IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #33

[AbbeyR]

And no matter how many times you say it, a lawyer speaking off the cuff, trying to spin PR for his client, is in no way the same as the client speaking for himself or the lawyer reading a prepared and signed statement.

<snipped> Respectfully, I've never once said that. This is your often repeated line. I said that we have statements from their lawyers, who were hired to represent their clients and speak on their behalf. That is what the lawyers were doing when they gave statements to the media.

As I was clear to point out, we do not know what the POI have said in statements directly to LE. And yes, those statements are obviously important. But so are the statements that they made to witnesses, in interviews with private investigators, and through their lawyers. We are not in court. We are discussing a case based on information we have access to. The information we have that is attributed to the POI is filled with contradictory statements.

 

[Vidocq]

[/B]

... IMO, something "not being on camera" is not a valid reason for debunking someone's theories.

A point of logic: someone not being on camera *would* be proof they were not there, *if and only if* there exists a camera pointed at the location in question. However, from walking around Tenth & College myself, and walking to Tenth & College from the corner of 11th and College Ave., just recently, it seems to me, if one walks from the infamous corner down to Tenth & College, and sits down on the SE steps of Tenth & College, he or she has never crossed the eye line of any cameras. (It seems to me, one has to enter the arcade, or walk around the North, South, or West sides of the building to get on camera.) I'm thinking of going back down there and taking pictures of all the relevant cameras to post here. (Has anyone done that?) I'm a little worried that whatever security they have there will start noticing me. But, hey, back off security: I'm a web sleuth!

[After reading EOA's last comment, I see he's already pointed out the same logical point, without the empirical assertion.]

 

[Vidocq]

Continuing on:

...

6. RANDOM LONGSHOTS - as mentioned in the lead-in, the Indiana high school state track meet that I came into town for on 6/3/11 was the afternoon she was reported missing. ...

I find the existence of the track meet interesting. (What kind of web sleuths would we be if we didn't think up random longshots?) It occurs to me: if Lauren's disappearance was the work of a random visiting wacko (which I doubt, but if), the only way to establish that would be to look for similar unsolved circumstances occurring elsewhere. (Lone wackos get caught because they have to keep doing it.)

How long has this meet been meeting? I wonder, were they meeting in the year 2000? And if so, what was the date?

 

[holly18]

There is simply no way to know this. You're simply giving weight to things that we have no way of knowing how accurate they may or may not be.

And no matter how many times you say it, a lawyer speaking off the cuff, trying to spin PR for his client, is in no way the same as the client speaking for himself or the lawyer reading a prepared and signed statement. It's probative value is zero. Maybe if he had stated MB was not even in Bloomington that night it would be curious. I don't even see enough of a conflict in what he said to even get curious about it considering the circumstances.

Until we hear directly from the PsOI, see the actual statements, hear them questioned, or even hear directly from the alleged witnesses and 'hearsay' participants, then we really don't have any idea where their credibility lands.

I know you're comfortable declaring their stories have been ever changing. But it's just not a fact that is the case. It's simply another variable we cannot confirm because the spigot of information simply isn't turned on for us. And we can't state it as fact.

It's a fact the atty told something differently than what is stated in the civil suit. It's not a known fact that either is actually accurate or different than what MB himself might've told LE all along. Meanwhile, it's really of no consequence what the atty said in the circumstances and context of his quote in the first place. What matters is what MB said in the police report and what others that LE interviewed told them to contradict or support that. And of that, we have no information at all.

I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but from your pervious posts it seems like you have some sort of legal background, or are at least well versed in the legalities of a case like this. As I'm sure you know, lawyers don't just run to the press with their personal ideas or scenarios. A lawyer speaking on behalf of their client, especially a client like MB/CR/JR, who come from money and aren't public defense attorney situations, is not going to spout random stuff that doesn't come from a client.

A lawyer isn't the same thing as a friend who might make a random comment that comes more from themselves than from a POI. These lawyers were hired to represent their clients. If MB's lawyer was reciting things that were untrue or not what MB had said, that would no longer be his lawyer. A lawyer would also have a rough time staying away from a disciplinary committee if they were telling tales.

