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

[Ros]

I see your point, but playing devil's advocate: Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I still think it's possible a POI might have freaked out if she died doing drugs he/she provided. Behind my thinking is the fact that none of them were sober and may have done the same drugs, if drugs were in fact involved. Even MB, who initially claimed he was sober, apparently was drinking that night.

I also think that JR's comment about her doing klonopin with DR is interesting, as we've discussed before. IMO, he seems to be deflecting ...

Your post makes me think, though ... maybe more than one person knows what happened to LS but only one knows her final resting place.

As I recall, according to Indiana law, someone could be charged with murder for providing the drugs that cause a fatal overdose.

 

[VeryVeritas]

As I recall, according to Indiana law, someone could be charged with murder for providing the drugs that cause a fatal overdose.

After this length of time, it would be very tricky determining the exact cause of death. We already know drugs are a factor, and JR has confirmed that in a civil court. But... nailing someone specific for providing the "fatal overdose" seems next to impossible. Since there are several people involved, all who likely were involved with drugs how could anyone say it was exactly "This" that killed her.
If a situation arose for example where MB came forward and said... well when I took her over to JR's we all did a lot of cocaine... and then she dropped dead. Then you would have at least eye witness testimony of a "fatal overdose". But outside of that kind of direct accusation, with the array drugs that have been either confirmed or rumored to be involved combined with alcohol, QT, her serious head injuries I think that a Coroner would have trouble after 3 years decomposition determining that a specific drug was the cause of death. There are too many variables. For example, if the only drug in her system that could be proven was Klonopin, you would still need to determine the cause of death. After 3 years of decomposition how likely is that? If it were something obvious like a skull fracture and clear evidence of a brain hemorrhage... then the drugs would be a contributing factor but not the actual cause of death. It would be even more tricky if there were multiple drugs in her body. For example, DR supplied Klonopin, JR supplies coke, she took something else earlier that day that was still in her system like valium, she drank alcohol at multiple locations, CR maybe slipped her something... Then how do you have a murder case? Everyone points the finger at each other, the defense also points the finger at LS... seems like a hard sell.

But ok, I'll add to my list reasons for not anonymously reporting her location:
1) Rape
2) Murder
3) Large amount of a specific drug directly traceable to one of the POI's other than Klonopin and DR.
4) Any combination of the above.
5) Location of body gives away identity of disposer.

By not reporting the location of her body, I think LE should assume the worst and push forward accordingly.

Also, something has bugged me about DR for a long time. Since it's known that he did the Klonopin with LS, why did he leave JR's so abruptly after bringing her there?

 

[imkeylime]

... Also, something has bugged me about DR for a long time. Since it's known that he did the Klonopin with LS, why did he leave JR's so abruptly after bringing her there?

Snipped by me. I occasionally think about DR but am reluctant to bring him up, probably because he seems to have done the "right thing" in terms of LS. But he does begin and end the night, in that he took LS to JR's and was called from JR's much later. He interests me, if only because of that. But add the klonopin in ...

Maybe JR called DR just because of that ... the klonopin. Maybe he wanted to know how much she'd taken. Or precisely when, if she was ODing? I doubt it was well thought out, but if he knew she'd taken klonopin, might he have been calling DR to implicate him in some way?

I'm reaching here, obviously. But I do wonder if there's something we're missing!

 

[Kadence]

Snipped by me. I occasionally think about DR but am reluctant to bring him up, probably because he seems to have done the "right thing" in terms of LS. But he does begin and end the night, in that he took LS to JR's and was called from JR's much later. He interests me, if only because of that. But add the klonopin in ...

Maybe JR called DR just because of that ... the klonopin. Maybe he wanted to know how much she'd taken. Or precisely when, if she was ODing? I doubt it was well thought out, but if he knew she'd taken klonopin, might he have been calling DR to implicate him in some way?

I'm reaching here, obviously. But I do wonder if there's something we're missing!

