IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #32

[Ixchel13]

Looks like there has finally been some movement:

The Spierers' request to seal evidence has officially been denied. Apparently it was too broad and didn't specify what would qualify.

http://fox59.com/2014/03/20/judge-d...ence-in-lauren-spierer-lawsuit/#axzz2wXFMiSv0

Regardless of that outcome, I hope the Spierers discover at least some valuable information soon!

Maybe I'm way off base but IMO it's better they request this sealing of evidence first and be denied rather than the defendants doing so and being granted. Now, everything can be put on the table.

 

[1&2&3]

Oh my, the Spierer's have been thru so much and still no answers, no Lauren! I followed this case close to two years in the beginning! May this lawsuit bring them the only answer they seek - the location of Lauren!

CR is the weak link! His story of amnesia raised red flags immediately. To begin with, that is lawyer talk and not in his age group's vocabulary. As time has passed, he has taken so much slack over that, it has become a sore spot with him! The lawyer IMO thought amnesia sounded much better than drunk/blackout. It has always been interesting to me where they came up with the 15 minute time frame that CR doesn't remember? 15 minutes, really?!

Going forward, it will be telling what comes out at deposition. CR, IMO, will be given an anxiety pill to calm him down. He is terrified of talking to anyone other than his lawyer. He knows he cannot continue telling his story when confronted face-to-face. Some people are just not good liars and I think that is CR!

This is all my opinion.

 

[kpeacock]

Maybe I'm way off base but IMO it's better they request this sealing of evidence first and be denied rather than the defendants doing so and being granted. Now, everything can be put on the table.

I'm still somewhat perplexed by the request to seal evidence (and destroy it after the case.) What is the general feeling here - are the Spierers trying to protect their family name from something? Or were they trying to offer the boys some protection, hoping they'd be more forthcoming? Is it a specific piece of evidence the prosecution doesn't want to turn over before trial? Or normal just legal process stuff (as described above, a calculated move)?

I guess time will tell, but I'm eager to hear more from those with any insight. Also, what's an expected time frame for the trial - months? Years?

 

[akh]

I'm still somewhat perplexed by the request to seal evidence (and destroy it after the case.) What is the general feeling here - are the Spierers trying to protect their family name from something? Or were they trying to offer the boys some protection, hoping they'd be more forthcoming? Is it a specific piece of evidence the prosecution doesn't want to turn over before trial? Or normal just legal process stuff (as described above, a calculated move)?

I guess time will tell, but I'm eager to hear more from those with any insight. Also, what's an expected time frame for the trial - months? Years?

5N might believe there is mitigating evidence when things are taking in the totality so they would want that in the public eye.

Or...

I don't believe LE is probably supporting this civil case. So the Spierers could've been trying to preserve evidence for LE. Meanwhile the 5N attorneys could've called them on trying to have their cake and eat it too so now the Spierers will have to decide if there is evidence they don't want to present because it could potentially harm the LE criminal investigation if it went public. IOW, instead of just presenting anything and everything, now they will need to think about what each piece of evidence they might present could do to the criminal case. Anything they'd decide to keep in their pocket is one less thing that 5N would have to defend against.

 

[sammi89]

I'm still somewhat perplexed by the request to seal evidence (and destroy it after the case.) What is the general feeling here - are the Spierers trying to protect their family name from something? Or were they trying to offer the boys some protection, hoping they'd be more forthcoming? Is it a specific piece of evidence the prosecution doesn't want to turn over before trial? Or normal just legal process stuff (as described above, a calculated move)?

I guess time will tell, but I'm eager to hear more from those with any insight. Also, what's an expected time frame for the trial - months? Years?

IMO, I would think that it is in part to protect LS' reputation. There have been rumors have from the start about voluntary drug use. IIRC, the Spierers' have never publicly confirmed any voluntary drug use, but have sidestepped the issue. They might also want to protect anyone who has actually stepped forward because so few have.

IMO, the Spierers' aren't too concerned about the boys. They have noted their frustration with them publicly many times. Of course, it could have been them trying to compromise, but I personally doubt it because the boys opposed the request.

IMO, evidence a prosecutor and/or LE may have isn't playing a huge role in the civil case. My guess is their evidence will be limited to what is already publicly known, what their PI has dug up, and maybe anything LE has given their blessing on. If anything, IMO, LE may keep an eye on the civil case in case there is any useful information that may help their own investigation. However, what might be super useful in a civil case might be less helpful in a criminal case because of the higher burden of proof. I agree with your last sentiment: time will tell.

Hopefully the end result will clear up at least some of the inconsistencies and paint a more precise picture of that night, which IMO is what the Spierers are really looking for anyway.

What is your opinion?

