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

[holly18]

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:

I do agree with you that there is not a zero percent chance that it will harm the criminal case, something could come to light that would derail or effect the criminal case.

In civil suits like this generally even if LE and the prosecutors office are not actively helping, I'm sure they are keeping tabs on the civil case, and communicating with the spierers re: 'don't bring this or that up, we're waiting to use that to spook the POIs,' etc... I also don't necessarily think that the spierers would be privy to a lot of LE's information, so I don't think that they would bring up evidence thats being kept quiet, but one of the boys might.

Thank you for explaining your line of thinking a little more, I don't think we're going to completely agree on this topic, but I understand where you're coming from! Hopefully the civil suit will bring important information to light that will help the spierers heal and help LE proceed with the criminal investigation

 

[sammi89]

In civil suits like this generally even if LE and the prosecutors office are not actively helping, I'm sure they are keeping tabs on the civil case, and communicating with the spierers re: 'don't bring this or that up, we're waiting to use that to spook the POIs,' etc... I also don't necessarily think that the spierers would be privy to a lot of LE's information, so I don't think that they would bring up evidence thats being kept quiet, but one of the boys might.

I tend to agree that the Spierers are probably doing their best to work together with the prosecutor/LE on the issue or at least checking in periodically to make sure they what they're doing what jeopardize finding LS and bringing her home.


The former discussion civil vs criminal actually reminded me that the Fifth Amendment won't really work the same way in the criminal trial and the civil trial either. For the civil case, they can't just say "I invoke my Fifth Amendment right!" and refuse to answer anything. The Spierers' attorney will be allowed to ask investigative questions (ex: incriminating vs embarrassing?) and the defendants will have to demonstrate how it could be incriminating (without answering, if that makes sense) and the judge will decide if it has been properly invoked. They can only invoke for specific questions and it must be testimonial in nature, so I wonder if they could request phone info. The actual defendant must invoke to the specific question, and not his attorney (CR, are you practicing? lol) and because it's personal, they can't invoke it because it might be incriminating for someone else. On the off chance they do invoke to every single question, motions to compel are available. Also, by answering one question, they may have waived for related questions. If the risk of criminal prosecution is no more (statute of limitations) has run out, then they can't invoke for that.
http://www.vsb.org/docs/valawyermagazine/vl1209_fifth-amend.pdf -> Note: really short read if anyone is interested: 4 pages. I skipped the latter stuff on VA statutes so it was even shorter.
http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/blt00may-shield.html -> also a pretty short read, but also kind of old (2000).

Holly, I don't know if you're in your crim class currently, but feel free to add/correct anything, or anyone else. It's been a minute since I've gone over this stuff lol.

As much as the 5N POIs might try to make it difficult for the Spierers, I think the Spierers have plenty of things to work with themselves to get as much as they can from the case.

 

[sammi89]

I didn't realize this earlier, but it's comforting to see that the very issue discussed here is in the minds of the Spierers and their attorneys too.

"It doesn't change in any respect the way we're going to go about gathering evidence," he said. "Certainly, we are still sensitive to the fact that some of this evidence relates to an ongoing criminal investigation."

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...es-spierers-request-seal-information/6652817/

 

[carlarae341]

VeryVeritas.....don't forget to consider the visitor, DB, who had transportation and left that morning likely passing thru Martinsville.

 

[imkeylime]

VeryVeritas.....don't forget to consider the visitor, DB, who had transportation and left that morning likely passing thru Martinsville.

The article below (from a local MI newspaper) mentions DB sleeping at JR's when LS arrived. Unless he was passed out like CR claims to have been, I'd think he would have awakened when LS arrived or at least heard something. I find it interesting that both CR and DB were allegedly sleeping while MB and JR dealt with the situation at hand. JMO.

Here's the link:

http://www.macombdaily.com/article/MD/20130817/NEWS01/130819496

 

[AbbeyR]

I'm just catching up, but just made my way through the posts about the civil suit. Good discussion and points raised by all.

The article below (from a local MI newspaper) mentions DB sleeping at JR's when LS arrived. Unless he was passed out like CR claims to have been, I'd think he would have awakened when LS arrived or at least heard something. I find it interesting that both CR and DB were allegedly sleeping while MB and JR dealt with the situation at hand. JMO.

