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

[Jacobite]

I suspect Mike Beth will be called as a witness anyway. Keep in mind the beginning of a civil case is the settlement phase. Maybe, the judge has found him to be cooperative and providing information.

 

[Jacobite]

Next, I thought I'd put Dick Allgire to the test. He is a respected newscaster and anchorman with decades of broadcasting experience. And, he has made a bit of a sensation with his remote viewing claims.

I use maps in my profession and I know the Bloomington area fairly well. He describes someone heading north on what must be Walnut Avenue and turning off to the right before the road merges with 37 North.
He draws a map sketch of the area. Looks almost like the number 8 lying on it's side.

I was quite surprised, it is right there. Take a look with Google satellite at the 2 ponds by East Whisnand Road
east of Walnut north of Bloomington.

Anyway, was this area searched? I find it very interesting that he drew something that really is there with his RV method.
Not saying we should believe his story. Or, on the other hand, should I be looking for Jamonne?

Guess it's time I am laughed off the board for this

 

[masootz]

without MB deposition it leaves both sides hanging, but especially JR now he can't even prove MB brought Lauren over

mb might have to give a deposition if the other two cases move forward. the lawyers will try to get the other cases thrown out based on the spierers not really having much evidence that their clients broke the specific laws claimed in the case. they won't resort to having their clients say ANYTHING until the judge finds enough merit in the spierers' claims to proceed.

it's like if i said "billy stole my bike". the judge will first say "show me proof" and if i don't have any then we're done. if i have some evidence (even scant) that billy stole my bike ("he was in the area when it was stolen and i saw him loading a bike into a truck a minute later") then the judge will say "what's billy's side of this" at which point he'd give a deposition.

 

[Jupiter812]

Next, I thought I'd put Dick Allgire to the test. He is a respected newscaster and anchorman with decades of broadcasting experience. And, he has made a bit of a sensation with his remote viewing claims.

I use maps in my profession and I know the Bloomington area fairly well. He describes someone heading north on what must be Walnut Avenue and turning off to the right before the road merges with 37 North.
He draws a map sketch of the area. Looks almost like the number 8 lying on it's side.

I was quite surprised, it is right there. Take a look with Google satellite at the 2 ponds by East Whisnand Road
east of Walnut north of Bloomington.

Anyway, was this area searched? I find it very interesting that he drew something that really is there with his RV method.
Not saying we should believe his story. Or, on the other hand, should I be looking for Jamonne?

Guess it's time I am laughed off the board for this

You won't hear any laughing from me. When I watched his presentation it sent chills down my spine. I thought:

North from 5N Apts. via Old SR 37 to avoid Walnut Ave (it parallels Walnut) which goes through thick, dark Cascades Park then merges into SR 37. Continue on Old SR 37 and you pass Griffy Lake. At least we know she's not there because it was emptied.

Still...the route through Cascades Park is one that a perp like Jamonne would know and take. I searched Cascades in my car, not on foot. I believe organized searches took place there as well.

There's another area I saw in my mind's eye when I watched the video. I'll try to retrieve it from my brain's hard drive.

Searches, smerches though. All it takes is not looking behind a stack of wood, or not lifting a tarp thrown over a pile, to not see her.

 

[Ixchel13]

Next, I thought I'd put Dick Allgire to the test. He is a respected newscaster and anchorman with decades of broadcasting experience. And, he has made a bit of a sensation with his remote viewing claims.

I use maps in my profession and I know the Bloomington area fairly well. He describes someone heading north on what must be Walnut Avenue and turning off to the right before the road merges with 37 North.
He draws a map sketch of the area. Looks almost like the number 8 lying on it's side.

I was quite surprised, it is right there. Take a look with Google satellite at the 2 ponds by East Whisnand Road
east of Walnut north of Bloomington.

Anyway, was this area searched? I find it very interesting that he drew something that really is there with his RV method.
Not saying we should believe his story. Or, on the other hand, should I be looking for Jamonne?

Guess it's time I am laughed off the board for this

no, don't say that because if you follow another psychic that was on some site or the other (forensic astrology) you end up in roughly the same area.

I saw that remote viewing video and he is exactly right in his drawing of the area, and he has the walkways between the houses on College, exactly, and that is where he thinks she met her fate and I think it was right there, too.
No matter who did it, if she was walking around that corner and starting off down College those walkways are there and someone could be pulled right into them. They lead to the back parking lot, then dark and no cameras.
Once in New Orleans, in the French Quarter a cop told me people get grabbed right off the busy street and dragged into the walkways that are there between every house. That area on College has the same walkways.