 

[AbbeyR]

I'm still somewhat perplexed by the request to seal evidence (and destroy it after the case.) What is the general feeling here - are the Spierers trying to protect their family name from something? Or were they trying to offer the boys some protection, hoping they'd be more forthcoming? Is it a specific piece of evidence the prosecution doesn't want to turn over before trial? Or normal just legal process stuff (as described above, a calculated move)?

I guess time will tell, but I'm eager to hear more from those with any insight. Also, what's an expected time frame for the trial - months? Years?

Sounds like normal legal process stuff to me:

The family's attorney, Jason Ross Barclay, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he regarded the protective order as routine and a minor issue in the case. More important, he said, was that Magistrate Judge Tim Baker had ordered both sides to begin the routine process of turning over evidence to each other so that no secrets are kept.

Rosenbaum and Rossman had previously tried to delay that process, saying some of the information disclosed might tend to incriminate them, but Baker on Jan. 31 said the men hadn't proven that would happen and he ordered the process to proceed.

Baker said the process needs to move on, even though it may not answer all the questions about Lauren Spierer's disappearance. (BBM)

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/...quest-to-judge-to-exclude-private-information

I'm also wondering about the expected time frame...

 

[sammi89]

Sounds like normal legal process stuff to me:

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/...quest-to-judge-to-exclude-private-information

I'm also wondering about the expected time frame...

Good catch. I'm always impressed with how much you seem to remember! Also glad that it doesn't seem like the Spierers will be too hung up on the denial.

I'm not sure on the time frame either, but I think it is difficult to predict. I would be surprised if it was anytime soon unless there is a dismissal or settlement though.

 

[Dixie811]

Good catch. I'm always impressed with how much you seem to remember! Also glad that it doesn't seem like the Spierers will be too hung up on the denial.

I'm not sure on the time frame either, but I think it is difficult to predict. I would be surprised if it was anytime soon unless there is a dismissal or settlement though.

IMO, I don't think the Spierer's will settle. What they hope to gain from this suit is not to be awarded some monetary prize at the end because the courts decided the Spierer's are in the "right" and CR/JR are in the wrong. I believe the Spierer's want to go through this entire process to glean whatever information possible from these young men and other witnesses. In the end, I don't think they care whether they win or lose this suit at all.

But that's all just MOO/speculation.

 

[Tugela]

I'm still somewhat perplexed by the request to seal evidence (and destroy it after the case.) What is the general feeling here - are the Spierers trying to protect their family name from something? Or were they trying to offer the boys some protection, hoping they'd be more forthcoming? Is it a specific piece of evidence the prosecution doesn't want to turn over before trial? Or normal just legal process stuff (as described above, a calculated move)?

I guess time will tell, but I'm eager to hear more from those with any insight. Also, what's an expected time frame for the trial - months? Years?

Well, what will happen, if they try to drag these two guys through the mud, mud will probably come up on their daughter in the process as well. That is what they want sealed, just in case. But since they don't know what might come up, they can't specify it, or say how it might be damaging.

As I understand it, these guys were drunk as well, plus LS was an adult, so why would they have a duty of care? They were not responsible for her, they were not her guardians, nor were they professionals. So I don't see how the Spierers can have a case.

 

[Ixchel13]

IMO, I don't think the Spierer's will settle. What they hope to gain from this suit is not to be awarded some monetary prize at the end because the courts decided the Spierer's are in the "right" and CR/JR are in the wrong. I believe the Spierer's want to go through this entire process to glean whatever information possible from these young men and other witnesses. In the end, I don't think they care whether they win or lose this suit at all.

But that's all just MOO/speculation.

I think they very much want to win for Lauren, but don't care about the $$$.
Maybe Akh can answer this: am I right in saying they are suing for duty of care now, and LE can also try them for murder later?

 

[Ixchel13]

Well, what will happen, if they try to drag these two guys through the mud, mud will probably come up on their daughter in the process as well. That is what they want sealed, just in case. But since they don't know what might come up, they can't specify it, or say how it might be damaging.

As I understand it, these guys were drunk as well, plus LS was an adult, so why would they have a duty of care? They were not responsible for her, they were not her guardians, nor were they professionals. So I don't see how the Spierers can have a case.

Well the Devil's in the details, you see. It's not just about alcohol. Someone dealt drugs--as we have been discussing in detail. My guess is that JR
dealt the klonopin to DR and LS and everybody knew it.
Every drug dealer needs to know that they are absolutely responsible for
absolutely every bad thing that happens to anybody who buys their drugs, regardless if the buyer is an adult and should know better.
It comes with the territory. They aren't doctors, and they can't know all of the interactions that could kill someone. Have you ever heard of a drug dealer selling someone valium and then saying, "now remember, don't drink anything with tonic water in it when you take these!" And yet, Karen Quinlin went into an unrecoverable coma from taking a valium and drinking 2 gin and tonics.
Except for pot, all other dealers are scumbags. Very rare to OD on pot,
mixing it with too much alcohol just makes someone throw up which they would probably need to do anyway to avoid a hangover.
But the pill snorting is dangerous and I say throw the book at anyone caught dealing them. People just don't understand that they can't snort lines of these crushed pills like cocaine. It's too strong, and that's why they are blacking out and ODing. These college kids are just beginning to wake up to this fact.

