IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #32
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
- Status
<modsnip> the reality is typically different.
Edit: I still don't think you're getting my point. As I said, of course they can seat a jury, eventually, in a potential criminal case. The judge can issue instructions to the jurors, etc.. But the civil case risks resetting the bar for LE and the state for what it would take to bring charges and have a successful conclusion to their case.
The other side of the coin is nothing much else seems to be happening so they must feel the risk is worth it.
But also, this becomes Exhibit A that attorneys will point to telling their clients not to talk at all in any cases like these in the future.
Do you have any links to support that is how the system works in reality as opposed to your opinion on how the system works? Thanks in advance!
Can you also please explain why you think the civil case would "reset" the bar for LE to bring charges? I don't follow. LE has their own investigation with their own evidence. If they have enough to charge, they can charge, regardless of the civil suit.
You've mentioned the "Exhibit A" opinion before and while I agree it's smart to sometimes take that approach, I still disagree with it as a blanket statement, but I'm fine agreeing to disagree.
Sorry to quote myself. My original post was referring to acquaintances of the POI's who may have heard second-hand accounts of June 2 and 3, 2011 back in 2011. College friends and high school friends, etc.
Now that we are talking about the civil suit, that brings up a whole new crop of people who my have been told an account or partial account of that evening. People that have entered the POI's lives since this all happened and perhaps never really discussed it with them, but have been compelled to inquire about the case due to the civil suit and the media that comes along with it.
Now that CR and JR (and previously MB) are defendants in a civil suit, I imagine they are facing a few raised eyebrows/questions from employers/co-workers, significant others and the young lady's family (I don't actually know if they have girlfriends or not), friends they have met and become close to in the past few years, etc.
Of course, they would be advised by their attorneys not to speak with anyone regarding the case or the current civil suit. That is just common sense. But we have already seen CR shoot his mouth off a bit in the most recent media article quoting him potentially denying the amnesia story.
I don't doubt that these boys have been pressured into giving at least a brief account of the night Lauren disappeared to a girl they were dating ("how can I trust you if I don't know everything that happened that night!" okay.. I'm using my imagination here) or to a potential employer who wants to know that his employee will not be one of poor character whom he can expect to be arrested? If it were me, I would probably crack and talk a little bit about it to a few select people. I feel sure that they wouldn't say anything incriminating, but again small details could make a big difference! Any communication with the media/Spierer's since very early on (save CR's fairly recent blow-up to the reporter) has been filtered through their attorneys. Would love to know what exact details they 'recall' more recently without their attorney around.
It is common knowledge. I'm not sure where'd you go to find a link about it but I have little doubt if you are specific enough with the details you could get the info from any atty.
Because once the evidence is in the news, particularly from a court setting, then the prosecution needs to consider their own evidence in light of prevailing public opinion about the case. It will become harder to trust a jury is truly unbiased and hasn't been prejudiced by prior knowledge of the case. The random rumors and reports are one thing to overcome, but reporting from actual court hearings are another. That's one side of it. Another side of it is info going public too soon that simply harms the criminal investigation and lets suspects know they are really suspects and what trails have been uncovered.
Let alone if the defendants would prevail in a civil setting and the prosecution have that PR hurdle to leap over.
Obviously, if LE was to find the smoking gun and have a slam dunk then the civil trial would matter little at all. But if it remains a murky, connect the dots kind of case then the civil trial can certainly hurt that as much or more than it could ever help.
We can agree to disagree. FWIW, I'm not sure why the reply above to you got a mod-snip. If you saw it prior to the mod-snip then you know what it said and if you didn't, don't think it was attacking you. It was just disagreeing with you. The mod-snip makes it look like there was something said in anger there.
It is my understanding that they do exactly what I have said before re jury selection, change of venue, etc. etc. Our system has these in place for exactly these types of situations. Again, if it is common knowledge that the system doesn't work that way in reality, you should be able to support with links. Otherwise, it seems more like opinion on how the prosecutor would evaluate going forward. If so, I respect your opinion on it but IMO, the civil case tainting a jury pool for a criminal investigation will not be a major issue if the prosecution has enough evidence to convict.
