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

[AbbeyR]

How does one get buzzed in?

I assume they mean they tried to ring ZC's apt (however this is done) and received no answer.

Anyway, LE and the PI's have both said it didn't happen later, so I don't personally find this part of the timeline fishy. I just think it was thrown off by speculation about the 'mystery man', which was nothing more than a red herring.

 

[Ixchel13]

How does one get buzzed in?

I assume they mean they tried to ring ZC's apt (however this is done) and received no answer.

Anyway, LE and the PI's have both said it didn't happen later, so I don't personally find this part of the timeline fishy. I just think it was thrown off by speculation about the 'mystery man', which was nothing more than a red herring.

iirc LE said it was not backed up by video evidence. is that the same as saying it didn't or couldn't have happened?

 

[Ixchel13]

BBM. Why wouldn't JR or MB mention a mystery man if they were both at 5N and Lauren got injured elsewhere? For your theory to work, JR and MB (and CR) would be taking all of the suspicion and heat for someone else, what would their reason be for doing that? If they did indeed have burner phones couldn't they have called 911 and said that they stumbled across some girl in an alleyway who appeared to be injured? IMO it doesn't make sense that the 5N boys put themselves at the center of all of this if they weren't even present when Lauren was injured or killed.

Also, from the reports from LE, PIs and JR, I really find it hard to believe that Lauren left on her own to get her phone. I don't think she physically could have, and I don't think she was in any shape to even remember she didn't have her phone, let alone think of who might have it and then walk to their apartment.

I really don't think ZC figures into this in any meaningful way. Maybe she had been with HT earlier or something so they knocked on her door hoping she would still be awake and HT might be there. Maybe CR was hoping to make Lauren ZC's problem, much the same way that he made her MB's problem and then JR's. Just like there is no proof other than her word and the word of the PIs that ZC was asleep, there is even less proof that she was awake and knew Lauren was downstairs.

I may be wrong but I think it would be equally believable/unbelievable according to the person considering the situation whether ZC was awake. Why wouldn't JR and MB mention a mystery man? Maybe he wasn't a mystery to them..

 

[sammi89]

I messaged TG on here and asked him to comment on the thread if possible. It doesn't look like he has been online in a couple months, but I was surprised to see it looks like he has been an active member on WS in other cases in the past. Hopefully he will read the message and comment.

Additionally, I found this link where LE specifically addresses the mystery man rumors:
http://ww.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2011/06/22/news.qp-4391232.sto

Qualters addressed a blogger’s report of a “mysterious man” in the area of 10th and College at about 3:38 a.m. June 3. He said investigators have reviewed video evidence that does not support that either Spierer or anyone unknown to police was in that area at that time.

“What I’m here to tell you is that we have reviewed the video, not only the timeline that we have been using, ... and where Lauren does in fact appear ... she does appear in that video with someone that is already known to investigators. We have also reviewed it during the time period where it has been reported, essentially an hour later (at 3:38 a.m.), and we do not find any evidence that supports that information,” Qualters said.

While Qualters said he had not spoken to this witness, he acknowledged the witness had been interviewed by police: “We had spoken with someone.” He said investigators “do not have any video evidence that supports what had been reported by that particular witness.” Witness accounts can be off, he said.

“I can’t say that she didn’t see Lauren,” Qualters continued. “It does not appear that she saw Lauren at the time that was reported by other sources.”

Like anything, they do not want to say 100% anything is ruled out but he is essentially saying there is no support and it does NOT appear that the witness saw LS at the time she stated.

The simplest answer is that it was CR and she got the time wrong.

 

[holly18]

[/B]

I may be wrong but I think it would be equally believable/unbelievable according to the person considering the situation whether ZC was awake. Why wouldn't JR and MB mention a mystery man? Maybe he wasn't a mystery to them..

Thats my point. ZC says she was asleep. It may or may not be true, but there is also literally zero information to suggest that she wasn't asleep, zero information to suggest that she was aware lauren was downstairs and zero information to suggest that she intentionally wouldn't let lauren in.

I wasn't suggesting they didn't know who the mystery man was. Lets say the mystery man's name is Bob. I don't think its realistic to believe that JR and MB would decide "Well, Lauren left our apartments of her own free will, walked off, something happened that had nothing to do with us, Bob found her and now she's in trouble. We'll concoct a story about how we watched her leave, but not mention Bob, even more than two years later when we're being sued and are persons of interest in her disappearance and possible death". It doesn't matter if they know this person, unless you're suggesting its someone who has a massive hold over them. All the public attention is focused on JR and CR, and to a lesser (or less public) extent MB and JW. If they had someone else to take the blame, why on earth would they just say nothing?

IMO, the only way I can see your scenario working would be if the 'mystery man' was someone the boys were and are afraid of. And if thats the case, I don't think its as simple as lauren left on her own, mystery dude found her and returned her to 5N... IMO it would be more complicated and nefarious than that.

