one who escorted CR out of Smallwood. Apparently she was a liability for MB--so much so that he lied and said she wanted to party; that she left when he wasn't watching. Notice how MB makes himself scarce in the second lie? Read between the lines and what he was really saying is "There was nothing I could do because she left without my knowing it." He makes her wrong again and makes himself innocent.

Yes, my bad. You are correct. I could swear I have also read that HT was actually closer to JR/LS and JR were more acquaintances. Thank you for the correction!

I agree that the original narrative would make sense of MB blaming LS (I actually think MB might have been more likely to be jealous of CR than LS though! lol). However, with what has been put into the media now about LS, I would find it very strange that he would blame CR for LS' state.

I agree with the rest of what you say too. MB does a lot of victim blaming and paints himself as a "nice guy." Ironically, he isn't being a nice guy to either LS (by calling a taxi, the easiest thing, or just walking her home himself) or JR (dumping a drunk girl who is hosting guests).

This just seems like it should have been a roomie issue and what to do with her should have been between MB and CR. Involving JR according to their narrative, to me, is odd, especially when it was known he had a party and had guests staying with him. It makes much more sense if he was going for legitimate help. When you consider that CR himself stopped at someone else's place on his way home (ZC) and as soon as he gets home, MB also goes to a friend, well, I think it is obvious where I'm going with it lol....

 

[Ixchel13]

What I meant by the judge believing that MB did walk....walk Lauren over to JRs is that now, they have broken the chain. Now, it could be assumed that CR and Lauren were intoxicated, that CR went to bed, and that Lauren was left with JR.
Now, JR will have to defend the last part of the story. They may have provided for that by the amnesia--convenient because on video CR is punched in the head. But conveniently, CR has hinted that he may not have had complete amnesia, in case he needs to remember something, in case JR doesn't want to take all the blame in the end like he said he would.
Yes, the chain is broken by cutting MB loose. Now, JR can heap blame onto CR, maybe even MB; and CR could start recalling who was at JRs house at the end, and what they might have said or done during the earlier evening to
Lauren or others nto indicate any interest in Lauren.
Absolved MB? In my mind, he's not absolved until he starts being a witness.
Which he should do, because he has only been let off of duty of care, he could still be dragged into the scenario if he consumed drugs with Lauren and CR when they left JRs party and went over to CRs for an hour. THEN, it's baqck to duty of care again for drugs, not alcohol.
No, MB is not really totally off the hook until he once and for all joins the
right side and turns these guys in. After all, they did nothing to get him out of the loop when he was such a nice guy and kept quiet. MB, who was at JRs party there at the end?

 

[Dixie811]

In this video, Rob & Charlene speak directly to Cristina Corbin in an on-camera interview for the 2nd anniversary of Lauren's disappearance. They speak briefly about how Lauren had just met CR and MB the week before. They also say that LS and JR were not friends, but more like acquaintances.

I actually thought I had read/viewed Charlene saying specifically that LS and JR were acquainted through LS accompanying HT to JR's apartment a few times in the past (as Sammi89 referred to above), but cannot find that right now…

Link below:
[ame]http://video.foxnews.com/v/2424318810001/spierer-family-students-know-more-than-theyre-saying?intcmp=related[/ame]

I will try to transcribe the relevant part:

CC: How well did Lauren know these men?

RS: She didn't. She knew Jay; I don't think she knew him very well. I wouldn't say that they were friends, maybe more like acquaintances. She met CR and MB at the Indianapolis 500 the weekend before she disappeared. It's an event that thousands of kids go to and they make a weekend out of it. Lauren didn't stay the entire weekend, but that's how she first came into contact with Rossman and Beth.

ETA: I don't know why the link turned out like that… but if you click "Fox News" it does bring the correct page up.

 

[akh]

But conveniently, CR has hinted that he may not have had complete amnesia,

After re-reading that quote when it popped up recently it made me wonder if we're not catching the context of CR's reply. Was it just quoted on paper or was their a video of it? That would give us some additional context possibly.