Most of the time POIs and suspects with lawyers do not make their own statements. MB picked, hired and paid his lawyer to speak for him. If this lawyer was going around saying things that MB did not agree with he would no longer be MB's lawyer. Nobody here is analyzing the lawyer's language, implying things that aren't there or trying to understand more about MB from those statements. The fact is, this legally trained, paid mouth piece for MB has said various things. Personally, I think its odd to suggest that MB's lawyer saying something has "zero value". MB hired this lawyer, and continues to pay his fees. Even if what the lawyer is saying is false, MB does not appear to be willing to say otherwise. Lawyers in these situations are mouthpieces for their clients. MB's lawyer has changed his client's story multiple times, I doubt he's just doing that for fun and I think its perfectly legitimate and logical to believe that a change in what MB's attorney's story is coming from MB.

 

[holly18]

RE: MB.
Originally I believed his story, that he was at home writing a paper, got roped into dealing with Lauren, and brought her over to JR's, either because CR was unable or unwilling to deal with her. As time has gone on, MB has changed his story (through his lawyer) drastically. First he was at home working on a paper when lauren and CR arrived, then he was at JR's when he suspected his home was being robbed and discovered Lauren and CR both in the house. First he walked Lauren to JR's and then left, then he stayed at JR's for an hour after bringing Lauren over. These aren't small differences, they aren't things that might slip your mind.

In one situation, you're at home writing a paper when your roommate comes home visibly *advertiser censored**** up, you take him upstairs, deal with him, come back down, the girl he was with still wants to party (this phrase seems to get lost in the shuffle. Lauren couldn't stand a short time previously, but now suddenly wants "to party"?), you take the girl to your neighbors and go home.
In another situation, you're at your neighbors, something happens that makes you think there has been a break in at your apartment. Rush home (alone? I'd think that if he was with JR, thought strangers were in his apartment, JR would come with him to help), find Lauren, bring her to JR's, stay for an hour while JR makes various phone calls, etc.

IMO these changes matter, why would MB change his story to such a degree? Was there something in his original story that he had reason to believe could be disproven?

 

[akh]

Nobody here is analyzing the lawyer's language, implying things that aren't there or trying to understand more about MB from those statements. The fact is, this legally trained, paid mouth piece for MB has said various things. Personally, I think its odd to suggest that MB's lawyer saying something has "zero value". MB hired this lawyer, and continues to pay his fees. Even if what the lawyer is saying is false, MB does not appear to be willing to say otherwise. Lawyers in these situations are mouthpieces for their clients. MB's lawyer has changed his client's story multiple times, I doubt he's just doing that for fun and I think its perfectly legitimate and logical to believe that a change in what MB's attorney's story is coming from MB.

MB's lawyer has changed his story multiple times?

He gave an early interview/quote to reporters off the cuff. At a time when he himself might've been confused about a few details... and when his main theme was to turn the spotlight of suspicion from his client. And the difference in what he said and what we later read in the civil filings isn't some earth-shattering revelation that totally changed everything even if we assume what's in the civil filing is 100% accurate itself.

I'm sorry... but that's just barely curious and easily understood and explained. And gets us no closer to what is actually in MB's statement to police from the beginning. Only with that info do we have an idea how much his story has really changed or remained consistent.

People are hanging onto anything trying to find a connection, an angle, something to lead to the smoking gun. Something to make them feel they know what must've happened. And it's just not there. At least not yet. The total lack of public information is allowing people's imagination to get the best of them thinking they are looking at something when, even if they were, there's no way to make that connection.

We're debating a lawyer's meaningless quote to reporters from early in the case the same as if he'd read a prepared statement from his client. Only if the lawyer's statement had been wildly off base would there be any value in it. And seriously, it's a meaningless quote for those reasons. It wasn't even a detailed account from the attorney.

Of course the attorney is acting as mouthpiece for his client but let's keep it in context of the situation. In this situation, and with what little he said, it was certainly meaningless.

If someone is looking for a smoking gun, this is not it....