Here's the link:

http://www.macombdaily.com/article/MD/20130817/NEWS01/130819496

Bleznak is still a mystery in all of this. I can easily imagine how people could be in the apartment, but passed out at 4 am after a night of partying. At the same time, I've never believed the story that CR was put to bed, and the story that all of the guys at 5 N were basically doing their own thing, oblivious to the others seemed unlikely from the beginning with so much action going on -- and even more so as we found out more information (about MB bringing Lauren to JR's, for ex.).

Whether DB's car was available, and searched, and what time he left town are still key questions.

 

[AbbeyR]

Good post, VV.

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.

Since providing someone with drugs can lead to a murder charge in the event of an overdose -- and because people who are high can do really stupid/ paranoid/ irrational things -- I can't totally dismiss drugs (alone) as being a possible motive.

Still, I think there are a lot of red flags in this story that could potentially point to sexual assault as well, so I agree with your reasoning - especially about how and why all three could be involved.

 

[sammi89]

The article below (from a local MI newspaper) mentions DB sleeping at JR's when LS arrived. Unless he was passed out like CR claims to have been, I'd think he would have awakened when LS arrived or at least heard something. I find it interesting that both CR and DB were allegedly sleeping while MB and JR dealt with the situation at hand. JMO.

Here's the link:

http://www.macombdaily.com/article/MD/20130817/NEWS01/130819496

I've always felt like the info surrounding JR's guest(s) was murky or, at least, what has been publicly released about them. If anyone accompanied DB on the drive to IN, they were probably still there too. I also would be a little surprised if JR was the only one who woke up or was the only one still awake when MB brought her back over.

It also bothers me that she supposedly ended up where a party had taken place just a few hours earlier. In my experience, there's usually some stragglers hanging around and/or people who either pass out there or have been invited to crash, but I don't know if that happened here. Hopefully LE knows or has some idea though.

 

[justagirl247]

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 have and also have seen several ppl do this on numerous occasions

 

[doubtingthomas]

How does a person who has been drinking and doing drugs administer a sobriety test to a person who has been drinking and drugged? At what point would they know the person was sober? Sorry JR is just doesn't wash.

 

[sammi89]

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 have and also have seen several ppl do this on numerous occasions

Thinking about it, I actually do believe that a couple frat parties I went to sometimes would designate someone as the "sober brother" and they would sort of check on everyone and intervene if someone wanted to continue drinking who clearly should stop and/or be sent home until a certain time (at mixers we generally had multiple sisters designated to drive home anyone that needed it as well) but it definitely wasn't common for me or my friends and I only graduated a few years ago. I believe it happens, but I am skeptical of JR's claim.

It just seems weird in context. Why administer some kind of walking test in the first place unless there was a reason to? If there was a reason to, why send her off into the night alone? Why make calls to other people to catch a ride but not a call a cab when none of them panned out? Why wasn't HT, friend of JR's and most likely in his phone, called?

 

[imkeylime]

How does a person who has been drinking and doing drugs administer a sobriety test to a person who has been drinking and drugged? At what point would they know the person was sober? Sorry JR is just doesn't wash.

Legitimate questions. Maybe that's why he didn't think twice after seeing a bruise on her face (which he's acknowledged)? He knew she'd been drinking, was told by someone (LS or DR) she'd done Klonopin, and saw bruising. And he thought nothing of it ...

 

[akh]

I think you guys are putting a lot more emphasis on the sobriety check portion of the story than it deserves. Assuming it's true at all he wouldn't have been giving her a Field Sobriety Test worthy of an Indiana State Trooper. He wouldn't be looking for signs that she was .08 or greater. He's not looking to see if she's OK to drive. I doubt he'd even care if she could walk a straight line.

He'd simply have been seeing if she could walk well enough to get home without falling. At least that is how I would interpret the 'sobriety test' as it's came to be known.

Which, considering the stories we've heard, it would either seem impossible considering the state some reports say she was likely in... Or else it's totally reasonable for him to want to make sure she could stand and at least stagger without falling considering the shape she'd reportedly been in earlier.