If the reporter's actual words were along the lines of: "You said you suffered from amnesia. Is that still the case?"

Then CR's reply might've been to say that he hadn't said 'anything' of this nature to the public/press.... and possibly further he bristled at the idea he'd diagnosed himself with 'amnesia'.

Although his atty might prefer 'amnesia' to saying 'blackout drunk' maybe CR thinks 'amnesia' sounds too clinical and suspicious versus just saying he was drunk and blacked out.

But in any case...
He does say "(he) didn't say he did or didn't (remember)". He could simply be bristling at the reporter's implication that he had already spoken publicly and pointing out he hadn't said anything like that to the press/public and that the reporter was in fact quoting his lawyer and not him.

IOW... that statement to the reporter might not have the probative value that it seems. He might not be backing off what he has told to the atty or investigators... only stating the reporter was wrong to attribute his atty's quote to him as if those were his own exact words and that he'd been speaking publicly prior to this.

 

[CoolJ]

After re-reading that quote when it popped up recently it made me wonder if we're not catching the context of CR's reply. Was it just quoted on paper or was their a video of it? That would give us some additional context possibly.

If the reporter's actual words were along the lines of: "You said you suffered from amnesia. Is that still the case?"

Then CR's reply might've been to say that he hadn't said 'anything' of this nature to the public/press.... and possibly further he bristled at the idea he'd diagnosed himself with 'amnesia'.

Although his atty might prefer 'amnesia' to saying 'blackout drunk' maybe CR thinks 'amnesia' sounds too clinical and suspicious versus just saying he was drunk and blacked out.

But in any case...
He does say "(he) didn't say he did or didn't (remember)". He could simply be bristling at the reporter's implication that he had already spoken publicly and pointing out he hadn't said anything like that to the press/public and that the reporter was in fact quoting his lawyer and not him.

IOW... that statement to the reporter might not have the probative value that it seems. He might not be backing off what he has told to the atty or investigators... only stating the reporter was wrong to attribute his atty's quote to him as if those were his own exact words and that he'd been speaking publicly prior to this.

Nope, I think he just realised that he needed to have the option to change his story at will. They all had a bit of something they wanted to get out into the public before the civil suit was to begin.

 

[sammi89]

In this video, Rob & Charlene speak directly to Cristina Corbin in an on-camera interview for the 2nd anniversary of Lauren's disappearance. They speak briefly about how Lauren had just met CR and MB the week before. They also say that LS and JR were not friends, but more like acquaintances.

I actually thought I had read/viewed Charlene saying specifically that LS and JR were acquainted through LS accompanying HT to JR's apartment a few times in the past (as Sammi89 referred to above), but cannot find that right now…

Link below:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/24243188...s-know-more-than-theyre-saying?intcmp=related

I will try to transcribe the relevant part:

CC: How well did Lauren know these men?

RS: She didn't. She knew Jay; I don't think she knew him very well. I wouldn't say that they were friends, maybe more like acquaintances. She met CR and MB at the Indianapolis 500 the weekend before she disappeared. It's an event that thousands of kids go to and they make a weekend out of it. Lauren didn't stay the entire weekend, but that's how she first came into contact with Rossman and Beth.

ETA: I don't know why the link turned out like that… but if you click "Fox News" it does bring the correct page up.

Thank you. I knew I had heard or read it somewhere!

If the version of them being more like acquaintances is more accurate than the lifelong friends version (and he certainly hasn't acted like one), I think it is a valid question: Why take her to JR's, especially since MB knew he had a party going on and had guests staying with him already? The story they have put out just doesn't really make sense (to me, anyway).

 

[akh]

Nope, I think he just realised that he needed to have the option to change his story at will. They all had a bit of something they wanted to get out into the public before the civil suit was to begin.

I think you're over-thinking it because what was accomplished towards the civil suit? What good could come of not just staying silent and playing that card only when and if it became necessary to change or embellish his story when he needed to talk? There was no need to change the story now (if that was even his point). His lawyer(s) would never tell him to say anything in a setting like that. Garrison would've held a press conference and spun the story himself if there was something that wanted out in the public for PR and/or the court of public opinion.

