Thank you, thats exactly what I was trying to say
IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #32
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
- Status
Thank you, thats exactly what I was trying to say
Ditto to Holly's post. No one disagrees with the legal or moral consequences related to giving and/or selling anyone drugs. The conversation, I think, was in reference to how likely it would be for the POI to be communicating through burner phones -- which may be the norm for people who deal drugs for a living, but is not the norm, IMO, for college students who may buy or deal in small quantities to friends.
It seems some of us disagree on the likelihood of the POI making stealth calls and mapping/ avoiding cameras in their neighborhood, but I think we are otherwise on the same page.
It seems some of us disagree on the likelihood of the POI making stealth calls and mapping/ avoiding cameras in their neighborhood, but I think we are otherwise on the same page.
Ixchel13
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,658
- Reaction score
- 1,146
yes, this is what we disagree on. The likelihood that they made stealth calls.
But first let me reiterate, I do understand what sammi, holly, and you Abbey, are saying. You just don't think they had burner phones or any way to communicate
off radar. But, I think you should reread my posts because it is I that thinks you don't understand what I'm getting at. I never said they used burner phones for drug dealing, it is you that said I did. If they did use them for that, it wouldn't surprise me. It is others who suggested that they were using them for this.
IMO, they used burner phones, or other means out of my scope, to communicate to others (??and we don't know whom??) that Lauren was in trouble, or even possibly, deceased. And I think that's a big deal, because if so, it opens up the possibility that more were involved than the 5N POIs. And I think several people here on WS feel that others were involved too
And I think all the talk about what kind of dealers they were, whether it was dealing for fun, prestige, is just a bunch of balderdash. They are young people doing drugs, selling drugs, giving each other drugs, no better than anyone else doing the same thing. It's when it results in murder, that everyone gets bothered about it.
Murder because you're too lazy to get someone home who lives 2 min away. Murder because you won't call an ambulance because that would ruin
a business deal. Murder because someone was going out with a person not in the golden circle of your friends. As inconvenient as it may be, to all of their plans, this is what happens when you give/sell someone a drug and they need help to stay alive and you don't give it.
Aside from all this, burner phones are not the exclusive property of major drug dealers. Let's revisit tech savvy and what it means. We all know by now that a regular smart phone or equivalent contains a GPS. And can be used by anyone, say, a boyfriend who wants to know where his girlfriend is at all times. Drugs don't have to play a part. Having a phone handy that you can communicate with your buds or mistress or whomever you want w/o anyone
knowing is also very cool and useful. Thinking that these specific people wouldn't have them is naive. If anyone would have them, they would IMO.
Again, my interest in them having burner phones or as others have pointed out, alternative methods of communicating under the radar has nothing to do with drugs, but about them being able to call someone to help disappear or even to come and get lauren while she was still living.
But WHY would they have burner phones in the first place?? That's the thing that many of us think is unlikely. Being tech savvy isn't a reason to have a burner phone on hand, and the chances that several people did and were communicating this way seems highly unlikely.
Anyway, this is a pointless debate, since there's absolutely nothing to suggest that burner phones were owned or used by the POI in the first place. If anything, there is evidence that they used their own phones as well as rumors that their cell phone data and pings may be relevant to the case. There's always a possibility other apps, etc. were used to communicate, and I hope LE has looked into this. But beyond that it just gets into random speculation based on nothing, IMO.
I agree. IMO, I'm not sure they were more tech savvy than the average college student anyway. Regardless, I'm with Abbey in the sense that tech savvy ≠ burner phones. It just seems farfetched to have them because they were tech savvy and wanted to keep stuff hidden on the regular. If they're not dealing, what are they hiding that they would want them? Business discussions? I think you normally want things in writing. Cheating? I think it would be tougher to explain a second phone than simply deleting a text. They foresaw this kind of thing happening? Most people at that age simply don't think that stuff happens to them/they are invincible. I just don't follow why someone who is tech savvy (and IMO they weren't) would necessarily have a burner phone. If burner phones were used, I think dealing would be the most plausible argument, but IMO that is doubtful too.
Not only did they actually use traceable phones that night + ping rumors, but there was that public tweet too that solidified location enough that DB's name has been associated in the press with the disappearance. He could have used his burner phone (or borrowed JR's?) and/or made his tweets private but he didn't. Why?
There's just really nothing there to suggest burner phones were utilized that night.