 

[akh]

I want to add-
I Jules had this exactly correct IMHO:

Originally Posted by I Jules View Post
It might not be that JR & MB are lying. It might be that they have changed their statements to add details that had not originally come to mind. Or, it might be that their original statements were slightly in error and details needed to later be corrected....

Then finally, how do any of us really know what any POI statement actually said? Have any of us seen any POI statement presented to LE? If we haven't, then aren't we making assumptions that what might have been rumored or hastily said to a reporter or PI was the Truth.

Then Abby replied with necessary caveats but then still managed to say this:

However, we are not just talking about little details. The POI at 5 N have told several inconsistent and totally contradictory versions of what happened in the hours Lauren was last seen. And, they have never given a coherent or agreed upon timeline.

As well as mention the lawyer's interview and its importance again in another part.

I bristle at both of those things because they aren't accurately representing facts as we know them. Legally, they would be assuming facts not in the record. So they are at best assumptions.

I Jules had it right to begin with. The above would do more to confuse I Jules than help because it read to me like we actually know some things are lies, conflicting, etc.. We don't. We don't know what's in the original report(s). We don't know what reporters got wrong. We don't know what hearsay got twisted from the neighbors as they relayed stories to reporters. Reporters that in many cases, early on were confused about the players anyway (confusing JR and CR especially). We don't even know if the allegations in the civil case are actually accurate and without question.

 

[sammi89]

He gave an early interview/quote to reporters off the cuff. At a time when he himself might've been confused about a few details... and when his main theme was to turn the spotlight of suspicion from his client. And the difference in what he said and what we later read in the civil filings isn't some earth-shattering revelation that totally changed everything even if we assume what's in the civil filing is 100% accurate itself.

I'm sorry... but that's just barely curious and easily understood and explained. And gets us no closer to what is actually in MB's statement to police from the beginning. Only with that info do we have an idea how much his story has really changed or remained consistent.

Respectfully snipped and bbm.

Is it really just barely curious and easily understood and explainable? If so, why hasn't it been explained? It might be as easily explainable as you claim, but there is no way for us to know that as it stands.

We're debating a lawyer's meaningless quote to reporters from early in the case the same as if he'd read a prepared statement from his client. Only if the lawyer's statement had been wildly off base would there be any value in it. And seriously, it's a meaningless quote for those reasons. It wasn't even a detailed account from the attorney.

Of course the attorney is acting as mouthpiece for his client but let's keep it in context of the situation. In this situation, and with what little he said, it was certainly meaningless.

Even following your own argument, I'm not sure even then you could classify the lawyer's statement as "certainly meaningless" because, according to you, we simply don't know what MB actually said. The probative value is certainly not zero because, as holly mentioned, a lawyer is paid in part to speak for his client. I agree that it doesn't reach the same level as the client speaking himself or a statement signed by the client, but a statement by a client's lawyer is not something to disregard entirely, especially if it appears to be at odds with other accounts.

 

[sammi89]

FWIW,

here is a link to an earlier post by Abbey listing various statements by Chapman on behalf of MB as well as the PI's summary of that portion of the night regarding MB.


Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #29

Here's the quote about MB leaving his apartment and going to JR's. According to the PI's (June 2012):

At Rossman’s apartment, Beth, his neighbor, was still awake; he’d been drinking and finishing a paper for class.[CR vomits, MB puts him to bed...] [MB] then returned to the living room, where he said he tried to persuade Spierer to sleep over. But Spierer said she wanted to return to Smallwood, wrongly believing she left her phone with Rohn. Beth said he then phoned his neighbor, Rosenbaum, the host of the “pre-game” party who knew Spierer from their camp days, wanting him to take care of her.“Mike Beth says, ‘I don’t know her as well as Jay Rosenbaum knows her,’ ” said Ciravolo, whose firm interviewed Beth. “So he walks her next door, and he makes her Jay Rosenbaum’s problem.” Rosenbaum, who said he was home getting ready for bed at the time, told investigators that he received the call about 3:30 a.m...