I am still of the opinion that anything to do with the civil case would maybe be one factor in a decision to go forward, if anything. The evidence should do all the talking. I'm not even sure that the civil case would necessarily be covering the same arguments the criminal case might eventually argue, depending on what actually did happen to LS. The civil case would be saying there was no duty, if it goes that route. That wouldn't preclude murder or hiding a body, if they are responsible for that. If mitigating evidence comes out during the civil case for the 5N POIs, great! The Spierers can finally put their resources elsewhere. Regardless, jury selection and juror instructions should go far in mitigating whatever opinions are out there on the civil case, whichever way it goes.
IMO, this is completely remote speculation on what could or might happen down the road and if it is truly common knowledge that the juror pool would be tainted to such a degree that LS wouldn't receive proper justice even with enough evidence to convict, the Spierers' attorneys should have informed them of this beforehand and IMO they would not follow through with it. I just don't see it ruining the criminal investigation. I think we clearly have opposite opinions on the matter, which is fine.
Sammi89,
You are missing the point of what I am saying and I don't know how to say it differently.
As for providing links, I figured it would be hard to find search terms that weren't too vague and plus I've already said what I am saying is common knowledge so there wasn't a whole lot of reason for me to try and hit on proper search terms and sort thru a multitude of vague hits to say what I'm already saying. But I did a search for "Does a civil trial harm a criminal trial" and this was the first hit (lol go figure!):
http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/justice/hs.xsl/17234.htm
You are missing the point of what I am saying and I don't know how to say it differently.
As for providing links, I figured it would be hard to find search terms that weren't too vague and plus I've already said what I am saying is common knowledge so there wasn't a whole lot of reason for me to try and hit on proper search terms and sort thru a multitude of vague hits to say what I'm already saying. But I did a search for "Does a civil trial harm a criminal trial" and this was the first hit (lol go figure!):
http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/justice/hs.xsl/17234.htm
I still disagree that it is common knowledge that civil case would harm a criminal case to the degree you have said. Nothing in that link said a civil trial would reset the bar for the prosecution or taint a jury. If anything, the defense might get some information on the victim to use during a criminal trial, but IMO, in LS' case given the rumors, that is probably always going to be a concern regardless of the civil trial. If there is risk to the criminal investigation, the prosecution can step in and request a stay.
The link you provided really seemed to say a prosecutor would prefer that a civil case come after the criminal. That wasn't possible here. The statute of limitations was almost up.
However, the link did seem to support that the two (civil attorney + prosecutor) should work together and pointed to examples of how a civil attorney may assist a prosecutor, especially because of the investigative resources the civil attorney might have - specifically stating that in one case the civil attorney unearthed key witnesses who hadn't spoken to LE, which was passed on to the prosecutor and used to secure a murder conviction. I think something like that in LS' case would be awesome.
If the prosecution is really worried that it will harm the criminal investigation or expose the government's case, they can request a stay. They haven't (yet, anyway).
http://www.skv.com/default/File/csmysercase.108.pdf
Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations Standard 2.31 Conducting Parallel Civil And Criminal Investigations
http://www.americanbar.org/publicat...ive/crimjust_standards_pinvestigate.html#2.13
I understand your points, but I don't think this is correct. The criminal justice system does not make decisions based off of civil suits. Now, if the spierers were suing for wrongful death, with the active participation of LE, that would be one thing. That isn't what they're doing. Prosecutors do not "lose interest" in cases, they fight the cases where they have a reasonable idea that they may win. The Spierers case, no matter the outcome, could provide answers or information. The prosecutors and LE are not going to look at this case and decide "well, the civil suit about duty of care wasn't successful, so I don't wanna try this case". If they did do that, they'd be up for misconduct charges immediately.
The fact is, Lauren is missing and has not been found after almost three years. She didn't wander away on her own, she didn't hide her own body. Someone else (or multiple people) were responsible for this, and that is a criminal offense.
Civil suits in absolutely no way "set the bar for LE", that is why there are civil suits and criminal suits. They are different types of legal action and they do not necessarily impact each other.
Sorry if this comes off as harsh, but I'm in law school and can't stand to see this kind of misinformation put forth. The Spierers are doing what they can to bring information to light. At worst, they won't win. Lauren is still missing and somebody is still responsible. At best, they find out something new or trap somebody in a lie. They are not jeopardizing the criminal investigation with this civil suit, and to suggest so is just not true.