 

[Ixchel13]

and I wouldn't be surprised if there was some adderall over at JR's as well.
MB prolly created the paper due scenario so he could have an excuse for
running to and fro or if eventually someone comes forward and says they saw him out and about around the time Lauren left JR's. That would be, he had to write a paper, so he needed adderall, and then he couldn't sleep so he took a walk to make himself tired. Because the writing of the paper is just total b.s. Not that there wasn't a paper due, he just wasn't working on it that night IMO.

 

[sammi89]

I think they very much want to win for Lauren, but don't care about the $$$.
Maybe Akh can answer this: am I right in saying they are suing for duty of care now, and LE can also try them for murder later?

Agreed, although I'm not even sure they would be torn up if they lost as long as it results in the 5N boys actually giving their recollections of that night.

I'm not akh but yes, they can. Criminal and civil are totally separate.

 

[sammi89]

Well, what will happen, if they try to drag these two guys through the mud, mud will probably come up on their daughter in the process as well. That is what they want sealed, just in case. But since they don't know what might come up, they can't specify it, or say how it might be damaging.

As I understand it, these guys were drunk as well, plus LS was an adult, so why would they have a duty of care? They were not responsible for her, they were not her guardians, nor were they professionals. So I don't see how the Spierers can have a case.

Thinking of dram shop acts might help you understand why they might be liable. The Spierers are likely to argue LS was provided with alcohol by JR and CR when she was clearly intoxicated - it's enough to probably allow them to continue arguing in court. IMO, they really just want answers to the questions they were asking from day 1. It's not about having the winning argument.

I am guessing most of the negative stuff on LS is already well-known anyway. Check any comments on articles published about LS. Anything that might come up will probably just refute or confirm what many have suspected for awhile.

 

[akh]

I think they very much want to win for Lauren, but don't care about the $$$.
Maybe Akh can answer this: am I right in saying they are suing for duty of care now, and LE can also try them for murder later?

The civil suit and any potential criminal case are separate. Double jeopardy won't attach no matter the outcome of the civil case. But should the Spierers lose the civil case it could taint the jury pool for a potential criminal trial in the future so it could have a negative impact on a prosecutor's decision to move forward. Of course new evidence coming to light during the civil suit could work the other way and help the prosecutor make his case. But the most likely scenario IMO is the 5N guys will say nothing that hasn't already been said, if even that much, even if it means they lose the civil case because that tactic hampers their defense. Unless there is just some slam-dunk mitigating evidence we haven't heard. Otherwise I predict the attorneys will fight this out with pre-trial motions looking to get the suit dismissed or handcuffed to the point of weakening it as much as humanly possible before it goes to court. Probably moreso than a normal case because of the stakes.

But when it gets down to it they will choose the odds of losing the civil case over giving any fuel to a potential criminal case. IMO. Unless there's a a deal offered by the prosecutor then I don't see much of a chance anyone would crack at this point. And to 'crack' in the civil case would just open you up for criminal prosecution yourself. So there's little to gain by splitting from the other 3. And technically, pre-trial work has already gotten MB removed from the civil suit so that reduces leverage even more. But really if you think about it, who is going to crack to save their bank account when that same crack causes you to lose your own freedom and serves you and the others up on a silver platter for the prosecutor?

That's why the civil suit has always been a hail Mary as far as solving this case goes.

 

[sammi89]

But should the Spierers lose the civil case it could taint the jury pool for a potential criminal trial in the future so it could have a negative impact on a prosecutor's decision to move forward.

Snipped by me for space.

There are a few methods available to ensure that the jury pool won't be tainted regardless of how the civil case turns out, like weeding out potential jurors who are clearly not neutral or a change of venue if it is really necessary.

 

[Ixchel13]

The civil suit and any potential criminal case are separate. Double jeopardy won't attach no matter the outcome of the civil case. But should the Spierers lose the civil case it could taint the jury pool for a potential criminal trial in the future so it could have a negative impact on a prosecutor's decision to move forward. Of course new evidence coming to light during the civil suit could work the other way and help the prosecutor make his case. But the most likely scenario IMO is the 5N guys will say nothing that hasn't already been said, if even that much, even if it means they lose the civil case because that tactic hampers their defense. Unless there is just some slam-dunk mitigating evidence we haven't heard. Otherwise I predict the attorneys will fight this out with pre-trial motions looking to get the suit dismissed or handcuffed to the point of weakening it as much as humanly possible before it goes to court. Probably moreso than a normal case because of the stakes.