I don't think you're reaching at all imkeylime, as I have said many times, no one gets a pass from me. Many times, as we've seen here on WS time and time again, those who seem to be the most forthcoming, are those who end up as the perpetrator. For that reason, everyone remains on my list, this includes DR, JW, and MB.

Perhaps a rebuff from LS could've sent a plan into motion that could've deflected blame in the "best" way, i.e. unknowingly, or a set-up.

Nothing's off the table for me, the longer Lauren is missing, the more I think outside the box and the more I widen the scope of what I think I know. LE, I am seriously hoping, knows more than we do.

So glad to see that everyone is still here for Lauren, that makes me feel good about society.

 

[AbbeyR]

I have a family member who was very high up at ABC News. I'm going to ask around about TG because (I personally) would like to know how legitimate his biography is since he seems to be a large source about this case, I'd just like to know if his resume is legit or if he has just submitted tips to large news places without being verified or without his information being verified.

I asked him a few (two or three, nothing extensive) questions just about how certain he was about his sources, and received no reply. I appreciate that he brought attention to Lauren's case, but if he can't answer the most rudimentary of questions it makes me doubt everything. I never asked him to reveal sources, simply "are you sure xyz is valid?" He's another example, IMO, of someone involved with this case whose motives/truthfulness we can't determine. <snipped>

Hi Holly,

I can't remember if we ended up talking about this again and can't find it if we did. Did you ever end up asking around or getting any answers about Tony Gatto?

 

[holly18]

Hi Holly,

I can't remember if we ended up talking about this again and can't find it if we did. Did you ever end up asking around or getting any answers about Tony Gatto?

I got some answers, but totally forgot to post. Thank you for reminding me!

I asked a few family friends working there and none of them had heard of him, but said he might have worked under the radar at some point... Basically if he did do any legit work for ABC it wasn't much and it wasn't memorable. They have tons of part time or freelance people who work on a handful of stories, so if thats the capacity he worked in he's one of hundreds.

For what its worth, everyone I asked has been at ABC for at least the last 20 years, and most of them have pretty good memories in terms of anyone they've worked with.

 

[kpeacock]

They do not even need a "burner phone". I know a few tech savy folks who use TextNow and other apps that give you an untraceable phone number and the ability to call, and text at no cost via wifi and an iPod. You'd have to have the number off the device to trace pings etc, as it is a free app you use only a username to download.

Hi all! Just catching up. Wanted to comment here that I agree, anyone dealing drugs would be smart to do so using a "burner" phone, very common. However, the apps you mention for texting without a trace - they exist now, but in June 2011? I don't think those apps were around yet. They are fairly new on the market, comparatively, AFAIK.

Sent from my VS930 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Ixchel13]

Hi all! Just catching up. Wanted to comment here that I agree, anyone dealing drugs would be smart to do so using a "burner" phone, very common. However, the apps you mention for texting without a trace - they exist now, but in June 2011? I don't think those apps were around yet. They are fairly new on the market, comparatively, AFAIK.

Sent from my VS930 4G using Tapatalk

yes that's true for most people at that time. Whether by burner phone, IPod or other means, if there were ways to communicate under the radar these are exactly the guys who could do it. They are gifted in techno. They are capable of writing computer code, they wrote aps for gaming and advertising and sold them to larger companies. No question that they could communicate
w/o being traced. Also, the whole camera thing, some of the cameras at these apt. complexes can be misdirected using only a broom or extension handle.
I am sure they are misdirected by these students on a regular basis and for the reason of not being id'd.

 

[sammi89]

Hi all! Just catching up. Wanted to comment here that I agree, anyone dealing drugs would be smart to do so using a "burner" phone, very common. However, the apps you mention for texting without a trace - they exist now, but in June 2011? I don't think those apps were around yet. They are fairly new on the market, comparatively, AFAIK.