This is not correct. This is not the Anthony case, there has not been an incredible amount of media attention directed towards this case (unfortunately, IMO). Finding a jury pool, either in Bloomington or elsewhere, where people have not heard about this civil case will not be that difficult. It does not "simply harm the criminal investigation".
Do you seriously not think that CR/JR know that they're suspects? They were the last people to see Lauren alive. They have been publicly named by the Spierers and the media. These boys aren't wandering around thinking they're witnesses, they know they're suspected of killing Lauren or disposing of her body. This civil suit is not going to be a revelation.
Civil and criminal courts are not the same thing. Yes, frequently if someone has been convicted of murder or another criminal act a civil suit will be easier to prove, but the Spierers bringing a civil suit is not the same as a prosecutors indicting these boys of a criminal act. If the spierers lose the civil case that should have no bearing on the criminal case.
Do you really think that the Spierers are blindly filing a civil suit and haven't looked into potential reproductions? Do you think that if this case meant that there was a strong possibility that whoever killed and disposed of their child would walk free that they would have continued?
You're completely right. There have been much more high profile cases than this that have proceeded to trial without issue, this civil suit is not going to taint every juror pool in history.
This is about a criminal prosecution and then a civil case. Not the other way around. Obviously if someone has been convicted of (lets say) murder, a wrongful death case in civil court is easier to prove. You can't just reverse them and say losing a civil suit makes it harder to win a criminal case.
Holly18,
You've also missed the point of what I was saying. I'm very confident in what I've said and I am not wrong or confused. Nor was it any type of misinformation.
I just don't know how to explain it any better than I have, and that is on me, but both you and Sammi have gotten hung up on the wrong points of what I've said and are trying to talk to points that wasn't really the crux of what I was saying nor did they mean what you're arguing.
I provided a link that says this:
It also says this:
Both of those points speak to the point I was making about the typical climate faced in a situation like this. Which includes the scenario of a civil suit brought while a criminal case is still being investigated. So if you have a problem with what I've been saying then you also have a problem with what this is saying.
Of course the plaintiff can try and minimize some of this potential damage. One of the ways would be to seal the evidence which probably speaks to why that issue was before the judge.
Of course you can always seat a jury in a criminal case. It might get harder but it can be done.
But you can't un-ring a bell and that would be the fear.
The point you said about
You also say:
Technically that is correct. The reality can be different because many people don't have a good grasp on the differences in civil and criminal cases in the first place, let alone the differences in charges/allegations. The media will be covering the civil case. Should the Spierers lose the civil case it certainly won't make the prosecutor's task easier and it's not much of a stretch to think it will make it harder due to adding another hurdle into the court of public opinion... which is where the jury pool will be coming from.
If you point this thread out to one of your professors I think you'll find out I'm more right than you think.
I'm certainly not saying the Spierers can't bring this suit. That is their legal right and if they've decided for whatever reasons it is their best next step (which could be due to the statute of limitations more than anything else) then that is their prerogative. And it might payoff. But what led us down this road in the discussion in the first place was my warning some people not to expect much from the suit because it could easily fall flat of some people's high expectations.
My expectation, assuming the defense can't keep it from going to trial, is the Spierers likely win because 5N ends up saying next to nothing and provides little defense directly and simply takes the loss versus risk of saying anything that could ultimately be used against them in a criminal trial.
You've also missed the point of what I was saying. I'm very confident in what I've said and I am not wrong or confused. Nor was it any type of misinformation.
I just don't know how to explain it any better than I have, and that is on me, but both you and Sammi have gotten hung up on the wrong points of what I've said and are trying to talk to points that wasn't really the crux of what I was saying nor did they mean what you're arguing.
I provided a link that says this:
It also says this:
Both of those points speak to the point I was making about the typical climate faced in a situation like this. Which includes the scenario of a civil suit brought while a criminal case is still being investigated. So if you have a problem with what I've been saying then you also have a problem with what this is saying.
Of course the plaintiff can try and minimize some of this potential damage. One of the ways would be to seal the evidence which probably speaks to why that issue was before the judge.
Of course you can always seat a jury in a criminal case. It might get harder but it can be done.
But you can't un-ring a bell and that would be the fear.
The point you said about
Again, that misses the point of what I was saying. The fear would be them learning investigators had unearthed some type of info where they thought they had covered their tracks and LE was just waiting for an opportunity for them to slip up so they could seize on that as an opportunity. Or learn of any number of things that might close down some avenue that LE was utilizing unbeknownst to them. The point was not to argue semantics over whether they think they are considered 'suspects' or not.
