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

[Jacobite]

I remember the part about jay mentioning the ID, but no one has ever said if/where the fake ID was found, as far as I know. (Except for the anonymous rumour in the HT that a searcher found it, but the details conflicted with other reports)

THat's why I'm curious about whether it was found - (I may have missed this...) I've always found it odd that Jay noticed and mentioned she had her fake id with her at his place, since she lost everything else and had no pockets.

Jay says she had the ID at his place. But the detective thinks she dropped it along with her key on the way in the LoHud video. Did she have the ID at Jay's?

 

[jkloc420]

Did they ever see if any of the suspects junked or got rid of any cars after these events took place. I find it odd no one seen any of the suspects leave the building or leave with anything. I have always found it odd that they all seem to be covering for each other. So what about the theory she called someone that called her boyfriend and he came and got her. Has that been disproven

 

[SeeingForThe1stTime]

Ok, let's pretend we are a new detective opening up a cold case: the case of
Lauren Spierer. Let's start at the beginning and go over every detail. It started with the boyfriend picking up her phone at a bar
and reporting her missing. Before I interview him (BF always key suspect) I want to go interview the employee who called him after he kept calling it.
I ask the employee where they found the phone. They saw it outside in the sand near a table. I ask which table. It's a table near the fence. I find out the afternoon staff found the phone just because they heard it ring, it was not sitting by the cash register after being found by the night staff. I realize that
someone involved in her disappearance could have easily thrown the phone over the fence and let it sit there until discovered.
If Kilroy's had stated that the night employee found Lauren's phone right where she was sitting, brought it up to the register for claiming later, and then the person on duty the next day heard it ringing from where it had been put away, then I would believe she left it there. But not using her phone for
over 2 hours? Her mother never says she left her phone at Kilroy's, she has
said that Lauren last used her phone from SW at 12:15. But she never says,
"Lauren last used her phone.....and then left it at Kilroy's."

But, why would anyone bother tossing it over the fence of Kilroys? What would be the purpose of doing that, I mean, they managed to get rid of a whole person, I think they could've gotten rid of cell phone without adding the possibility of being seen or on camera tossing the phone over the fence.

 

[SeeingForThe1stTime]

I've been reading up on head injuries and discovered a specific type called basilar skull fracture that presents with a black eye (although I realize she could've gotten a black eye any number of ways during any of the several falls) and that made me start wondering about the possibility that Lauren did crash out at JR's and was discovered expired from her head injuries LATER that morning. Do we know the time frame for all the surveillance video's LE pulled? It seems plausible that if the decision was made to disappear Lauren that they may have put her in a vehicle but then waited until later in the morning when they would be less conspicuous driving around. Could the timeline have been purposefully disrupted by JR saying she left at 4:15 to throw a wrench in the whole investigation?

basilar skull fracture link:
scroll down to the heading "When to go to A&E"

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/black-eye/Pages/Introduction.aspx

 

[SeeingForThe1stTime]

From what I'm getting from rereading the civil lawsuit is that the Spierer's believe that JR et al let Lauren leave in a state where she was unable to function and thus something happened to her - should we broaden our scope to others who may be involved after she "walked" away from JRs? I wonder who is shown on those cameras even if Lauren isn't? They could be involved, no? Maybe we can even expand our coverage of where cameras are located, not just the presumed way/s she may have taken, maybe branch out a little in each direction? Btown where r u?!

I'm with you on this, and I'd like to know the surveillance video time frames that they looked at as well (see my post above) maybe the times need to be expanded as well as the locations.

 

[Dixie811]

I think the Spierers have been realistic and truthful about the possibility that drugs were involved and that Lauren may have been given drugs with or without her knowledge. Based on their statements to the media and on Twitter about Lauren's condition, calling 911 and their pleas to others to be safe and call for help for others, I've always thought they probably did consider the overdose rumor a possibility. Just my impression though.

I agree with this completely. I won't go pull specific quotes right now, but IMO the Spierer's have been very realistic and upfront about the fact that Lauren and her friends were drinking and possibly using drugs on the night of June 2, 2011.

I have never felt that they were burying their heads in the sand regarding Lauren using illegal substances (even alcohol would have been illegal for her, as she was not 21).