Sent from my VS930 4G using Tapatalk

This isn't necessarily directed at you, but the POI dealing - 5N, JW, DB, or otherwise - is just a rumor, right? The actual charges were just drinking? Was there ever a link on the fraternity and drugs?

Would they necessarily be using these methods if they were further down the line? i.e., not dealing, but knew where to get (and perhaps where they got it wasn't a major dealer either) and would sell to their friends if approached?

I'm just not sure if I think they were at the level of dealing - they came from money and it doesn't seem like their parents really withheld money if they needed/wanted it. I can see them recreationally using and letting friends bum off of them or buy from them when necessary but I'm not sure if it was a major cash flow for them.

 

[imkeylime]

... Would they necessarily be using these methods if they were further down the line? i.e., not dealing, but knew where to get (and perhaps where they got it wasn't a major dealer either) and would sell to their friends if approached?

I'm just not sure if I think they were at the level of dealing - they came from money and it doesn't seem like their parents really withheld money if they needed/wanted it. I can see them recreationally using and letting friends bum off of them or buy from them when necessary but I'm not sure if it was a major cash flow for them.

Snipped by me. JMO, but coming from money doesn't always matter: They may like the direct access or even think it makes them cool. Some kids where I live could be described the same way ... and there have been busts.

Also, it's possible that prescription meds were involved that would trace back to whomever. IDK about IN, but in some states, klonopin is considered a controlled substance.

That's not saying anything about what "methods" might be used, just that I don't think dealing can be ruled out.

 

[sammi89]

Snipped by me. JMO, but coming from money doesn't always matter: They may like the direct access or even think it makes them cool. Some kids where I live could be described the same way ... and there have been busts.

Also, it's possible that prescription meds were involved that would trace back to whomever. IDK about IN, but in some states, klonopin is considered a controlled substance.

That's not saying anything about what "methods" might be used, just that I don't think dealing can be ruled out.

I don't disagree - I was just thinking of how likely it is in terms of them already having money and the risks associated to their reputation and future businesses, especially because it seems like JR & DB might have already been in talks and JW has a family business. Of course, those things wouldn't mean they wouldn't deal, but I do think those factors make it less likely. I don't think it should be ruled it either though, although IMO I think they were more likely to have been using and not necessarily dealing.

I just have a hard time believing these guys were making stealth calls/texts, and most of the credibility behind that stems from them either dealing or being super tech savvy. If they were using some kind of stealth method, why even make the two calls to DR and call number 2 on a traceable phone when they could have done it in secret?

I was also just curious if there was anything beyond rumors behind the dealing/drugs, especially the cocaine rumors. It just seems like it comes up a lot and that was one of the biggest rumors from the very beginning.

 

[AbbeyR]

I agree with Sammi - I don't think any of these guys were big dealers or into criminal activity, and I think it's highly unlikely any of them had burner phones. Even people who were actually considered dealers in college (as opposed to people who may get drugs for friends) didn't use burner phones, in my experience.

Anything's possible, but I can't really see burner phones and untraceable calls/texts coming into play the night Lauren went missing - Partly because there's nothing to suggest they had them, and also because I don't believe that if they are responsible for Lauren's disappearance, that whatever happened was premeditated. And, if they were using these methods to call people, why wouldn't they have made the other calls (including to each other) the same way?

 

[holly18]

I don't disagree - I was just thinking of how likely it is in terms of them already having money and the risks associated to their reputation and future businesses, especially because it seems like JR & DB might have already been in talks and JW has a family business. Of course, those things wouldn't mean they wouldn't deal, but I do think those factors make it less likely. I don't think it should be ruled it either though, although IMO I think they were more likely to have been using and not necessarily dealing.

I just have a hard time believing these guys were making stealth calls/texts, and most of the credibility behind that stems from them either dealing or being super tech savvy. If they were using some kind of stealth method, why even make the two calls to DR and call number 2 on a traceable phone when they could have done it in secret?