 

[Ixchel13]

You won't hear any laughing from me. When I watched his presentation it sent chills down my spine. I thought:

North from 5N Apts. via Old SR 37 to avoid Walnut Ave (it parallels Walnut) which goes through thick, dark Cascades Park then merges into SR 37. Continue on Old SR 37 and you pass Griffy Lake. At least we know she's not there because it was emptied.

Still...the route through Cascades Park is one that a perp like Jamonne would know and take. I searched Cascades in my car, not on foot. I believe organized searches took place there as well.

There's another area I saw in my mind's eye when I watched the video. I'll try to retrieve it from my brain's hard drive.

Searches, smerches though. All it takes is not looking behind a stack of wood, or not lifting a tarp thrown over a pile, to not see her.

and following that you eventually come to the Meadows Hospital area, and it's really marshy

 

[Jacobite]

As for the lawsuit, they can prove she is missing and they've lost her love and affection. That's a legitimate case. And, it's a slam dunk.
Jay is toast because he invited an underage girl to a drinking party. Corey as well because she could not consent while intoxicated to be removed from her building.
So, yes they could lose a lot of money and their parents may be on the hook for the judgement in a collection proceeding. And all her parents wanted was information.

 

[sammi89]

The discussion of when, if ever, the boys may talk made me wonder:

Does anyone know what the statute of limitations is on drug charges in Indiana?

I would think that once they know they couldn't be prosecuted they should be more willing to talk, right?

Unless that isn't the real reason they don't want to talk....

TIA if you know!

 

[monkey222]

Jacobite, You got me thinking...in a judgement proceeding...the individuals named need to fork over their $. And if the person can't pay, the parents aren't named..so could the court go after them??

 

[masootz]

As for the lawsuit, they can prove she is missing and they've lost her love and affection. That's a legitimate case. And, it's a slam dunk.
Jay is toast because he invited an underage girl to a drinking party. Corey as well because she could not consent while intoxicated to be removed from her building.
So, yes they could lose a lot of money and their parents may be on the hook for the judgement in a collection proceeding. And all her parents wanted was information.

that's not how the law works. they haven't show evidence she's missing because of anything those guys did. neither of the guys is toast if they're not required to make a statement. neither of the guys will have to make a statement if the judge doesn't think the spierers' claim has merit based on actual evidence which seems scarce since they weren't there and the guys aren't talking.

the first thing their lawyers did in their response was to say there's no evidence she's dead, indiana requires a seven year waiting period to declare a person dead, there's no evidence she went missing because of my client, etc etc. it's up to a judge to weigh whether the spierers' claims have merit but it's certainly not a slam dunk.

we're hoping for a sympathetic judge. it's probably a moot point anyway since the pois aren't legally required to make statements against themselves. you'd have to hope the judge is sympathetic and one of the guys wants to blame the other(s).

 

[Ixchel13]

The discussion of when, if ever, the boys may talk made me wonder:

Does anyone know what the statute of limitations is on drug charges in Indiana?

I would think that once they know they couldn't be prosecuted they should be more willing to talk, right?

Unless that isn't the real reason they don't want to talk....

TIA if you know!

no statute of limitations on murder, if they gave her something that killed her, it isn't the same as someone oding on someone elses' drugs and hiding a body, I would think, IDK. If JR is covering for someone who gave her something, that's obstruction, aiding and abetting, conspiracy, etc. And after all the grief and craziness they've caused, all the other charges that can possibly be thought of.

 

[masootz]

As for the lawsuit, they can prove she is missing and they've lost her love and affection. That's a legitimate case. And, it's a slam dunk.
Jay is toast because he invited an underage girl to a drinking party. Corey as well because she could not consent while intoxicated to be removed from her building.
So, yes they could lose a lot of money and their parents may be on the hook for the judgement in a collection proceeding. And all her parents wanted was information.

that's not how the law works. they haven't show evidence she's missing because of anything those guys did. neither of the guys is toast if they're not required to make a statement. neither of the guys will have to make a statement if the judge doesn't think the spierers' claim has merit based on actual evidence which seems scarce since they weren't there and the guys aren't talking.

the first thing their lawyers did in their response was to say there's no evidence she's dead, indiana requires a seven year waiting period to declare a person dead, there's no evidence she went missing because of my client, etc etc. it's up to a judge to weigh whether the spierers' claims have merit but it's certainly not a slam dunk.

we're really hoping for a sympathetic judge. it's all probably a moot point anyway since the fifth amendment says you can't compel a person to make self-incriminating testimony. they'll clam up unless one wants to point the finger at the other. of course in a civil case you can use what's called "adverse inference", meaning it's ok to assume a person not testifying is a sign that they're guilty of something.

i am not a lawyer, i just find these things fascinating.

 

[sammi89]

no statute of limitations on murder, if they gave her something that killed her, it isn't the same as someone oding on someone elses' drugs and hiding a body, I would think, IDK. If JR is covering for someone who gave her something, that's obstruction, aiding and abetting, conspiracy, etc. And after all the grief and craziness they've caused, all the other charges that can possibly be thought of.