They came over together, and Rosenbaum said he put on sweatclothes and opened the door. Spierer came carrying her fake ID and Smallwood key card, he said. “When Lauren walked into Rosenbaum’s apartment, he observed a very noticeable bruise under her eye,” the investigator wrote in a report summarizing his interview with Rosenbaum. “He stated he asked her what happened, and she responded, ‘I don’t know.’ ” Beth said he pressed her to sleep over at Rosenbaum’s. Initially, she sat on the couch and seemed agreeable, he said. Beth said that’s when he left Rosenbaum’s and returned to his apartment.

Earlier though, MB's lawyer said he didn't drink that night, that Lauren visited with MB at his apartment, and that he then watched her leave, implying that Lauren went to JR's alone and MB stayed home:

Chapman said that on the night of Spierer’s disappearance, she and Beth “visited for a while.” He described the two as friends. He said his client was not drinking or using illegal substances that evening and was home writing two papers for two classes (link)

Beth's lawyer, Ronald Chapman, told The Journal News on Saturday that Beth was home writing two papers for class, when Corey and Spierer arrived. "He made Corey go to bed," Chapman said. "He saw her walking out. That was the end of it. He wants her to be found and be OK, but he doesn't have any information that will lead to her discovery." (link)

They then went to Rossman's building, where Beth, his roommate, put him to bed, said Beth's lawyer, Ronald Chapman. Beth watched Spierer leave. She then went to Rosenbaum's apartment. (Link)

 

[akh]

You have a second hand account (and that assumes the attorney himself had spoken with MB at this point), probably intentionally condensed for brevity, PR, and soundbite reasons, not read from any notes AFAIK, that isn't all that much different than what we think the story is now anyway. And this is supposed to be a major component and evidence of changing stories? And we don't even have the actual report to compare it to in the first place.

And Holli and Abby are wrong about the importance and weight of an attorney's statements in this type of setting and context.

 

[Ixchel13]

<respectfully snipped for space>

Obviously we can only evaluate the information that we have. We are likely never going to hear directly from the POI themselves or know exactly what they told LE, unless there is a trial one day. But we do have statements from their own lawyers, who were hired to represent them, from the Private Investigators who interviewed them, and from witnesses who know them and spoke to them directly, quoting them to reporters. I agree -- It's definitely possible some of the inconsistencies come from bad reporting, misquotes, or misunderstandings. However, we are not just talking about little details. The POI at 5 N have told several inconsistent and totally contradictory versions of what happened in the hours Lauren was last seen. And, they have never given a coherent or agreed upon timeline. These are not small details in a missing person case. Especially MB -- just about every piece of information that was made in his early statements, via his lawyer, has turned out to be false (based on evidence that has come up since then) or contradicted by his own later statements.

At any point, any of the POI could have issued statements correcting information that wasn't correct, or they could have done what most people would do when a friend goes missing - just give a clear and consistent account of when and where she was last seen from the outset, to help find her. Someone brought up the Mickey Shunick case -- look at how the friends (who were also initially under suspicion) reacted in that case: They gave a detailed timeline of events immediately, responding to all questions, even hard ones from the media, and taking polygraphs.

I would love to hear from from the POI and know if there is some explanation for the multiple and contradictory accounts we have heard. But they can't or won't give a clear or consistent story. If they had, they would presumably have been cleared by LE long ago, or at least would have cleared up the questions from the Private investigators and the Spierers, who have made it clear that they have not done so.


http://www.lohud.com/article/20120603/news02/306030045

Abbey don't forget the another POI, JW, of whom Bo Dietl accuses of giving conflicting statements. When pressed, Dietl answered that the conflicting statements were about being at home [during altercation and Lauren's demise] and "all that".

 

[Ixchel13]

A point of logic: someone not being on camera *would* be proof they were not there, *if and only if* there exists a camera pointed at the location in question. However, from walking around Tenth & College myself, and walking to Tenth & College from the corner of 11th and College Ave., just recently, it seems to me, if one walks from the infamous corner down to Tenth & College, and sits down on the SE steps of Tenth & College, he or she has never crossed the eye line of any cameras. (It seems to me, one has to enter the arcade, or walk around the North, South, or West sides of the building to get on camera.) I'm thinking of going back down there and taking pictures of all the relevant cameras to post here. (Has anyone done that?) I'm a little worried that whatever security they have there will start noticing me. But, hey, back off security: I'm a web sleuth!