I was also just curious if there was anything beyond rumors behind the dealing/drugs, especially the cocaine rumors. It just seems like it comes up a lot and that was one of the biggest rumors from the very beginning.

In my experience, a fair number of wealthy guys "deal", not necessarily what you would define as a drug dealer, but will buy fairly large amounts either to sell every now and then to friends (or just outright give to friends) or for parties. Its a stupid risk, in general but also in terms of family reputation, but a lot of the guys I know who did stuff like that were doing it as a way to rebel... Kind of a "I have no financial reason to do this, but I can probably get away with it" type of thing.

My guess is probably that one or two people in this circle would fit the criteria of always in possession and occasionally distributing, but weren't selling to people they don't know/standing on street corners/doing drop offs.

Just a guess from people I've known, no idea if this applies to JR/CR/JW/MB/DR and co

 

[holly18]

I agree with Sammi - I don't think any of these guys were big dealers or into criminal activity, and I think it's highly unlikely any of them had burner phones. Even people who were actually considered dealers in college (as opposed to people who may get drugs for friends) didn't use burner phones, in my experience.

Anything's possible, but I can't really see burner phones etc. playing a role the night Lauren went missing. JMO

I agree with you and Sammi about this. Also echoing that the dealers (at least at my school) didn't have burner phones. They weren't on a large enough scale for that to be necessary, and I can't really see any of the POIs in this case being super involved in dealing (but they may have been associated/known people who were)

 

[Ixchel13]

I agree with Sammi - I don't think any of these guys were big dealers or into criminal activity, and I think it's highly unlikely any of them had burner phones. Even people who were actually considered dealers in college (as opposed to people who may get drugs for friends) didn't use burner phones, in my experience.

Anything's possible, but I can't really see burner phones and untraceable calls/texts coming into play the night Lauren went missing - Partly because there's nothing to suggest they had them, and also because I don't believe that if they are responsible for Lauren's disappearance, that whatever happened was premeditated. And, if they were using these methods to call people, why wouldn't they have made the other calls (including to each other) the same way?

ifg burner phones were owned, this was the time to use them

 

[Ixchel13]

In my experience, a fair number of wealthy guys "deal", not necessarily what you would define as a drug dealer, but will buy fairly large amounts either to sell every now and then to friends (or just outright give to friends) or for parties. Its a stupid risk, in general but also in terms of family reputation, but a lot of the guys I know who did stuff like that were doing it as a way to rebel... Kind of a "I have no financial reason to do this, but I can probably get away with it" type of thing.

My guess is probably that one or two people in this circle would fit the criteria of always in possession and occasionally distributing, but weren't selling to people they don't know/standing on street corners/doing drop offs.

Just a guess from people I've known, no idea if this applies to JR/CR/JW/MB/DR and co

BBM, italics BM, the very definition of dealing. If you sell one pill to someone and they react badly and OD, or mix it with something and OD, you have just dealt drugs. If you are wealthy and buy "extra" drugs and sell them, you are just as bad as the street drug peddler, you just have a nice apt and friends who can afford pricier drugs. sorry to use the "you", not talking about you

Also, let's do away with the idea that somehow people are after these guys on here because they are wealthy and privileged and people resent that. Plenty of poor people getting away with murder! For one thing, I think from the get go they (POIs) are self centered, lazy cads for not walking Lauren home.
Whether or not duty of care can be proven, we know they had it. They know they had it. IMO!! If they GAVE a pill instead of selling a pill, still guilty!
No way out if theyeither gave or sold. Whether they are official dealers doesn't matter one whit.