I am specifically talking about ONLY posession or (possibly) supplying LS with drugs, operating under the thought that, if innocent, their main motivation for NOT talking is to avoid drug charges.

I would assume (and it's a big assumption) that once the statute of limitations has passed, that, if innocent, they would be more willing to talk about those sort of things.


NOTE: This is merely hypothetical and not meant to reflect my actual belief on whether they are innocent or not.

 

[thorpedo]

They are still able to depose MB. As a non-party witness to some of the events of the evening, his testimony is relevant to the case.

 

[monkey222]

How do you prove illegal drugs were actually ingested? I know there was the clonapin statement..but is it fact? Just speculating that these clowns perhaps ingested non active, non-mis branded drugs. Like taking a tablet that was really aspirin. Or, snorting...tricked out baby powder... How can it be proven that harmful subtances were involved? Except for the alcohol, of course, and darn it, why isn't Kilroys named..?

 

[Ixchel13]

I am specifically talking about ONLY posession or (possibly) supplying LS with drugs, operating under the thought that, if innocent, their main motivation for NOT talking is to avoid drug charges.

I would assume (and it's a big assumption) that once the statute of limitations has passed, that, if innocent, they would be more willing to talk about those sort of things.


NOTE: This is merely hypothetical and not meant to reflect my actual belief on whether they are innocent or not.

But that's just it, Sammie, if it is about the drug charges, it's because they dealt the drugs that possibly killed her. Can't have one without the other.
They aren't clamming up because they dealt/did a little drugs. THAT'S the others like ZO, HT, and all the other bit players. You have always said you thought it was an OD.Now it's up to JR and CR to start slinging the mud at each other, and find out who really did what.
People might say, well, Lauren chose to do what she consumed. But, these dealers need to realize that regardless, they have to take the fall when someone ODs on their stuff. And, if you're having a party and someone does drugs there and dies, it IS your responsibility. Everyone has choices, and when they make those bad choices and something bad happens, well, that's it for them.
Too many of these "kids" are getting the pity from people after the fact, and while I can see that it's a shame that their lives get screwed up for those bad choices, we have to start somewhere and crack down on the
super wild drinking and drugging--I thought I was wild but these "kids" are off the hook.

 

[deca]

If they were dealing drugs and even if it was to a small circle of friends (lets say an even dozen) I can't believe NONE of the dozen friends told LE after the fact.
There had to be people who knew about the dealing and who weren't involved that night. Why would they keep quiet? Admitting to buying some pills a couple years ago while in college is not going to get anyone in trouble (if they had nothing to do with LS that night). I don't think LE would blink an eye at that JMO.

What else could a witness to drug dealing be afraid of? Certainly not social stigma. My two younger BIL, who are about the same age as LS and also from an upper middle class lifestyle, got hooked on heroin and G-d knows what else. Luckily, they never ruined their lives. They got clean and are fairly normal mid 20 somethings. Their whole circle of acquaintances (and their parents!) knows who deals, who still smokes, who is sober, etc. There doesn't seem to be any stigma attached to any status at any time.

So if there were any rumors flying around about dealers/dealing being a key aspect of the case I wouldn't think there would be any barriers to someone telling LE.

 

[sammi89]

If they were dealing drugs and even if it was to a small circle of friends (lets say an even dozen) I can't believe NONE of the dozen friends told LE after the fact.
There had to be people who knew about the dealing and who weren't involved that night. Why would they keep quiet? Admitting to buying some pills a couple years ago while in college is not going to get anyone in trouble (if they had nothing to do with LS that night). I don't think LE would blink an eye at that JMO.

What else could a witness to drug dealing be afraid of? Certainly not social stigma. My two younger BIL, who are about the same age as LS and also from an upper middle class lifestyle, got hooked on heroin and G-d knows what else. Luckily, they never ruined their lives. They got clean and are fairly normal mid 20 somethings. Their whole circle of acquaintances (and their parents!) knows who deals, who still smokes, who is sober, etc. There doesn't seem to be any stigma attached to any status at any time.

So if there were any rumors flying around about dealers/dealing being a key aspect of the case I wouldn't think there would be any barriers to someone telling LE.

JR told them what he heard DR & LS had taken earlier in the night (cocaine + Klonopin).

DR is known to have talked to police and I would think that included any rumors he heard (or what they did even).

I would assume part of why JW jumped to conclusions so quickly and filed a missing persons report with the police is because of drug rumors he heard, especially in light of his parents' rude statements, and hopefully whatever he heard was told when he first went to the police too.