In fact, the allegations of the civil suit are the closest they have come (IMO) to sounding straight-up accusatory toward the POI's for Lauren's incapacitated state-- & I feel that their real motivation for the suit is to find the truth, not to lay blame in a p**sing contest. Through Twitter postings and interviews I don't believe I have really heard the Spierer's blame others for Lauren's incapacitated state. The accusations I have heard are accusations of lying and hiding the truth; coupled with begging for answers.

JMO

ETA: I have been put under the impression that the Spierer's believe that an overdose is a real possibility. I have not had any personal conversations with Rob Spierer…. but that is certainly my impression from their statements and interviews. I agree with the poster who said it seems likely that the Spierer's would want to dispel the idea of an overdose if they did not believe it to be possible.

 

[AbbeyR]

Jay says she had the ID at his place. But the detective thinks she dropped it along with her key on the way in the LoHud video. Did she have the ID at Jay's?

Thanks Jacobite. I just listened to that part of the video again. You're right, they do say that she dropped "an ID card" along with her keys at that point. It's unclear whether they mean the fake ID or something else. It's also confusing about the keys vs. key card.

I've always thought there must be a reason why the fake ID / key detail was specifically mentioned by the PI's/ Jay (a year after Lauren went missing)... It makes me wonder if he was caught in a lie about this or if there is some other reason this could be significant...

 

[Kadence]

I'm with you on this, and I'd like to know the surveillance video time frames that they looked at as well (see my post above) maybe the times need to be expanded as well as the locations.

It's strange, but I just watched a recorded 48 Hours or Dateline episode that involved this very thing, it wasn't until a new investigator took over a case that the timeline was expanded, not just based on what witnesses/POIs shared, and they found the guilty party, it was a POI the previous investigators had focused on before but they couldn't pinpoint his involvement in the case during the timeline he gave, a little expansion and fresh eyes took less than a month to discover the POI had lied. It seemed so ridiculously simple to do but it didn't happen until a new investigator took over! BTW, the old investigators were very pleased and helped out with the new case against the POI. Sometimes it's good to look at things anew, with fresh eyes.

I would feel terrible if these 5N boys did not disappear Lauren as many of us think they did because a lot of us have been hammering away at them for a very long time. What I want from them, and ALL involved that evening, is to tell the truth and share their involvement in what happened that evening regarding Lauren. Tell the truth, you can do it, if it costs you something in the end, then you'll be better for it because you would have learned a hard lesson and bring your own self peace but, most importantly, you will bring Lauren's family peace, they not only need it, but deserve it. Do the right thing please.

 

[akh]

Why is there so much of a thought that the 5N PsOI haven't told the truth to investigators? We know that MB and JR have talked so it's a bit disingenuous to argue that they haven't at this point (although that point continues to be stated at times).

Clearly they should be high on the list of PsOI due to the circumstances of the night but why do the points keep coming up that they need to talk and tell the truth (as if we know for a fact they haven't)?

Is it because the parents clearly don't believe them (or are playing it as if they don't believe them) and thus that has been the media's sole focus (and so has then focused the public into this same thinking)?

Is it simply (some) people believe their guilt is so obvious that if they don't admit to it then they have to be lying?

Is it the 2nd and 3rd hand retellings from early reporting that don't perfectly line up now? But there were so many early mistakes in reporting and such a 'fog of war' how can we put that much weight on those early reports (especially when they aren't direct statements from the PsOI)?

Is it because CR seems to have been less than forthcoming as compared to the others that it's dragging them down too?

It just seems odd to me that there's so much effort put into the thought they need to talk and tell the truth when it's possible they've already done that and I don't know how we can think otherwise. There's a civil suit built around the info they've given and it's not tearing it apart but is instead taking it at face value.

Until I see some proof they are lying at best I have to take it as 50/50 which keeps other PsOI in play as well. I'm still not comfortable that JW has been cleared, particularly since the latest PI and parent's comments indicate questions that at least could imply his alibi cannot be rock solid.