[After reading EOA's last comment, I see he's already pointed out the same logical point, without the empirical assertion.]

As a business manager, I will point this out: cameras are not there to protect or validate customers and/or their misadventures. Cameras are there to protect the owner's property be it money or assets such as furniture, windows, etc. That's where you will see cameras pointed! At doors, cash registers, and as you pointed out, the arcade, which at that time, had wrought iron outside furniture that was constantly being stolen. If a camera is pointed at a parking lot, it is to protect the property owner from liability, not to protect customers from getting mugged or their cars stolen. If the footage can be used for such purposes, they often won't turn that info over w/o a warrant!
What I am trying to say about the cameras is, when the bar manager supposedly saw Lauren and CR on the steps of 10th and College, and Lauren smacking her head, she is not on cameras. Her testimony as an eye witness is inserted into the video narrative the PIs were giving. Lauren smacking her head is also not in the video. So, the witness and what she supposedly saw at that time, the head smack, aren't in the video! The camera catches her sitting on the steps, but doesn't see her when she hits her head while sitting on those very same steps a minute later?
But, we are supposed to disregard her 3:38 testimony, distinct description and time based on the fact that there is no evidence of this happening on camera? So, her testimony has been inserted into the 2:45 video of Lauren on the steps because that IS on camera. I find that logic fuzzy, especially because what ultimately happened to Lauren has not been captured on camera to our knowledge.
Perhaps what LE does have on camera are instances of POIs and/or their friends leaving their various places they were after 3:30 and coming back
later, with enough time to be part of whatever happened at the end, either
in cars or on foot. These cars/walkers would have driven/walked in and out of cameras, and when or if they got to the west side of the buildings, go off camera. So maybe some of the conflicting statements also come from this and we just don't have that info, and that's where the other 5 unknown POIs come in?

http://www.lohud.com/flash/spierer/ click on Bo Dietls interview. Perhaps this interview is what got JW's parents so angry they gave the infamous interview discrediting Lauren. Bo Dietl does not mince words when it comes to JW. He doesn't think JW was home asleep. Again, we here left in the dark don't know what that info is, or how he got it.

 

[Ixchel13]

All this talk about camera footage gave me an idea. LE has said they have hundreds of hours of video footage to review.

Let's for the sake of a vantage point, say that Lauren was taken to the west side of the buildings between 5N and then taken into 10th and College Villages
from that side. They could have kept her body in one of those townhomes and then moved her out with furniture being packed up, she was so small. Perhaps LE is reviewing those moves to see who is helping with the moving?

 

[holly18]

You have a second hand account (and that assumes the attorney himself had spoken with MB at this point), probably intentionally condensed for brevity, PR, and soundbite reasons, not read from any notes AFAIK, that isn't all that much different than what we think the story is now anyway. And this is supposed to be a major component and evidence of changing stories? And we don't even have the actual report to compare it to in the first place.

And Holli and Abby are wrong about the importance and weight of an attorney's statements in this type of setting and context.

Obviously thats your opinion. As a law student, and someone who has worked in criminal defense firms, personally everything you've said on this topic seems completely incorrect to me.
I don't understand what you think the attorney/client relationship is like. Do you think MB's lawyer was just speaking from his imagination, without even speaking to MB? Yes, attorneys often go for a PR spin and sound bytes, but they're still incredibly careful about what they say.

So yes, I think MB's lawyer giving vastly different stories is a "major component and evidence of changing stories". Its evidence of changing stories..... because he told stories that changed. Again, these aren't small differences. If they were, I'd agree that maybe he hadn't gotten all the facts, maybe MB forgot parts.

Where was MB when Lauren and Cory got back? There is a difference between being at home working on a paper when a roommate gets back and being at a friend's house when you suddenly think your apartment is being robbed.