Ixchel13
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,658
- Reaction score
- 1,146
It's not a pointless debate. Somehow, if the 5N POIs are guilty, they took Lauren somewhere. If it wasn't their houseguests from out of town, then they had to call someone to help. That leaves the last guy they called, whom LE won't identify. Or, they used another method to contact someone.
Say we had a code. I call you and let it ring , leaving no message. You pick up your burner phone and call my burner phone. I say,
"we have major problems. Lauren's in trouble, get over here quickly.
This is speculation and opinion on my part, yes, but this could have easily happened in some variation. And most likely, yes, LE has looked into it. And maybe that's why people were added to POI list.
Ixchel13
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,658
- Reaction score
- 1,146
But, there's nothing to suggest they didn't use them, either.
Charlene has said Lauren made her last call from her phone at approx. 12:15
a.m. No one has said what else was on the phone. Mum's the word on that.
Did someone else use it? did someone else call it or text it? did someone call it from a burner phone? All speculative questions.
Or put her somewhere close where she hasn't been found. I still wonder about the manhole system. Maybe someone did something brazen and got away with it. That might be one reason JR gave the story he did; if she was found, it might look like an accident.
OTOH, I've always thought DB's Runcible Spoon tweet could have been a code, though I can't believe LE hasn't checked it out. Just saying ...
Ixchel13
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,658
- Reaction score
- 1,146
.Not only did they actually use traceable phones that night + ping rumors, but there was that public tweet too that solidified location enough that DB's name has been associated in the press with the disappearance. He could have used his burner phone (or borrowed JR's?) and/or made his tweets private but he didn't. Why?
^snipped by me^
I think the answer to that is complete within your question.
The runcible tweet established that he was in fact in town, which the cops would find out later, and having a placid breakfast as if nothing had happened. Was someone else using his car at that time? we don't know. But if the car shows up on camera going north, for example, he can always say that he loaned it, or even that a friend borrowed it with/without his permission.
Also, the burner phones would have been used for all things they did not want to come to light. No phone interaction would be suspicious. I think the idea for most crimes and criminals is to behave as if nothing has happened.
An example of no phone interaction being suspicious is the Dylan Redwine case. One of the many reasons his dad was a suspect is that Dylan was texting and e mailing his friends all day and early evening, and then abruptly at 8 p.m. or so, it stopped. And, he was supposed to meet the friends the next day, and was
communicating back and forth, but then never got back to his friends, although his dad said he was alive and well when he went to work the next morning. The pattern of communication was disrupted at the time he had just e mailed his friends to say his dad was mad and might not let him go, and then never resumed even though the dad never mentioned he said he couldn't go, in fact he told the cops that his son might have been abducted on the way to his friend's.
^snipped by me^
I think the answer to that is complete within your question.
The runcible tweet established that he was in fact in town, which the cops would find out later, and having a placid breakfast as if nothing had happened. Was someone else using his car at that time? we don't know. But if the car shows up on camera going north, for example, he can always say that he loaned it, or even that a friend borrowed it with/without his permission.
Also, the burner phones would have been used for all things they did not want to come to light. No phone interaction would be suspicious. I think the idea for most crimes and criminals is to behave as if nothing has happened.
An example of no phone interaction being suspicious is the Dylan Redwine case. One of the many reasons his dad was a suspect is that Dylan was texting and e mailing his friends all day and early evening, and then abruptly at 8 p.m. or so, it stopped. And, he was supposed to meet the friends the next day, and was
communicating back and forth, but then never got back to his friends, although his dad said he was alive and well when he went to work the next morning. The pattern of communication was disrupted at the time he had just e mailed his friends to say his dad was mad and might not let him go, and then never resumed even though the dad never mentioned he said he couldn't go, in fact he told the cops that his son might have been abducted on the way to his friend's.
Ixchel13
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,658
- Reaction score
- 1,146
snipped from Wikipedia, this is about jailbreaking a phone. The students I work around explained that it can easily be done, but one has to realize that once it's done, your phone is basically unfixable, so you have to be able to afford to lose a good phone:
OS jailbreaking is the process of removing limitations on iOS, Apple's operating system on devices running it through the use of software and hardware exploits; such devices include the iPhone, iPod touch, iPad, and second-generation Apple TV. Jailbreaking permits root access to the iOS file system and manager, allowing the download of additional applications, extensions, and themes that are unavailable through the official Apple App Store. Jailbreaking is a form of privilege escalation,[1][2] and the term has been used to describe privilege escalation on devices by other manufacturers as well.[3][4] The name refers to breaking the device out of its "jail",[5] which is a technical term used in Unix-style systems, for example in the term "FreeBSD jail". A jailbroken iPhone, iPod touch, or iPad running iOS can still use the App Store, iTunes, and other normal functions, such as making telephone calls.