And I'm very confused about Jacobite's comment that the parents don't think the OD scenario is in play any longer. I just don't know how they get there without either some major unreleased piece of the puzzle or else simply a leap in logic (if Jacobite's recollection of the conversation is accurate). They could assume she wouldn't do drugs so no OD is possible or that they are comfortable everyone would've called 911 if that had been the case. Otherwise, what else is there to come to that conclusion except some seriously gaping hole in the public narrative of what is thought to be known from that night?

 

[Dixie811]

To quote Rob Spierer from the 05/31/2013 interview with Fox…


"Anything is possible, there is a slim chance that there was an abduction. But I believe that Lauren's condition when she went to those apartments was so severe, it is very unlikely that she left. I can't say with certainty exactly what happened because there are possibilities that she did leave the apartment and was abducted."

I believe the Spierer's remain open-minded. But they seek answers from the 5N boys based on their knowledge of Lauren's condition (as seen on camera and by witnesses) when she arrived at 5N that night.

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

ETA: Whenever I post this link, it appears as though the link is broken. But click "Fox News" at the top bar of the box and it will work.

 

[Dixie811]

Regarding the overdose theory, this statement from Charlene is in the above interview as well. She does not use the word overdose but IMO she is referring to Lauren suffering from an overdose or a possible head injury due to her intoxicated state. This is just one example of similar statements by the Spierer's in interviews.

Interviewer: If she didn't leave those apartments, what do you think could have happened?

Charlene Spierer: Good question. I have a lot of questions I'd like to ask. I'd like to ask Corey, why didn't you take her to her apartment? Why didn't you call 911? Why didn't you get her help? Why didn't you just… you know, you could've gotten your roommate Mike Beth, who supposedly was completely sober working on a newspaper-- not a newspaper-- working on a report, he could have easily taken Lauren to a hospital. There were so many options that you had that you just chose not to take. So, I mean, we have read the reports…. we don't know what's truth and what's rumor. Supposedly Lauren fell back and hit her head on concrete. Supposedly she fell face flat on pavement going to Corey's apartment. Supposedly Corey was actually physically carrying her towards his apartment. That tells you Lauren was not in good shape and needed help. People saw Lauren's condition at Smallwood. We didn't see that video either but apparently people saw the video at Smallwood and Lauren was having a difficult time and Corey was helping her out of Smallwood. She needed help. It was completely, it was so obvious that Lauren needed help and they did nothing, nothing.

----

IMO, the Spierer's don't talk as though they feel Lauren's demise was the result of intentional harm by the POI's, but rather their failure to get her help for her deteriorating condition.

 

[AbbeyR]

Thanks Dixie. That's exactly the interview I was thinking of -- it's always stuck in my mind.

 

[AbbeyR]

Why is there so much of a thought that the 5N PsOI haven't told the truth to investigators? We know that MB and JR have talked so it's a bit disingenuous to argue that they haven't at this point (although that point continues to be stated at times).

Clearly they should be high on the list of PsOI due to the circumstances of the night but why do the points keep coming up that they need to talk and tell the truth (as if we know for a fact they haven't)?

Is it because the parents clearly don't believe them (or are playing it as if they don't believe them) and thus that has been the media's sole focus (and so has then focused the public into this same thinking)?

Is it simply (some) people believe their guilt is so obvious that if they don't admit to it then they have to be lying?

Is it the 2nd and 3rd hand retellings from early reporting that don't perfectly line up now? But there were so many early mistakes in reporting and such a 'fog of war' how can we put that much weight on those early reports (especially when they aren't direct statements from the PsOI)?

Is it because CR seems to have been less than forthcoming as compared to the others that it's dragging them down too?

It just seems odd to me that there's so much effort put into the thought they need to talk and tell the truth when it's possible they've already done that and I don't know how we can think otherwise. There's a civil suit built around the info they've given and it's not tearing it apart but is instead taking it at face value.

Well, one of the two involved in the civil case (Corey Rossman) hasn't said a single thing and has even seemingly backtracked on the one dubious claim made by his lawyer, that he has "amnesia". The few snippets we have from JR have some serious gaps and it's not clear how/whether his account matches up with MB's, and MB has given multiple and contradictory versions of his story. The closest we have to an 'official version' of a timeline and what happened is what has been pieced together by the Spierers' PI's.