 

[holly18]

BBM, italics BM, the very definition of dealing. If you sell one pill to someone and they react badly and OD, or mix it with something and OD, you have just dealt drugs. If you are wealthy and buy "extra" drugs and sell them, you are just as bad as the street drug peddler, you just have a nice apt and friends who can afford pricier drugs. sorry to use the "you", not talking about you

Also, let's do away with the idea that somehow people are after these guys on here because they are wealthy and privileged and people resent that. Plenty of poor people getting away with murder! For one thing, I think from the get go they (POIs) are self centered, lazy cads for not walking Lauren home.
Whether or not duty of care can be proven, we know they had it. They know they had it. IMO!! If they GAVE a pill instead of selling a pill, still guilty!
No way out if theyeither gave or sold. Whether they are official dealers doesn't matter one whit.

Oh I completely agree with your response to the bolded part. I wasn't very clear, my fault. I just meant that some kids like this don't fall into what most people picture as dealers, ie they aren't dealing because they need money, they're not dealing to people they don't know, morally and legally they're still dealers, and they're still responsible for their actions. I was trying to point out that they might just not necessarily fit the "image" of drug dealers, sorry if it came across as me trying to defend them at all, totally not my intention. I meant it in terms of the burner phone idea, what might be typical of some dealers might not apply to kids who think they're just playing dealer

I agree with the rest of your post as well, but (speaking just for myself) I don't know how much their wealth figures into the case (other than them being spoiled and appearing to have no sense of responsibility). There are different types of wealth, and I'm just not sure that all these guys have the power behind them that has been occasionally suggested.

Re: the bolded part, I couldn't agree more. No matter the outcome of the lawsuit, they had a moral responsibility to Lauren, and they should be haunted by their choice to let her leave.

 

[Ixchel13]

Oh I completely agree with your response to the bolded part. I wasn't very clear, my fault. I just meant that some kids like this don't fall into what most people picture as dealers, ie they aren't dealing because they need money, they're not dealing to people they don't know, morally and legally they're still dealers, and they're still responsible for their actions. I was trying to point out that they might just not necessarily fit the "image" of drug dealers, sorry if it came across as me trying to defend them at all, totally not my intention. I meant it in terms of the burner phone idea, what might be typical of some dealers might not apply to kids who think they're just playing dealer
I agree with the rest of your post as well, but (speaking just for myself) I don't know how much their wealth figures into the case (other than them being spoiled and appearing to have no sense of responsibility). There are different types of wealth, and I'm just not sure that all these guys have the power behind them that has been occasionally suggested.

Re: the bolded part, I couldn't agree more. No matter the outcome of the lawsuit, they had a moral responsibility to Lauren, and they should be haunted by their choice to let her leave.

kids who think they're just playing dealer....(?) first, they're not kids. Again, if you're selling a pill, you're dealing, as far as image goes, they have forever ruined what image they think they have.

About the burner phones, I get it. If they are thought to have burner phones, then, they could have be in contact with any of the POIs that night. It opens up a lot of possibilities. But, that's just what I am proposing. I think, speculation, speculation, speculation, that they did have them or some other means of communicating under the radar and that's just what they did. and, IMO, not only could they communicate under the radar, but, IMO, speculation, they also knew EXACTLY how to avoid the cameras. We didn't live under the camera scrutiny that they did, so we keep being amazed that they aren't seen on camera doing anything to Lauren.
So let me recap: they communicated w/o being heard; and they went places w/o being seen, and; they weren't super lucky, but knew how to do this.
And it doesn't take a genius or any kind of super power to do this.
If they were poor, and had no money or power behind them, I would still want them ruthlessly investigated until they were eventually prosecuted. Granted, they are young, and everyone with children probably cringes to think there but the grace of God goes our child, but it doesn't change what happened. If one of the POIs did it, or a combo of them, they need to go down with no mercy, even if they were just "playing" dealer.