But in either case I'm not sure what hay there is to be made in questioning the 'sobriety test'. At least in regards to the angles that are coming up now. I'm not sure how it really matters one way or the other to tip the scales of suspicion is what I am saying.

It may not be true at all and never happened but what is there to glean whether it did or didn't? How is it pointing to guilt or suspicion?

All it really does is acknowledge he knew she had been drinking and/or taking drugs and not necessarily of sound mind. Which isn't really in doubt that she was intoxicated. And his acknowledgement probably at least slightly hurts his position in the civil case.

 

[AbbeyR]

I think there is a lot of focus on the "sobriety check" because the involvement of the POI in Lauren's disappearance hinges on whether that last story is true. JR is the only one who says Lauren left 5 N alive, and his story is questionable, not only because of the reports of Lauren's condition, but because the few details he has provided sound sketchy (watching her walk to/ round the corner in the dark and the 'sobriety test' story).

Also, in the stories they told immediately following Lauren's disappearance, all three of the POI suggested Lauren was in perfectly good condition:

CR: Lauren helped Corey home
MB: Lauren left his place on her own, wanting to party
JR: Lauren left his place on her own, walking without stumbling

Based on the witness accounts, video evidence and their own statements a year later, it seems that at least the first two were not true. If all three conspired to give a misleading impression of Lauren's condition and what happened that night (while also implying they weren't even all together) this raises serious questions about their credibility and involvement.

It's not what you would expect the reaction to be from people who thought their friend was missing and wanted to help find her.

 

[akh]

Abbey,
JR also said she walked out of his apartment. So if that is untrue then what difference does the sobriety test story really make?

I don't guess I understand why there's really any weight being given to the sobriety test portion of the story, particularly as to it somehow making him more suspicious?

Either she walked out of the apartment or she didn't. If anything the sobriety test just shows he's acknowledging he had questions about her ability to walk and get home. It's at least implying he didn't kick her out and she wanted to go home. And it's certainly at least saying he doesn't dispute that she'd been drinking and/or doing drugs.

I don't think it was ever meant to show that she was perfectly sober. If anything it's to say he had concerns but she seemed well enough to walk so he let her leave. Which could very well be a lie and there's no disputing that possibility.

I just don't see how that piece of the puzzle by itself should point to guilt or suspicion. Not when the bigger piece of the puzzle is him saying she walked out the door. To me, that renders the sobriety test a moot point in the equation anyway, at least as to guilt. Saying she walked out the door is a much larger issue. Now if he was to have said he performed a test and found her sober as a judge then that would be questionable for sure. But I don't see that is what he was saying.

Doubting Thomas said the Sobriety Test didn't wash... but it's neither here nor there isn't it considering the rest of story then goes that she walked out the door.

Take the test out of the story entirely... it doesn't change anything. Add it in and at best it acknowledges he knew she had issues. I just don't see it pointing to guilt in and of itself. If he'd said he performed the test and she seemed OK so he went to bed and doesn't know what happened. In that scenario it would be questionable. But when he follows it with her walking out the apartment door then I just don't see how there's much hay to be made parsing out the 'sobriety test' and how it shows guilt.

 

[sammi89]

I think you guys are putting a lot more emphasis on the sobriety check portion of the story than it deserves. Assuming it's true at all he wouldn't have been giving her a Field Sobriety Test worthy of an Indiana State Trooper. He wouldn't be looking for signs that she was .08 or greater. He's not looking to see if she's OK to drive. I doubt he'd even care if she could walk a straight line.

Snipped for me for space.

Even if you think the case hinges on her walking out the door, it wouldn't mean JR's statements on what was happening during those final moments she was allegedly last seen unimportant.

In addition to what Abbey mentioned, I think people are just expressing whether they think JR's statements are believable or not, and one of those statements is that he administered some sort of sobriety test, which would imply she was actually capable of walking out the door.

Of course no one thinks that his sobriety check is the equivalent to an LE administered test though.

 

[akh]

Snipped for me for space.

Even if you think the case hinges on her walking out the door, it wouldn't mean JR's statements on what was happening during those final moments she was allegedly last seen unimportant.

In addition to what Abbey mentioned, I think people are just expressing whether they think JR's statements are believable or not, and one of those statements is that he administered some sort of sobriety test, which would imply she was actually capable of walking out the door.