When people have pointed to the contradictory stories and gaps in the POI's stories, including the misleading and contradictory information that has come from their own lawyers, you have written it off as noise, partly (I thought) because we have not heard from them directly and they have not given any official testimony in court. I think many people are hoping the POI will finally be compelled to talk -- as in cooperate and commit to a single cohesive version of events of what happened the night Lauren went missing.

And maybe they won't be able/ willing to do so.

Both will be telling, IMO.

 

[Jacobite]

It doesn't make sense that Jay would hide Lauren to get out of a drinking charge. And, her being missing certainly does not benefit him in the civil case either.

 

[Dixie811]

It doesn't make sense that Jay would hide Lauren to get out of a drinking charge. And, her being missing certainly does not benefit him in the civil case either.

BBM

I don't know if I am understanding exactly what you mean, so forgive me if I am interpreting your bolded comment wrong. I think that if Lauren expired in the presence of JR, particularly in the heat of the moment, things would seem much more dire to JR than a drinking charge. He may have been worried about much more serious charges such as involuntary manslaughter (IDK if such a charge would stick, but it is likely that JR didn't know either), being expelled from IU, losing future job opportunities, etc. Life as he knew it would certainly be shattered, IMO. I think in the mind of a college-aged guy, his (possibly still drunk/high) mind may have dramatized or exaggerated what would happen to him if Lauren was found to have been deceased in his apartment and/or in his presence.

JMO

 

[holly18]

BBM

I don't know if I am understanding exactly what you mean, so forgive me if I am interpreting your bolded comment wrong. I think that if Lauren expired in the presence of JR, particularly in the heat of the moment, things would seem much more dire to JR than a drinking charge. He may have been worried about much more serious charges such as involuntary manslaughter (IDK if such a charge would stick, but it is likely that JR didn't know either), being expelled from IU, losing future job opportunities, etc. Life as he knew it would certainly be shattered, IMO. I think in the mind of a college-aged guy, his (possibly still drunk/high) mind may have dramatized or exaggerated what would happen to him if Lauren was found to have been deceased in his apartment and/or in his presence.

JMO

I agree with you, Dixie. I just wanted to add that I think there is a very realistic possibility (perhaps almost a certainty) that more than alcohol was involved. If JR had given Lauren drugs, he would be in more trouble than just giving someone underage alcohol. Especially if JR is a dealer/involved more heavily in the drug scene, he would not have wanted to have the police looking into things. Especially late at night, when he was presumably still drunk/high at least a little, I would imagine that if he is involved in drugs at all the idea of calling the police and having them search his apartment and look into his activities would have made him panic.

 

[holly18]

Regarding the overdose theory, this statement from Charlene is in the above interview as well. She does not use the word overdose but IMO she is referring to Lauren suffering from an overdose or a possible head injury due to her intoxicated state. This is just one example of similar statements by the Spierer's in interviews.

Interviewer: If she didn't leave those apartments, what do you think could have happened?

Charlene Spierer: Good question. I have a lot of questions I'd like to ask. I'd like to ask Corey, why didn't you take her to her apartment? Why didn't you call 911? Why didn't you get her help? Why didn't you just… you know, you could've gotten your roommate Mike Beth, who supposedly was completely sober working on a newspaper-- not a newspaper-- working on a report, he could have easily taken Lauren to a hospital. There were so many options that you had that you just chose not to take. So, I mean, we have read the reports…. we don't know what's truth and what's rumor. Supposedly Lauren fell back and hit her head on concrete. Supposedly she fell face flat on pavement going to Corey's apartment. Supposedly Corey was actually physically carrying her towards his apartment. That tells you Lauren was not in good shape and needed help. People saw Lauren's condition at Smallwood. We didn't see that video either but apparently people saw the video at Smallwood and Lauren was having a difficult time and Corey was helping her out of Smallwood. She needed help. It was completely, it was so obvious that Lauren needed help and they did nothing, nothing.

----

IMO, the Spierer's don't talk as though they feel Lauren's demise was the result of intentional harm by the POI's, but rather their failure to get her help for her deteriorating condition.