 

[AbbeyR]

iirc LE said it was not backed up by video evidence. is that the same as saying it didn't or couldn't have happened?

As mentioned several times, and just posted in the quote in Sammi's post -- LE has video evidence from the location of the witness encounter. In response to Gatto's article, they issued a statement saying that they reviewed this evidence, and found that that the encounter between Lauren and a man (who is known to them -- not a mystery) did not happen at 3:38, but an hour earlier.

 

[doubtingthomas]

Thats my point. ZC says she was asleep. It may or may not be true, but there is also literally zero information to suggest that she wasn't asleep, zero information to suggest that she was aware lauren was downstairs and zero information to suggest that she intentionally wouldn't let lauren in.

I wasn't suggesting they didn't know who the mystery man was. Lets say the mystery man's name is Bob. I don't think its realistic to believe that JR and MB would decide "Well, Lauren left our apartments of her own free will, walked off, something happened that had nothing to do with us, Bob found her and now she's in trouble. We'll concoct a story about how we watched her leave, but not mention Bob, even more than two years later when we're being sued and are persons of interest in her disappearance and possible death". It doesn't matter if they know this person, unless you're suggesting its someone who has a massive hold over them. All the public attention is focused on JR and CR, and to a lesser (or less public) extent MB and JW. If they had someone else to take the blame, why on earth would they just say nothing?

IMO, the only way I can see your scenario working would be if the 'mystery man' was someone the boys were and are afraid of. And if thats the case, I don't think its as simple as lauren left on her own, mystery dude found her and returned her to 5N... IMO it would be more complicated and nefarious than that.

Why couldn't Bob be a friend of JR, maybe was at the party, knew LS had been there, and took her back to JR's, dumped her off on JR, just like MB did and left. So how is JR going to out him?

 

[holly18]

Why couldn't Bob be a friend of JR, maybe was at the party, knew LS had been there, and took her back to JR's, dumped her off on JR, just like MB did and left. So how is JR going to out him?

JR could have said that Bob brought Lauren back to 5N, she was in bad shape, she hadn't been the first time she left and JR doesn't know what happened in between.

I'm not denying that this could be possible, but I think there are significant missing pieces. IE why would JR cover for Bob? Why would MB? I can think of a few reasons, but I also understand that my logic isn't their logic and they might just be operating totally differently than any of us would.

 

[doubtingthomas]

The witness has stated they heard "mystery man". who we know is CR, ask "Can I take you home?". So, since there are posters here who think that because the witness got the time wrong, and the description wrong, then this statement must be false also.

 

[sammi89]

The witness has stated they heard "mystery man". who we know is CR, ask "Can I take you home?". So, since there are posters here who think that because the witness got the time wrong, and the description wrong, then this statement must be false also.

I don't think that assumption logically follows. Let me reiterate what I am saying.

“I can’t say that she didn’t see Lauren,” Qualters continued. “It does not appear that she saw Lauren at the time that was reported by other sources.”

http://ww.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2011/06/22/news.qp-4391232.sto

PI have said they think she got the time wrong and that it was CR.

This makes the most sense.

If the witness got the time wrong and did in fact hear "Can I take you home?", CR DID take her home. His home.

 

[doubtingthomas]

If the witness got the time wrong and did in fact hear "Can I take you home?", CR DID take her home. His home.

Sorry Sammie that assumption doesn't logically follow either. Why ask someone if you can take them home if your intention was to take them to your own home.

 

[Ixchel13]

I messaged TG on here and asked him to comment on the thread if possible. It doesn't look like he has been online in a couple months, but I was surprised to see it looks like he has been an active member on WS in other cases in the past. Hopefully he will read the message and comment.

Additionally, I found this link where LE specifically addresses the mystery man rumors:
http://ww.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2011/06/22/news.qp-4391232.sto





Like anything, they do not want to say 100% anything is ruled out but he is essentially saying there is no support and it does NOT appear that the witness saw LS at the time she stated.

The simplest answer is that it was CR and she got the time wrong.

“I can’t say that she didn’t see Lauren,” Qualters continued. “It does not appear that she saw Lauren at the time that was reported by other sources.”

snipped by me^

can you not understand what he's saying here? Right away, he says he can't say she didn't see Lauren, IOW, she could have seen Lauren. Then, he goes on to say, just not at the time others saw her.
If that isn't describing someone who could very well have seen Lauren at a different time, I don't know what could be.

 

[AbbeyR]

Sorry Sammie that assumption doesn't logically follow either. Why ask someone if you can take them home if your intention was to take them to your own home.

Well, since Lauren was described as incoherent and non-responsive minutes before, and this is reiterated by MB a few minutes later (according to the lawsuit docs), my guess is that whatever CR said was for the benefit of the witness, not Lauren. According to the PI's, the witness asked if she was okay, and he told her everything was under control.