You also say:
Technically that is correct. The reality can be different because many people don't have a good grasp on the differences in civil and criminal cases in the first place, let alone the differences in charges/allegations. The media will be covering the civil case. Should the Spierers lose the civil case it certainly won't make the prosecutor's task easier and it's not much of a stretch to think it will make it harder due to adding another hurdle into the court of public opinion... which is where the jury pool will be coming from.
If you point this thread out to one of your professors I think you'll find out I'm more right than you think.
I'm certainly not saying the Spierers can't bring this suit. That is their legal right and if they've decided for whatever reasons it is their best next step (which could be due to the statute of limitations more than anything else) then that is their prerogative. And it might payoff. But what led us down this road in the discussion in the first place was my warning some people not to expect much from the suit because it could easily fall flat of some people's high expectations.
My expectation, assuming the defense can't keep it from going to trial, is the Spierers likely win because 5N ends up saying next to nothing and provides little defense directly and simply takes the loss versus risk of saying anything that could ultimately be used against them in a criminal trial.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, because I disagree factually with most of what you've posted with regards to the civil case, and I understand that you disagree with what I've said.
You've quoted a general link about civil and criminal cases. There are many situations where those links could be true, and many cases where they would be incorrect. Rape, Robbery, Negligence, Murder, Assault, etc. They are not all equivalent. It depends on the nature of the case, and in a case when the issue at hand is someone's death, I don't believe the jury would be tainted against the spierers (or the victim, Lauren).
BBM: I think you're missing my earlier point. Lauren's case isn't massively widely covered. I'm sure the courts can find twelve people and two alternates who have not heard about the civil case, and in this situation when much has already been played out in public, this would not been their first concern. CR and JR have been branded suspects by the media. Don't you think their lawyers would object to jurors who have heard about their involvement? This would come before an issue of the civil case.
I'd be happy to send this thread to my professors in criminal law, though honestly I don't think they'll have the reaction you're looking for.
If I, or Sammi, am getting hung up on the wrong points, which are the right points? I understand what you're saying, however I believe you are wrong. Your statement about a "typical climate" is incredibly vague, what exactly is the "typical climate" in a case like this? your argument seems to hinge on the idea that everyone in Bloomington will be aware of and actively following the civil case, which even if you are correct, could be corrected by a simple change in venue. These are not rare obstacles, and Lauren's case is not as high profile as many cases that are successfully tried without a change in venue.
The civil case is about a duty of care. That is the question of whether or not CR and JR legally owed it to Lauren to do more to ensure her safety that night than they did.
A criminal case would be at the very least about wrongful disposal of a body, most likely about manslaughter or murder. A jury is not going to decide that just because these boys did not owe it to lauren to escort her home it is ok that they murdered her and or disposed of her body and kept her remains hidden for three years. These are incredibly different cases, beyond just what courts they are tried in. The Spierers are not, in the civil suit, accusing these boys of killing Lauren or hiding her body. If and when criminal charges are brought against them, it will not be for duty of care, it will be for something much stronger. A verdict in a civil case where the argument is that the boys supplied Lauren with drugs and or alcohol --> knew she was impaired -->chose to let her leave alone and in bad shape --> she disappeared is not the same as the boy(s) killed her --> hid her body --> kept her hidden
or she died ---> the boy(s) then took it upon themselves to hide her body and ensure she was not recovered. These are not the same thing, and will not have any baring on each other.
The link you provided also stated things just the opposite of what you are claiming is common knowledge and seemed to be really supporting the notion that both the prosecution and the civil attorney should aim to work together. It also talks about prosecutor preference and potential gains and detriments for both sides that both defendants and the prosecution might experience when the civil case comes first, not just what the 5N POIs might get out of it. It is about what might happen or could happen, not what will happen.
The statute of limitations was almost up for this particular civil case. They waited as long as possible.