Thank you for finding this, I remember reading this but couldn't remember Charlene's exact wording. IMO its clear that she thinks there is at least a very good chance that Lauren was intoxicated/had taken substances that put her in very bad shape and that the 5n boys did nothing to help her.

IMO thats a very realistic scenario, though I still struggle with the idea that three (or less or more) college guys who were probably far from sober have managed to keep her missing for so long. Especially since apparently they aren't on any security footage that implicates them (other than CR when he was with Lauren). I can't imagine that they knew where all the cameras in that area are, or that they were levelheaded to avoid cameras all together.

That is what sticks in my mind about this, my impression is that by all accounts (if they are responsible) these boys seem way more competent than I would think they'd be, or they got unbelievably (and awfully) lucky. I do wonder if they could have pulled this off themselves or if they had to have help from someone with more criminal knowledge, or if they are more involved in the drug scene than people know (ie if one or several of them was dealing, they might be aware of where the cameras were from earlier criminal activities)

One other situation I could see happening is that the boys were more responsible for Lauren's situation than she was, like if someone had roofied her or given her something without her knowledge/consent, or if while she was in bad condition they did something awful to her that would have been clearly discoverable if they had called 911. Then they would have a substantial amount of interest in keeping whatever happened from being discovered since they would be facing more than negligence/drug charges.

I also think it might be possible that maybe Cory couldn't carry lauren the rest of the way to 5n, or he realized that if he got caught carrying an unconscious/incapacitated girl with visible injuries (from hitting her head and falling) he would be in trouble and he left her in the alley to go get help. If MB and JR refused to help/stalled/for whatever reason took a substantial amount of time to go help Cory get lauren to the house and by the time they got back she had either been taken or had passed, they might all want to protect themselves by making up their stories. I don't necessarily think this scenario would be strong enough to keep them all quiet/hold them together, but it could be possible when coupled with other events from that night?

I'm not sure if that makes sense to anyone but me, but I thought it might be worth discussing if people are interested

 

[holly18]

If we take Jacobite's statement at face value then it should be a game-changer of sorts and negate many theories and even comments made to the press like the one posted by Charlene Spierer and would require a recent followup. Of course it would depend on when Jacobite claims to have been told that as well I suppose. I'm taking it that was more recent.

I'm still not quite sure what to make of it.

There is another possibility I am now thinking about. The civil suit isn't about 5N making her disappear directly. Their own atty has said it's a search for answers, basically saying they are using the system to get 5N PsOI under oath and talking so they can find out what really happened. BUT the lawsuit is written like it takes them at their word that she left 5N which would then rule out any OD there. So maybe they've made the decision that publicly talking about any OD scenarios before that moment could be detrimental to the case in the court of public opinion and poison the judge or jury pool. IOW, they can't have it both ways. They can't say she OD'd and they hid the body and also say (and sue for) them allowing her to leave in an unprotected and intoxicated state. So they've decided to change the public narrative for the sake of the strength of the case (and thus their leverage).

That could explain why Jacobite would be told what was claimed she/he was told.

What I kept coming back to is for the OD theory to be disproven it would either mean they know she wasn't using or given drugs, or there must be some evidence that indicates she actually left 5N. There's no other way I can think to disprove the OD scenario (short of someone telling them exactly what happened, and if that was the case things would be going much differently you'd assume). But, then it struck me that the lawsuit is saying she left 5N just as claimed. They need that part to be true, or appear true as the case may be, for the rest of the lawsuit to have any merit as written. Which could then mean Jacobite being told the OD theory has long been disproven is just making Jacobite a pawn to help spread that story.

Is there another scenario I'm overlooking for them to say the OD scenario had long be disproven?

Jacobite?

What I find confusing about that is that Charlene has pretty directly discussed the possibility that lauren OD'd and the boys didn't help her. She didn't specifically say OD but IMO it was very clear from what she said that she was talking about her ODing without using the word OD. if they did want to contradict that I don't think telling one person that an OD has been ruled out would cancel out what Charlene said live on TV in a televised interview, and afaik nobody else has been told by the spierers that an OD has been ruled out. They've done interviews since then and Charlene has a twitter plus the facebook page, wouldn't it be faster/more thorough to say something using an interview or social media account instead of word of mouth? I'm not sure what to make of it, Jacobite is there any way that you could have misunderstood what Rob said, or that he mispoke? Do you know if he's told other people the same thing? (sorry for all the questions!) I also don't know how much changing public perception about the possibility of an OD would help their court case.