IOW... there was nothing to gain and everything to lose by talking to the reporter like that. At best he could be misinterpreted, and at worst he could be changing the story when there's no reason right then.

 

[CoolJ]

I think you're over-thinking it because what was accomplished towards the civil suit? What good could come of not just staying silent and playing that card only when and if it became necessary to change or embellish his story when he needed to talk? There was no need to change the story now (if that was even his point). His lawyer(s) would never tell him to say anything in a setting like that. Garrison would've held a press conference and spun the story himself if there was something that wanted out in the public for PR and/or the court of public opinion.

IOW... there was nothing to gain and everything to lose by talking to the reporter like that. At best he could be misinterpreted, and at worst he could be changing the story when there's no reason right then.

Like I said. He is not changing his story rather giving himself a chance to change it if need be. But I understand what your thoughts are here.

 

[Dixie811]

Thank you. I knew I had heard or read it somewhere!

If the version of them being more like acquaintances is more accurate than the lifelong friends version (and he certainly hasn't acted like one), I think it is a valid question: Why take her to JR's, especially since MB knew he had a party going on and had guests staying with him already? The story they have put out just doesn't really make sense (to me, anyway).

I thought maybe there was a lengthier version of this video interview out there somewhere that I watched back in June… for some reason I thought I could specifically remember Charlene elaborating on exactly how LS and JR were acquainted. But hey.. maybe I made it up.:blushing: Guess that's why it is so important that we continually remind ourselves what is fact and what is rumor.

As for your question: I definitely think it is valid. However, no matter how loosely LS and JR were acquainted they were better (or for longer) acquainted than LS and MB. In MB's mind, that may have been enough of a reason to take her over to JR's apartment. MB may actually not have been aware whether LS and JR were good friends or not, but he was just aware (from seeing them pal around with mutual friends at the Indy 500) that they were in fact acquainted.

Perhaps MB thought someone should get ahold of Lauren's roommates (in college, roommates often take on a care-taker role) but did not have HT's number? Knowing JR would know how to get in contact with LS's roommates, he took her over there? BUT, as far as we know, none of Lauren's roommates were ever contacted. Did JR make a decision upon seeing Lauren that changed the course of events?

IDK...

 

[Dixie811]

I would like to know what HT's contact with the Spierer's has been like since Lauren went missing.

Seems in the beginning HT helped out with the flyers/searching (I remember seeing her interviewed by a reporter while holding flyers). She was also practically speaking to the media for JR. JR, who allegedly would not speak with the Spierer's (except for on one occasion with an attorney present). If I were the Spierer's I would want to know everything HT was hearing from JR and anyone else who spent time with Lauren that night. Did HT help them? Did she tell them what the young men & women in their circle of friends were saying? Did she tell them what JR was saying happened? Did she have any suspicions about JR, CR, MB, or JW that she confessed to the Spierer's?

Would be very interested to know that dynamic.

 

[Ixchel13]

Nope, I think he just realised that he needed to have the option to change his story at will. They all had a bit of something they wanted to get out into the public before the civil suit was to begin.

yes he needs that option to change his story. If he can't remember anything because of amnesia, then others can get together and say he did something he didn't do.

CR can't refute anything if he has amnesia. .

 

[sammi89]

I thought maybe there was a lengthier version of this video interview out there somewhere that I watched back in June… for some reason I thought I could specifically remember Charlene elaborating on exactly how LS and JR were acquainted. But hey.. maybe I made it up.:blushing: Guess that's why it is so important that we continually remind ourselves what is fact and what is rumor.

As for your question: I definitely think it is valid. However, no matter how loosely LS and JR were acquainted they were better (or for longer) acquainted than LS and MB. In MB's mind, that may have been enough of a reason to take her over to JR's apartment. MB may actually not have been aware whether LS and JR were good friends or not, but he was just aware (from seeing them pal around with mutual friends at the Indy 500) that they were in fact acquainted.