I think you misunderstood my initial post to you. I was merely pointing out methods that can ensure a neutral jury regardless of how the civil case turns out. You responded with two items that I have taken issue with since:
IMO, those are some pretty heavy implications. If they don't mean what I think then please explain but IMO, saying that the prosecutor wouldn't even try and that the civil case would "reset" the bar is just not a true statement. That is opinion. If that is your opinion, fine. Telling me repeatedly something is common knowledge won't make it true. I still think what you are saying is opinion and if so, fine. It is my opinion that the civil case will have little to no effect on any criminal investigation and if it does, it is unlikely to the degree of resetting the bar or convincing the prosecution not to proceed, whether it is because of pretrial publicity, information revealed in the civil case, etc. The criminal investigation will go forward when LE thinks they have enough evidence to get a conviction. We can agree to disagree on that issue. If the prosecution has any reason to think his or her criminal case is at risk, he can request a stay in the civil case.
ETA OT: On a lighter note, I just got served with jury duty! So much irony lolol.
VeryVeritas
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 1,250
- Reaction score
- 2,898
After taking another break from this case, it's refreshing to come back and see some really rational posts.
I am actually rather surprised that JR points the finger at LS for a spectrum of drugs. Seems to me he would have been better off not saying anything.
The reason is that his goofy sobriety test does not make sense... and between what we know about LS's physical injuries, inability to walk/stand, and suspected (And now CONFIRMED) use of multiple drugs in conjunction with alcohol CONFIRMS that there should not be any reason for her to have walked out of JR's place if she very even were dragged into it. It seems a very slippery slope to admit knowledge of these drugs, even though it was already assumed, leaked, and was extremely pervasive.
It becomes even more inexplicable that JR would allow LS to leave, or if it were even possible, to not walk her home.
And it is a good time to reflect on that Bo Deitl statement that drugs were not the reason for getting rid of the body.
Aside from rape, is there any other plausible implication? I don't see one now.
So for quite a while there has been strong implication that rape was CR's intent. Assuming he was able to at least begin that process, in the gravel lot, in a vehicle, or back at his place and then LS dies. We do have a conundrum... why would JR cover for CR? Ok the drugs.. but now JR is disclosing knowledge of the drugs and deflecting them from himself. Something he could have done anyway. We also know that JR saw LS after her injurious falls, whether she was alive or not.
Again I can only come to the conclusion that CR panicked and involved MB who notified and involved JR and so JR had no choice but to help the cover up. When MB called JR at 3:30 and within minutes, lets say that JR sees a deceased LS, he has but a moment to decide if he is going to cover it up, or to call 911. It's not hard see that in that panicked moment he decides to help cover it up. He could not forsee how easily he could deny providing drugs, because he could not predict who might say what.
For me it does seem plausible that JR would do this with or without knowledge of LS being raped. It seems possible that CR could have easily cover up the rape aspect and gained assistance purely based on the panic about drugs, her injuries and how that might have looked all by itself.
CR certainly having an additional motive to sell this cover up to JR.
The second scenario is a bit more gritty, but it also makes sense. That would be a gang rape. I've long thought JR would not do that to someone that he knew as family friends like LS, but I'd have to throw such restraints out the window if I can accept the first scenario where he would agree to ditch her body. There definitely are few conspiracies more binding than a gang rape where the victim dies.
In both of these scenarios I would have to consider then that the person(s) with the most to lose(dna inside LS) would be directly involved with disposal of the body. Its possible such a task could be outsourced, but how likely?
So that would point to CR alone or CR with co-rapists.
LE may have reached this fuzzy conclusion fairly quickly, since they were holding most of the cards it took us a year to see, and have more that we can't see. LE searched CR's vehicle right away. And it's the only vehicle I know was searched. However, what if CR didn't use his own vehicle or any vehicle at all? If it were a group action then sure a wider range of vehicles or other hiding places. It's also probable that the body was moved later.
The construction, sewers and other sneaky places seem to be right up CR's alley. If someone would know of a hiding place close by it would be him. But... that didn't show up on camera. So, unless it were hidden right there immediately at 5N somewhere it more likely was put into a vehicle. But not CR's vehicle. Whose vehicle would CR have access to without their knowledge? So this again points to an accomplice which points to a group activity. In my view at least 2 people knew she was dead, and there is a 50/50 or better chance that they both were involved with her sexually.