 

[AbbeyR]

“I can’t say that she didn’t see Lauren,” Qualters continued. “It does not appear that she saw Lauren at the time that was reported by other sources.”

snipped by me^

can you not understand what he's saying here? Right away, he says he can't say she didn't see Lauren, IOW, she could have seen Lauren. Then, he goes on to say, just not at the time others saw her.
If that isn't describing someone who could very well have seen Lauren at a different time, I don't know what could be.

Right, they are saying the witness encounter happened an hour earlier. Isn't that what Sammi is trying to point out? As in, she saw Lauren with Corey, as reported by the PI's.

 

[Ixchel13]

I messaged TG on here and asked him to comment on the thread if possible. It doesn't look like he has been online in a couple months, but I was surprised to see it looks like he has been an active member on WS in other cases in the past. Hopefully he will read the message and comment.

Additionally, I found this link where LE specifically addresses the mystery man rumors:
http://ww.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2011/06/22/news.qp-4391232.sto





Like anything, they do not want to say 100% anything is ruled out but he is essentially saying there is no support and it does NOT appear that the witness saw LS at the time she stated.

The simplest answer is that it was CR and she got the time wrong.

JR could have said that Bob brought Lauren back to 5N, she was in bad shape, she hadn't been the first time she left and JR doesn't know what happened in between.

I'm not denying that this could be possible, but I think there are significant missing pieces. IE why would JR cover for Bob? Why would MB? I can think of a few reasons, but I also understand that my logic isn't their logic and they might just be operating totally differently than any of us would.

if we're pretending it's Bob, why not pretend, like what if JR and Bob had a pretend business together, and if a huge horrible scandal broke out, their pretend business would crash? theoretically.

 

[sammi89]

Sorry Sammie that assumption doesn't logically follow either. Why ask someone if you can take them home if your intention was to take them to your own home.

*Sammi. Pet peeve of mine, sorry.

I don't see what the issue is with what I said. "Can I take you home?" could easily mean his own home. He wasn't sober himself and he isn't necessarily thinking, "Is that the proper way to get my point across?" He said what he meant - Can he take her to [his] home, which he did. That isn't farfetched and it seems logical to me, especially because that's what in fact happened.

And that's if you believe that the entire encounter is accurately recalled. It might not be exactly what he said, but the gist of what he said. The witness might be paraphrasing. Clearly, LE and the PI think the witness got some of the details wrong. Witnesses are not known for getting all the details right all the time. Sometimes they even get important details wrong.

Regardless, like I said, he DID take her home. It was just to his own home.

 

[sammi89]

Right, they are saying the witness encounter happened an hour earlier. Isn't that what Sammi is trying to point out? As in, she saw Lauren with Corey, as reported by the PI's.

Yes, exactly! Which is why it makes sense to me that if the witness heard him ask, "Can I take you home?" he meant his own home, which fits perfectly into the timeline because they actually DID go to CR's apartment! Lol.

I didn't discount the the witness. I think she got the time wrong. Mystery man = CR and the event happened ONCE.

 

[doubtingthomas]

Yes, exactly! Which is why it makes sense to me that if the witness heard him ask, "Can I take you home?" he meant his own home, which fits perfectly into the timeline because they actually DID go to CR's apartment! Lol.

I didn't discount the the witness. I think she got the time wrong. Mystery man = CR and the event happened ONCE.

Well, actually we don't know if this is true or not. There is no proof LS ever made it to CR's apartment. We all know how much of a liar MB is so we can't just say because he said he saw her there she was actually there.

 

[Ixchel13]

Right, they are saying the witness encounter happened an hour earlier. Isn't that what Sammi is trying to point out? As in, she saw Lauren with Corey, as reported by the PI's.

no, Qualters is saying that the witness
is reporting seeing Lauren at a different time than others saw her, and that he couldn't deny that the witness saw Lauren.

Seems like if he wanted to debunk the witness, even gently, he would have used a clearer tone, such as, "the event described by the witness is on tape
and is witnessed by others at a different time."

Instead, he is obliquely saying that the witness could have seen Lauren, but at a different time than the others reported seeing her. Qualters definitely doesn't say what the witness saw happened an hour earlier.

And while we're at it, just who are the other witnesses to the initial altercation at 10th and College, when Lauren and CR were trying to get in ZC's apt?
That's where it gets weird, cause see these witnesses remember things that CR can't because of his amnesia, So, theoretically, if these witnesses were also involved later in the second altercation at 10th and College, they could easily insert the head smack into the first altercation with CR and he can't say it didn't happen or it will blow his whole deal. The PIs have her on tape falling,
but not the head smack.

 

[sammi89]

Well, actually we don't know if this is true or not. There is no proof LS ever made it to CR's apartment. We all know how much of a liar MB is so we can't just say because he said he saw her there she was actually there.

Okay well, even if they didn't actually end up there, by all accounts, that's where they were headed so...?