Theres a difference between dropping Lauren off and then getting back to work on your paper, and staying at JR's with Lauren for an hour.
MB isn't claiming amnesia. How easily could MB forget or misremember these details?

A lawyer who gave a public account of his client's actions without consulting that client would risk being dragged in front of a disciplinary committee. This isn't an issue of semantics, what you're saying just isn't how defense attorneys work.

 

[AbbeyR]

<modsnip>

Anyway, the bottom line for me is that the stories from the POI at 5 N are contradictory. This is documented in the statements from their own lawyers, witnesses, the private investigators and the legal documents that we have access to.

You can choose to explain this away by imagining that perhaps every witness, journalist and investigator was wrong. Perhaps the lawyers were just spinning the facts because they don't know or don't want to reveal the true story, so all they have is spin. Or perhaps there is some story that perfectly makes sense that no one knows about yet.

But the fact remains that the stories we have do not add up and contain contradictions. Based on the information that has been since reported in MSM and in the lawsuit docs, it also appears that the POI at 5 N may have mislead others, including the public (via misleading and incorrect statements from their lawyers) about Lauren's condition and about what happened when she got back to their apartments. This makes me wonder why someone would do this, when presumably they want their missing friend to be found.

Maybe one day there will be some answers that resolve these apparent contradictions and questions-- I hope so!

 

[Vidocq]

Ixchel13, what's your source for her being on camera at 2:45 at the steps? I've only heard of her being on camera leaving SW at 2:42, and then in the alley between 2:48 and 2:51.

 

[AbbeyR]

Lauren Spierer's parents mark third anniversary since disappearance

http://www.lohud.com/story/news/loc...e-third-anniversary-parents-struggle/9837123/

 

[akh]

I really have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who is as rude and condescending as you are. Maybe you can explain yourself more clearly, or provide some information as to why exactly we are supposed to take your word for all of this. I've stated why my opinion is what it is- and I'm not the one speaking in absolutes. Is it possible that the story changed because of a miscommunication between MB and his lawyer (or whoever else in the firm interviewed MB)? Of course. However, I don't agree with you that this is a pointless line of thinking.

My experience differs from what you are claiming. The attorneys I've worked with are all very careful about exactly what they say, they would not give two vastly differing accounts without having a reason to do so. I've never said that we should consider what MB's lawyer says as though it is MB himself saying it, I've said I do think its worth considering why his lawyer gave two different accounts of his actions that night.

I'm not even aware the attorney has given "two vastly differing accounts" I don't believe. Do you have a link to both accounts he has given?

 

[AbbeyR]

The Spierers continue to suspect Mike Beth, Corey Rossman and Jason Rosenbaum had something to do with Lauren's disappearance and are withholding information...

The Spierers, who will mark the third anniversary since their daughter's disappearance Tuesday, continue to suspect Beth and two friends had something to do with it, and that the 20-year-old Indiana University student may never have left their townhouse complex alive after she arrived there, unsteady and with bruising to her face, following a night of heavy partying.

Having been frustrated by the lack of progress by police and their own private investigators, Lauren's parents are using the lawsuit to try and force more information from the two remaining defendants, Jay Rosenbaum and Corey Rossman. They believe the men, who have long since left the university town and are pursuing careers out of state, are still withholding information about their time with Spierer in the hours leading to her disappearance.

http://www.lohud.com/story/news/loc...e-third-anniversary-parents-struggle/9837123/

 

[holly18]

I'm not even aware the attorney has given "two vastly differing accounts" I don't believe. Do you have a link to both accounts he has given?

I'm not at home and can't access the links I have saved, but Sammi has quotes higher up on this page (#303) from one of Abby's posts, one where the lawyer says that Lauren walked out on her own, but then that changed to " Further, Beth took Spierer to Rosenbaum's residence and left her with Rosenbaum. It was Rosenbaum who allowed Spierer to leave his residence unescorted." from his lawyer in the civil case.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/25/missing-ind-student-lawsuit/2587749/

I can add more links later tonight if you'd like