Restoring a device with iTunes removes the jailbreak.[6][7][8]
Unlike rooting an Android device, jailbreaking is necessary if the user intends to run software not authorized by Apple. The legality of jailbreaking depends on countries and conditions.
Contents [hide]
1 Reasons for jailbreaking
1.1 Use of handset on multiple carriers
1.2 Early exploit fixes
1.3 Device customization
2 Security, privacy, and stability
OS jailbreaking is the process of removing limitations on iOS, Apple's operating system on devices running it through the use of software and hardware exploits; such devices include the iPhone, iPod touch, iPad, and second-generation Apple TV. Jailbreaking permits root access to the iOS file system and manager, allowing the download of additional applications, extensions, and themes that are unavailable through the official Apple App Store. Jailbreaking is a form of privilege escalation,[1][2] and the term has been used to describe privilege escalation on devices by other manufacturers as well.[3][4] The name refers to breaking the device out of its "jail",[5] which is a technical term used in Unix-style systems, for example in the term "FreeBSD jail". A jailbroken iPhone, iPod touch, or iPad running iOS can still use the App Store, iTunes, and other normal functions, such as making telephone calls.
Restoring a device with iTunes removes the jailbreak.[6][7][8]
Unlike rooting an Android device, jailbreaking is necessary if the user intends to run software not authorized by Apple. The legality of jailbreaking depends on countries and conditions.
Contents [hide]
1 Reasons for jailbreaking
1.1 Use of handset on multiple carriers
1.2 Early exploit fixes
1.3 Device customization
2 Security, privacy, and stability
Snipped by me. Wouldn't LE have known if a POI had a disabled phone, though? I've considered that a POI might have had two phones; it's not unheard of. But LE should be able to find that kind of info, IMO.
Also, FWIW, MB was a telecommunications major. Scroll down the link below:
http://ww.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2011/06/30/news.qp-0075723.sto
Ixchel13
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,658
- Reaction score
- 1,146
yes above average in the tech dept these guys
We suspect LE is holding back info.
How about if we list what we speculate might be held back? If that's allowed.
I will begin with telephone evidence. I suspect LE knows about more phone calls. Phone calls by POIs, and maybe roommates trying to call her phone.
While it's possible that some of the group were tech-savvy (MB? DB?), it might also be that they got lucky that night. When you mention LE withholding info, which does happen at times, it also makes me wonder if there was something LE didn't know early enough on. Calls do disappear on phone records given enough time.
Articles suggest that JR had more than one guest that night. We don't really have a lot to go on in terms of that person. JMO.
IMO, it would help to know if there was more than one guest at JR's and also who that second call was made to.
I'd add specific surveillance video info (what we've heard from LE and PIs is all about when/where Lauren was spotted, but were any of the POIs caught on tape without Lauren that night?)
Also info on JR's guest(s), was there a second guest? When did DB leave and arrive? When did he arrive back at his home?
The manhole system bothers me too, in addition to the amount of construction going on.
Thanks, sammi. IDK why I didn't mention that ... tired today. The amount of construction was crazy. I just wonder if she is closer than we sometimes think.
I'm still not sure that would make him exactly tech savvy to the level that has been discussed here IMO but that really is beside the point.
Regardless if they are or are not more tech savvy than their peers, I think the point that Abbey originally made still stands - being tech savvy does not mean that they are using burner phones. The idea of so many of them using burner phones is also a bit unbelievable to me.
I agree with you and hope that LE would perhaps have evidence that a phone has been jailbroken and looked into other methods of communication (ipads, ipods, apps, etc.).
Thanks, sammi. IDK why I didn't mention that ... tired today. The amount of construction was crazy. I just wonder if she is closer than we sometimes think.
She was so tiny too. It really makes me sick.
I don't have much to say about burner phones, TBH ... IMO, if some obscure communication went down, it was between someone we know of and someone we don't know much about. JMO.
But honestly, I'm leaning more toward the manhole/construction zone theory ... or someone like DB pulling a fast one. But he'd have to have a reason to do that ... to involve himself at such a level.
Yes! I suspect they do have more surveillance info. LE mentioned at one point having hundreds of hours of video to review. I also think it's likely, by the way they spoke about it, that they were looking for the white truck not as a potential suspect but as a potential witness -- it may be that they have a POI or a vehicle on surveillance video from around the same time.
- Status