I think their strategy for the law suit is essentially to give the boys enough rope to hang themselves with (pardon the expression). What the spierers are saying in the law suit (IMO) is basically "We'll take you at your word about what happened, now you need to explain it in more detail and justify letting her leave". I think they're probably hoping that the boys will still have holes in their stories/their explanations won't make sense. The lawsuit is based on what the boys have said is the truth, if it is actually the truth then they should be able to explain the chain of events and their thought processes and if they can't do that I think its going to be very telling. They might slip up enough to give the police a new lead, or one of them might crack under the pressure.

 

[Jacobite]

It's said that Zachery Oakes tried to to get Corey Rossman to take Lauren to her room when they were on her floor in Smallwood.
Had he only done this, she would be alive today. But, she was in no condition to go out again. She fell and hit her head 3 or 4 times. Were these head injuries fatal? Or, just bruises? We don't know because Corey refused help from the only witness who is not a POI.
She may have walked out of JR's. But, who got her? Is it one of the POIs who claims to have been in bed? Or, someone else partying late that night in the area?

I'm thinking the odds of her leaving Jay's and being assaulted are quite a bit higher than the 25 percent I have assigned them.

 

[Kadence]

Why is there so much of a thought that the 5N PsOI haven't told the truth to investigators? We know that MB and JR have talked so it's a bit disingenuous to argue that they haven't at this point (although that point continues to be stated at times).

Clearly they should be high on the list of PsOI due to the circumstances of the night but why do the points keep coming up that they need to talk and tell the truth (as if we know for a fact they haven't)?

Is it because the parents clearly don't believe them (or are playing it as if they don't believe them) and thus that has been the media's sole focus (and so has then focused the public into this same thinking)?

Is it simply (some) people believe their guilt is so obvious that if they don't admit to it then they have to be lying?

Is it the 2nd and 3rd hand retellings from early reporting that don't perfectly line up now? But there were so many early mistakes in reporting and such a 'fog of war' how can we put that much weight on those early reports (especially when they aren't direct statements from the PsOI)?

Is it because CR seems to have been less than forthcoming as compared to the others that it's dragging them down too?

It just seems odd to me that there's so much effort put into the thought they need to talk and tell the truth when it's possible they've already done that and I don't know how we can think otherwise. There's a civil suit built around the info they've given and it's not tearing it apart but is instead taking it at face value.

Until I see some proof they are lying at best I have to take it as 50/50 which keeps other PsOI in play as well. I'm still not comfortable that JW has been cleared, particularly since the latest PI and parent's comments indicate questions that at least could imply his alibi cannot be rock solid.

And I'm very confused about Jacobite's comment that the parents don't think the OD scenario is in play any longer. I just don't know how they get there without either some major unreleased piece of the puzzle or else simply a leap in logic (if Jacobite's recollection of the conversation is accurate). They could assume she wouldn't do drugs so no OD is possible or that they are comfortable everyone would've called 911 if that had been the case. Otherwise, what else is there to come to that conclusion except some seriously gaping hole in the public narrative of what is thought to be known from that night?

Hi akh - my post not only mentioned the 5N crew but asked anyone involved with Lauren that evening to tell the truth. I think some truth has been told by those who have spoken but not the whole truth. I have not ruled out any of the others involved with Lauren that evening/morning, not even DR (sorry all - sometimes it's those you least suspect! After ) or an abduction by a predator.

Maybe, in a court of law, by having them take the oath "Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" with the fear of a perjury charge, which I believe is a felony and carries a prison sentence, if they don't, something will be said to find Lauren.

LE, I'm sure, knows a lot more than we all do on WS but I think it's worth it to reach out to anyone (involved or not - maybe a passerby who thinks they may have seen/heard something) who may be reading in hopes that it may help bring Lauren home.

What do you think happened to Lauren? I know your position, and it's appreciated as it's very helpful to keep things in perspective, but I would like to know what you think.