Of course no one thinks that his sobriety check is the equivalent to an LE administered test though.

Just to be clear I'm talking criminal case and how the sobriety test would point towards potential guilt. The sobriety test story in that context seems to me to be absolutely pointless to pointing the needle to guilt. It doesn't matter if someone believes the sobriety test story or not because the next part of the story is the key part.

The sobriety test story might be entirely true or totally fabricated. Who knows? Who cares? It's the next part of his story that matters (that she walked out the door on her own and by herself). Is that true? What does the sobriety test story tell us to confirm or deny that part?

Am I missing something about the importance of the alleged sobriety test in this context? If I'm not then why does the subject even come up as a discussion point about guilt and suspicion?

It feels like once people decide someone is guilty then everything becomes evidence. And of course then that leads to tunnelvision. ...Which is never good.

 

[AbbeyR]

Abbey,
JR also said she walked out of his apartment. So if that is untrue then what difference does the sobriety test story really make?

Right, if it is untrue, it doesn't matter. The point is whether or not it is possible that the story is true.. so I'm not really following your point?

JR says Lauren could walk without stumbling, and that he watched her walk to/ round the corner towards home.

There is no evidence that she actually made it to the corner or anyone to back up his story, and she was never seen again. So, is this story credible? Can one actually see someone walk to and round the corner from JR's in the dark? Does the sobriety story make any sense at all? Even if it did, is it possible, based on the reports we have of her condition that she could have 'passed' it and walked without stumbling, when multiple witnesses state that she couldn't walk on her own shortly before her arrival at 5 N?

If any/all of his story is not true, this obviously raises questions about whether or not Lauren actually left his apartment as he claims.

Questioning the conflicting and inconsistent stories of people who were last to see Lauren and who have been named Persons of Interest in her case is not exactly tunnel vision. It's logic. I don't see any assumptions of guilt - just questions and theories.

 

[imkeylime]

Just to be clear I'm talking criminal case and how the sobriety test would point towards potential guilt. The sobriety test story in that context seems to me to be absolutely pointless to pointing the needle to guilt. It doesn't matter if someone believes the sobriety test story or not because the next part of the story is the key part.

The sobriety test story might be entirely true or totally fabricated. Who knows? Who cares? It's the next part of his story that matters (that she walked out the door on her own and by herself). Is that true? What does the sobriety test story tell us to confirm or deny that part?

Am I missing something about the importance of the alleged sobriety test in this context? If I'm not then why does the subject even come up as a discussion point about guilt and suspicion?

It feels like once people decide someone is guilty then everything becomes evidence. And of course then that leads to tunnelvision. ...Which is never good.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the sobriety test makes me doubt JR because he's also down as saying that she mistook an I-pod for a phone not much earlier that morning. That, and the bruise on her face, would have raised a red flag for most people, IMO.

That said, I agree that the next part of the story matters the most ... whether she did or did not walk out that door. But he allegedly wouldn't have let her walk out had she not "passed" his sobriety test. OTOH, she mistook an I-pod for a cell phone. That's the inconsistency that bothers me.

 

[Dixie811]

I guess a highly intoxicated college girl is not alarming to a college guy such as JR and MB... but a the bruised face? I had my share of rough nights in college and many friends who were big partiers-- I never saw a girl with such an injury after a night out, and would have been alarmed if I did!

JR and MB should certainly have been concerned enough about Lauren to keep her at one of their apartments until morning. I presume that JR and/or MB would have asked Lauren why her face was bruised like that. Would love to know what her response was, if she was able to offer a coherent one. If they found out it was from a fall- even more reason for concern (assuming they know anything at all about head injuries). I experienced facial bruising around my eye(s) just once... after suffering a blow to the top of my forehead that left me with a skull fracture and a small brain bleed.

I am no doctor, but if the bruising on her face was from an impact that occurred elsewhere on the head (i.e. the bruise was a side-effect of a greater injury rather than from direct contact to that spot), then that is alarming and IMO it is likely what caused her death-- if nothing or no one else killed her first. I have known several people who have become unresponsive within hours of the injury and ultimately died due to brain injuries from a fall-- simple ones even; one tripped on the street curb and another slipped on ice.