Perhaps MB thought someone should get ahold of Lauren's roommates (in college, roommates often take on a care-taker role) but did not have HT's number? Knowing JR would know how to get in contact with LS's roommates, he took her over there? BUT, as far as we know, none of Lauren's roommates were ever contacted. Did JR make a decision upon seeing Lauren that changed the course of events?

IDK...

Good points. I still think MB's choice to get to JR's is odd for the reasons I already mentioned (and in light of CR's stop at ZC's), but your response is at least plausible!

Going off of your thoughts, why DIDN'T JR call HT? Why did he call DR? HT was her roomie and friend, so I would think most people would call her first.

It's interesting that DR is supposedly the only one who came forward and took the polygraph, right? Did he continue hanging out with that group after LS went missing? For the same reasons I would seriously question why CR stopped at ZC's and why MB took LS to JR's, I would seriously question why JR called DR instead of HT.

 

[StrayKat]

Not to change the subject but... I wish we knew who was driving that white truck.
It reminds me of a white truck in another case. It going around the block 2 times and at that specific time is not a coincidence. And apparently I am not the only one that thought so or it would have never been outed. JMO

 

[Kadence]

yes he needs that option to change his story. If he can't remember anything because of amnesia, then others can get together and say he did something he didn't do.

CR can't refute anything if he has amnesia. .

Very, very interesting Ixchel! I never looked at it like that!

 

[akh]

Not to change the subject but... I wish we knew who was driving that white truck.
It reminds me of a white truck in another case. It going around the block 2 times and at that specific time is not a coincidence. And apparently I am not the only one that thought so or it would have never been outed. JMO

LE changed their story and said it did NOT go around the block 2 times. Instead it was due to the time stamp discrepancies on the videos that just made it appear that way.

Although that begs the question: Why didn't they then initially think other vehicles also circled the block? Were there just no other vehicles in the time frame they were studying? Wouldn't this have been obvious to them rather quickly that the truck hadn't circled the block just by noting other vehicles or confirming the camera's timestamps with the actual time? Curious...

Was that just a story so they could 'pretend' to clear the truck and let the driver think he's off the hook when he's in reality still under suspicion? That seems like a reach.

 

[deca]

I thought that LE did figure out who the truck driver was and cleared him??

 

[akh]

I thought that LE did figure out who the truck driver was and cleared him??

Yes... they found the truck driver, said he did not go around the block twice as they thought and were confused by the time stamps they were seeing. And said they were clearing him.

 

[CoolJ]

LE changed their story and said it did NOT go around the block 2 times. Instead it was due to the time stamp discrepancies on the videos that just made it appear that way.

Although that begs the question: Why didn't they then initially think other vehicles also circled the block? Were there just no other vehicles in the time frame they were studying? Wouldn't this have been obvious to them rather quickly that the truck hadn't circled the block just by noting other vehicles or confirming the camera's timestamps with the actual time? Curious...

Was that just a story so they could 'pretend' to clear the truck and let the driver think he's off the hook when he's in reality still under suspicion? That seems like a reach.

LE isn't stupid. Although, in almost any level of criminal activity, they would like the criminals to believe they are stupid. Yes of course other cars and pedestrians would have also "circled the block".

I do not know why LE would be putting this info out there, it could be that they suspected the white truck, it could be a decoy, they could have been trying to get a reaction from someone, but not a chance they "thought" the truck circled twice and found out after releasing it that it was just the timestamps off.

That brings me to another thing. Anytime video surveillance is involved in a crime especially with this level of exposure there is ALWAYS a discrepancy in times from one camera to the next. The truth is it is very easy to discern the differences in times on separate cameras. The discrepancies come up because LE want to control the flow of info - In other words they want to be the only ones who know the facts, so they report, quote and release info that basically says they are too stupid to figure out what the actual times are. But are they ever really that stupid? No, of course not, but rather it is just an investigative tool.