I also think that it's very possible people have come forward to investigators and told them they know that so-and-so was a dealer since, but I doubt we would know about any of that because if they weren't there that particular night it wouldn't really help much in proving anything until there is a body.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/02/missing-student-boyfriend-family-fume/2382909/ (source on JR telling investigators what he had heard about DR & LS)

 

[sammi89]

But that's just it, Sammie, if it is about the drug charges, it's because they dealt the drugs that possibly killed her. Can't have one without the other.
They aren't clamming up because they dealt/did a little drugs. THAT'S the others like ZO, HT, and all the other bit players. You have always said you thought it was an OD.Now it's up to JR and CR to start slinging the mud at each other, and find out who really did what.
People might say, well, Lauren chose to do what she consumed. But, these dealers need to realize that regardless, they have to take the fall when someone ODs on their stuff. And, if you're having a party and someone does drugs there and dies, it IS your responsibility. Everyone has choices, and when they make those bad choices and something bad happens, well, that's it for them.
Too many of these "kids" are getting the pity from people after the fact, and while I can see that it's a shame that their lives get screwed up for those bad choices, we have to start somewhere and crack down on the
super wild drinking and drugging--I thought I was wild but these "kids" are off the hook.

My hang-up was more if you put everything aside and say, "if these boys ARE innocent, why would they be so adamantly against talking to the Spierers/LE?PI?"

I know the biggest one is obviously that once you become a POI, you should lawyer up, which is a big reason not to talk, period, even if you are innocent.

The only other thing I can think of is that they want(ed) to avoid charges for their own illegal activity, some of which is known to be fact (giving alcohol to someone underage). If drugs were around, they might want to avoid those charges by not talking.

I get what you are saying, but what I am saying is if they weren't involved with the aftermath, then they wouldn't even know if she OD'd or someone else picked her up and did something to her. As in, they would not know, even if they had provided her something, that was actually a cause of death. In fact, to me, if they are innocent, they should be convinced that someone else did something to her because, according to their stories, she was alive and well enough to walk out the door.


I totally do get what you are saying and yes, it's hard to think about one without the other, especially since not talking because of dealing/doing a little drugs isn't as big of a deal as a possible OD. I'm not sure how that works with LE though - would they prosecute it anyway? They never did for the underage drinking and it appears nothing happened with DR either so it doesn't seem that likely? I don't know.

I was curious about the SOL only because after the chance of prosecution has passed for any other crimes, the motivation to not talk should decrease (if innocent). On the other hand, the more the Spierers zero in on them probably adds to them not wanting to talk.

 

[Ixchel13]

My hang-up was more if you put everything aside and say, "if these boys ARE innocent, why would they be so adamantly against talking to the Spierers/LE?PI?"

I know the biggest one is obviously that once you become a POI, you should lawyer up, which is a big reason not to talk, period, even if you are innocent.

The only other thing I can think of is that they want(ed) to avoid charges for their own illegal activity, some of which is known to be fact (giving alcohol to someone underage). If drugs were around, they might want to avoid those charges by not talking.

I get what you are saying, but what I am saying is if they weren't involved with the aftermath, then they wouldn't even know if she OD'd or someone else picked her up and did something to her. As in, they would not know, even if they had provided her something, that was actually a cause of death. In fact, to me, if they are innocent, they should be convinced that someone else did something to her because, according to their stories, she was alive and well enough to walk out the door.


I totally do get what you are saying and yes, it's hard to think about one without the other, especially since not talking because of dealing/doing a little drugs isn't as big of a deal as a possible OD. I'm not sure how that works with LE though - would they prosecute it anyway? They never did for the underage drinking and it appears nothing happened with DR either so it doesn't seem that likely? I don't know.

I was curious about the SOL only because after the chance of prosecution has passed for any other crimes, the motivation to not talk should decrease (if innocent). On the other hand, the more the Spierers zero in on them probably adds to them not wanting to talk.

if they get away with whatever they did, the likelihood of telling what happened later seems remote, but, the others, like HT and the rest, might just.
So many things could have happened. But it's definitely divided into half now: the CR phase and the JR phase. By letting MB off the hook for due care, in this civil case only, the judge is lending slight credibility that what MB is saying is true to a point. He left his apt with Lauren and dropped her off two doors down at JRs.
Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but using just the due care angle, in the civil court,the Spierers have left the arena wide open for a charge of murder. in regular court. Then, MB can be called as witness for the prosecution. Having been at JRs and going back and forth from there all evening, he will be able to tell them who was there, and what combo of drugs were being taken.
He owes it to the Spierers to do this, for being so lethally lazy as to not help someone who asked him to get her 2 blocks down the street. Let's don't paint this guy as a nice guy, he was the weakest link, now broken. We should actually track him--what new job he might be getting, money in his bank account suddenly growing, large purchases, this kind of thing.