But when it gets down to it they will choose the odds of losing the civil case over giving any fuel to a potential criminal case. IMO. Unless there's a a deal offered by the prosecutor then I don't see much of a chance anyone would crack at this point. And to 'crack' in the civil case would just open you up for criminal prosecution yourself. So there's little to gain by splitting from the other 3. And technically, pre-trial work has already gotten MB removed from the civil suit so that reduces leverage even more. But really if you think about it, who is going to crack to save their bank account when that same crack causes you to lose your own freedom and serves you and the others up on a silver platter for the prosecutor?

That's why the civil suit has always been a hail Mary as far as solving this case goes.

thanks, akh! I hope MB doesn't think he's done. He better stop and think about this, because now he's wide open for the 5N attys to hint, cast doubt upon, or even outright accuse him to take attn. away from their clients. He doesn't have an alibi, could it even be possible that's why CR is claiming
blackout amnesia? He's being dismissed from this case because he didn't serve Lauren anything. But he was awake, and knew the situation, and knew she was trying to walk home. Easy to station himself right in the shadows of a walkway between the houses right around that corner and drag, or even cajole, Lauren into the walkway. IMO, if we are going to blame someone for harming Lauren, he is just as suspect. Why do people think he is a nice guy, because he lied about working on a paper when everyone else was partying? IMO, he was the one who asked Lauren if she wanted to party, and as he has stated, she turned down an offer to stay over there and wanted to go home. But, he wouldn't do that--why not? After all, according to him, he was sober and awake. 3 min. to Smallwood.
.

 

[akh]

Snipped by me for space.

There are a few methods available to ensure that the jury pool won't be tainted regardless of how the civil case turns out, like weeding out potential jurors who are clearly not neutral or a change of venue if it is really necessary.

The point was, once that scenario exists you risk LE and the prosecutor losing interest in pursuing the case beyond an absolute slam dunk scenario that might develop. Plus, this case is certainly well-known throughout Indiana so moving it a couple of counties away would be pointless. It's not that you absolutely can't find a tainted jury, it's that it becomes difficult to the point of deciding not to try.

 

[sammi89]

The point was, once that scenario exists you risk LE and the prosecutor losing interest in pursuing the case beyond an absolute slam dunk scenario that might develop. Plus, this case is certainly well-known throughout Indiana so moving it a couple of counties away would be pointless. It's not that you absolutely can't find a tainted jury, it's that it becomes difficult to the point of deciding not to try.

I understood your point. My point was that it isn't a big deal, or at least, it shouldn't be.

LE & the prosecution will base their decision to pursue criminal charges based on evidence. If they have a case, they will pursue it, regardless of the civil case.

As for it being well-known throughout Indiana, so what? Plenty of cases have had strong opinions on one or both parties. Weed them out. Change venues. Even if some jurors are aware, have the judge explicitly instruct them on what they are to evaluate the case on. See Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman, etc. etc. where there were concerns about finding a neutral jury.

http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/20...media-casey-anthony’s-jury-consultant-speaks/
- Casey Anthony's team on jury selection.

Besides, if LE has not shared any of their evidence, whatever the Spierers are arguing their case on is no reflection of whatever LE has or does not have.

I really don't get why the Spierers are getting flack for doing what they think is necessary to find their missing daughter. These boys aren't talking. Of course this is a last ditch effort to try to force the issue. If they don't talk, it changes nothing and IMO, it won't change have any noticeable effect on the criminal aspect.

 

[sammi89]

thanks, akh! I hope MB doesn't think he's done. He better stop and think about this, because now he's wide open for the 5N attys to hint, cast doubt upon, or even outright accuse him to take attn. away from their clients. He doesn't have an alibi, could it even be possible that's why CR is claiming
blackout amnesia? He's being dismissed from this case because he didn't serve Lauren anything. But he was awake, and knew the situation, and knew she was trying to walk home. Easy to station himself right in the shadows of a walkway between the houses right around that corner and drag, or even cajole, Lauren into the walkway. IMO, if we are going to blame someone for harming Lauren, he is just as suspect. Why do people think he is a nice guy, because he lied about working on a paper when everyone else was partying? IMO, he was the one who asked Lauren if she wanted to party, and as he has stated, she turned down an offer to stay over there and wanted to go home. But, he wouldn't do that--why not? After all, according to him, he was sober and awake. 3 min. to Smallwood.
.

I have wondered about MB before. Back when he was "writing his paper" he always appeared to be the most sober out of the group at the time. His story seems to change a lot too. I wouldn't be shocked. Then again, if the 5N stories were less sketchy, I wouldn't be shocked if it was a random sexual predator.