 

[imkeylime]

Oh I completely agree with your response to the bolded part. I wasn't very clear, my fault. I just meant that some kids like this don't fall into what most people picture as dealers, ie they aren't dealing because they need money, they're not dealing to people they don't know, morally and legally they're still dealers, and they're still responsible for their actions. I was trying to point out that they might just not necessarily fit the "image" of drug dealers, sorry if it came across as me trying to defend them at all, totally not my intention. I meant it in terms of the burner phone idea, what might be typical of some dealers might not apply to kids who think they're just playing dealer

I agree with the rest of your post as well, but (speaking just for myself) I don't know how much their wealth figures into the case (other than them being spoiled and appearing to have no sense of responsibility). There are different types of wealth, and I'm just not sure that all these guys have the power behind them that has been occasionally suggested.

Re: the bolded part, I couldn't agree more. No matter the outcome of the lawsuit, they had a moral responsibility to Lauren, and they should be haunted by their choice to let her leave.

This is what's happened in my town ... rich entitled guys who "like" the image and access. I also agree that these guys should have known better and been scared to go there ... I'm just not sure how smart they were (are). JMO.

 

[holly18]

kids who think they're just playing dealer....(?) first, they're not kids. Again, if you're selling a pill, you're dealing, as far as image goes, they have forever ruined what image they think they have.

About the burner phones, I get it. If they are thought to have burner phones, then, they could have be in contact with any of the POIs that night. It opens up a lot of possibilities. But, that's just what I am proposing. I think, speculation, speculation, speculation, that they did have them or some other means of communicating under the radar and that's just what they did. and, IMO, not only could they communicate under the radar, but, IMO, speculation, they also knew EXACTLY how to avoid the cameras. We didn't live under the camera scrutiny that they did, so we keep being amazed that they aren't seen on camera doing anything to Lauren.
So let me recap: they communicated w/o being heard; and they went places w/o being seen, and; they weren't super lucky, but knew how to do this.
And it doesn't take a genius or any kind of super power to do this.
If they were poor, and had no money or power behind them, I would still want them ruthlessly investigated until they were eventually prosecuted. Granted, they are young, and everyone with children probably cringes to think there but the grace of God goes our child, but it doesn't change what happened. If one of the POIs did it, or a combo of them, they need to go down with no mercy, even if they were just "playing" dealer.

I don't think you understood my previous post at all.
I'm agreeing with you about your first paragraph, I'm not sure where you seem to be seeing a disagreement. I'm not talking about their personal images, I'm saying that they likely aren't hanging out with big time dealers and using burner phones, like some people seem to be suggesting (IE I don't think they're staying silent to protect themselves from drug charges, I don't think they were involved enough in the drug scene to have scoped out where cameras are, I don't think they were super adept at traveling around at night undetected). Maybe a better way to phrase it would be that they're small time dealers. Does that make it morally or legally better? Absolutely not.

I personally don't think they had burner phones, but I could very well be wrong and you could very well be right. If they did have burner phones your theory makes sense. I still don't really believe that they would know where every camera was, or which cameras were even operational, but I also don't know anything about cameras in bloomington beyond what I've read in regards to this case.

Let me say this one more time because it seems to keep getting lost in the shuffle. I am not talking about dealing on a smaller scale in order to defend or lessen their actions, distributing drugs, on any scale and to any person, is wrong, illegal and those who do so should face the consequences.

My comments about their wealth were not in terms of your perception of them, I was saying that I don't think they had the magical resources on here to pull this off (IE I don't think their parents were all involved in protecting them in order to protect their assets) as some have suggested. That has no bearing on their guilt, as I'm sure you've noticed I personally, IMO, think the 5N boys, individually or collectively, are guilty of at the very least hiding Lauren's body and not getting her help.

I am by no means suggesting that people are going after them because they have money. People are investigating them because they seem guilty. I believe they are guilty. I never said that you would be acting differently if they were poor, I'm just saying that I don't necessarily think that their wealth played into the actual commission of the crime or cover up as some people seem to think.

Again, last time: small time dealer, big time dealer, still a dealer. Rich murder, poor murderer, still a murderer. I agree with you about this and was not suggesting otherwise in my previous posts.