CR and JR seem like odd bedfellows to me, but I have witnessed far stranger things. But now with MB being let off the hook in the civil case... we have this other loose end. Why does MB cover for CR, especially if he himself is clean? For example, if MB called JR at 3:30 and then CR brought over LS to JR's and MB stayed home, why would he bother with the putting CR to bed alibi? MB is the dividing line between CR and JR, he is the link that transfers LS from CR/MB's to JR's Leaving him out of this suit, just makes no sense to me. How can he not be involved? The simplest way I can think of is by covering for CR, MB keeps himself far from the hook. If MB were to admit, for example that LS was unconscious or that CR was not sick, then MB would seem to be an accomplice. My sense of MB has always been that he was tossed a hot potato and tossed it to JR as fast as he could.
So now I'm faced with 2 choices; MB knew what CR did and called JR for help and let them "work it out" OR MB was more directly involved and is simply holding up his part of a multi-person gang rape conspiracy. I don't see a scenario where MB was totally innocent. Minimally involved is possible, but he still must have conspired with the cover up.
I could see CR coming back after body disposal, then being very sick, needing to wash up and being so messed up that MB helps him to bed. Earlier that scene always seemed strange to me. But after ditching a body and coming back sick... yeah might need to be tucked in.
The call to DR at 4:15 again links to JR over the Klonopin.
The other call at 4:15... really want to know who that was to!
And now lets see did those 4:15 calls ping off the usual tower when calls from 5N were made?
Sure I think there is a good possibility that LS body IS / WAS close depending on who was involved. If it was CR + JR I would guess she is reasonably close (within 1 hr) if she wasn't moved. When you start factoring in the out of town guests that's when it becomes very open ended. Then we are in Jimmy Hoffa territory.
Final note: I can see JR being very forthcoming about LS drug use that night for another reason. It clears his conscience for her death regardless of rape, disposal, etc... If he can rationalize in his own mind that she was partying as usual, and "stuff" just happens, he could excuse himself of guilt.
So you see zero risk in evidence coming to light that LE might be holding to their vest for future use? Zero risk in the prosecutor feeling this "is just going to mess up my case"? Zero risk in tainting the potential jury pool? Zero risk in changing the general climate to where a prosecutor could feel a conviction will be harder than it otherwise would be?
Because that would be where we disagree. OTOH, I'm not arguing in absolutes which seem to be the corner you and Sammi are painting me in. I'm just saying the specter of this civil suit brings an element of risk to the criminal prosecution that would not exist otherwise.
We can debate the percentages until we're blue in the face, and I wonder if you're arguing more from the ideal point of view rather than the realistic point of view, but that doesn't really matter unless you really are arguing there's zero risk the criminal case. To that I would vehemently disagree. Otherwise we're just disagreeing on percentages and that would be an opinion difference.
Each case is different so I agree about that.
But I stand firm in saying rare is the prosecutor that wants to see a civil case brought forward that touches so closely to the active criminal case that LE is still actively investigating. If you disagree with that statement then nothing else I could say about why that statement exists is going to get us any closer to agreeing and we'll just have to leave it there and wish you a good night.
:cheers:
No, I was not painting you in a corner. I have posted what I took issue with and why.
I don't think your last sentiment was reflected in your previous statements but if that is what you meant, then I can probably agree that a prosecutor probably wouldn't be thrilled. It's when you take it beyond that and speculate on how a prosecutor would evaluate it in a decision to move forward, that I think we start to see it differently. And like I have said repeatedly now, it works both ways and there are methods available for the state to deal with that risk. Agree to disagree on percentages.
ETA: Despite disagreeing, sometimes vehemently, I do appreciate the different insights and perceptions. Intelligent minds can disagree. It provides a fuller, more thoughtful discussion anyway.
Welcome back!
The sobriety test will forever be an oddity to me. I never actually experienced a friend or acquaintance do this to me or any of my other friends during college lol.
I agree - I was surprised JR admitted to hearing about drug use but then again, he was admitting others (DR + LS) were using and not him/his guests and not at his party so maybe it isn't too surprising.
The implications of that statement have always bothered me too. I really hope that he is mistaken because that would be a miserable way to go out. I wonder if he considered an argument about calling 911 for an OD and during that time LS passed? I am really disturbed by even the idea of a gang rape. Sexual assault isn't much better. Like I said, I hope that isn't the case but it's hard to imagine any other way at a certain point unless you consider the BF got aggressive and for me, that takes too many assumptions to get to with what the public knows.
I was going to write more but I don't have anything really new to add. Again, welcome back.
- Status