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

[Ros]

Oh, thanks for the correction Ros! I reversed that by accident - it was JW that drove A. to his class. (btw, the PT threads have been taken off line, but I have copies for reference if any questions come up)

The CVS incident was Friday, June 3rd.

HT was not present at the altercation at Smallwood. The investigators have described the people present as four male students, and although their names have not all been published in MSM, they are known by many people as this was talked openly about in social media in the days following Lauren's disappearance.

Are the names of the men at the altercations on the witness lists? Is HT named as a potential witness?

 

[doubtingthomas]

Are the names of the men at the altercations on the witness lists? Is HT named as a potential witness?

Don't know about men at altercation. Don't know who they all are. HT is listed on CR and JR witness list. The Spierer's do not list HT directly but do list individuals present on the 5th floor of the Smallwood Apartment complex on June 2 and June 3, 2011. So I take that to include her since she was there when LS left.

 

[AbbeyR]

Abbey, do you have a link where LE has stated that only the 4 guys were there?
because I have never heard either Qualters or Parker say that in the audio tapes nor read that in any SM. I am sure they probably mentioned that they were there and are witnesses, but the only witnesses?

No, the information came from the private investigators, and one of those articles is linked to in my post. LE has hardly released any information on this case whatsoever (including the information that you have attributed to them in many of your posts, like the second phone call... didn't this all come from the PIs?) Other details of the altercation came from social media, so for the purposes of this website, can be considered a rumor. However, people who have been following this case from the very beginning may remember that the altercation was posted about before it hit the media. Then the media picked up on the story, and there was this weird situation where LE and the Spierers perhaps wanted to keep this news quiet, and someone gave a statement implying that the news about the altercation was just a rumor. This led to people present speaking up about it. HT was not involved.

 

[Ros]

No, the information came from the private investigators, and one of those articles is linked to in my post. LE has hardly released any information on this case whatsoever (including the information that you have attributed to them in many of your posts, like the second phone call... didn't this all come from the PIs?) Other details of the altercation came from social media, so for the purposes of this website, can be considered a rumor. However, people who have been following this case from the very beginning may remember that the altercation was posted about before it hit the media. Then the media picked up on the story, and there was this weird situation where LE and the Spierers perhaps wanted to keep this news quiet, and someone gave a statement implying that the news about the altercation was just a rumor. This led to people present speaking up about it. HT was not involved.

I remember that ZO's involvement in the altercation appeared on PT, quite early. Here's a link to the "weird situation" you mention. An article gave RS as the source of information about the altercation, but he denied seeing the video.
http://www.wthr.com/story/14872223/day-6-of-lauren-spierer-search-brings-new-developments

 

[Ros]

. I may no longer be remembering things correctly an I think the PT threads are gone now, but as I recall JW drove AWG to class, not vice versa. I only mention this because it is relevant to know who did and who did not have access to a car.

Also, I thought the CVS incident was on Saturday, late morning or early afternoon, rather than on Friday, but I looked back at a copy of the original article, and that was on the afternoon of June 3.

Finally, I suspect that JW got the key from HT out of fear that LS was dead or unconscious. I wonder if he had already tried ringing the doorbell or whatever means a visitor would use to gain entry to A Smallwood apartment.

I now know the source of my confusion. On Saturday June 4, CR was asking about a little blonde girl, but that was outside his apt, not at CVS. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-06-12-lauren-spierer-missing_n.htm

 

[AbbeyR]

Thanks Ros. Yes, IIRC, what happened was that there was discussion on FB about the altercation that spilled over into the first Lauren Spierer Missing page right after she went missing (even before ZO's name came up on PT) and then the media. Lauren's cousin/ uncle posted on that page that he had spoken to Lauren's dad and the information had not come from him. (quoted in post #333 here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-Spierer-20-Bloomington-03-June-2011-1/page14) Then RS gave a quote to the media denying that he had seen the video. He didn't actually say that it didn't exist or that the altercation didn't happen, but that's how it was interpreted by many. The posts from the guys at Smallwood who were insisting that the altercation happened and talking about it on FB were then deleted. I assume this was to try to protect the investigation. (The posts that quoted them were deleted here too)

 

[Ros]

I remember that ZO's involvement in the altercation appeared on PT, quite early. Here's a link to the "weird situation" you mention. An article gave RS as the source of information about the altercation, but he denied seeing the video.
http://www.wthr.com/story/14872223/day-6-of-lauren-spierer-search-brings-new-developments

And here's a link to an article that claims that RS said the video showed LS as involved in the altercation.
http://www.wave3.com/story/14871996/father-video-shows-iu-student-in-altercation-with-men

 

[AbbeyR]

I now know the source of my confusion. On Saturday June 4, CR was asking about a little blonde girl, but that was outside his apt, not at CVS. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-06-12-lauren-spierer-missing_n.htm

Oh, yes - that was the article where the time/ date was described as "the next morning, Feb 4th", I believe, and there was a lot of debate here about whether that meant 'the next morning' (after the altercation) as in JUNE 3rd, and the reporter got the whole thing wrong, or the next morning, as in June 4. It seems weird at either time.

 

[Ixchel13]

Thanks Ros. Yes, IIRC, what happened was that there was discussion on FB about the altercation that spilled over into the first Lauren Spierer Missing page right after she went missing (even before ZO's name came up on PT) and then the media. Lauren's cousin/ uncle posted on that page that he had spoken to Lauren's dad and the information had not come from him. (quoted in post #333 here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-Spierer-20-Bloomington-03-June-2011-1/page14) Then RS gave a quote to the media denying that he had seen the video. He didn't actually say that it didn't exist or that the altercation didn't happen, but that's how it was interpreted by many. The posts from the guys at Smallwood who were insisting that the altercation happened and talking about it on FB were then deleted. I assume this was to try to protect the investigation. (The posts that quoted them were deleted here too)

BBM Qualters has insisted that they are not, and will not, work with anyone on SM
or inform them or reveal anytiong about the case...so I would assume that your assumption is incorrect that LE would be working with FB people to "protect" investigation, JMO.

From the second or 3 press conference, the media asked about the altercation,
and Qualters said, from the beginning, that there was an altercation but that it did not
include Lauren. Taken at face value, that statement says alot, IMO, about how LE feels about the altercation, IOW, doesn't seem like they bought ZO's story about trying to help. Of course, we could spin that statement all we want, but the way he puts it seems right to me. They were not trying to cover up the altercation, IMO, in any way. It was sequestered as evidence. Perhaps the Spieres are not "lying", and I say that with respect, maybe they really haven't seen it, nor their PIs, The PIs describe things on the video, but never say, "When we viewed the video...."

 

[AbbeyR]

[/B]

Qualters has insisted that they are not, and will not, work with anyone on SM
or inform them or reveal anytiong about the case...so I would assume that your assumption is incorrect that LE would be working with FB people to "protect" investigation, JMO.

From the second or 3 press conference, the media asked about the altercation,
and Qualters said, from the beginning, that there was an altercation but that it did not
include Lauren. Taken at face value, that statement says alot, IMO, about how LE feels about the altercation, IOW, doesn't seem like they bought ZO's story about trying to help. Of course, we could spin that statement all we want, but the way he puts it seems right to me. They were not trying to cover up the altercation, IMO, in any way. It was sequestered as evidence. Perhaps the Spieres are not "lying", and I say that with respect, maybe they really haven't seen it, nor their PIs, The PIs describe things on the video, but never say, "When we viewed the video...."

BBM - No, I'm not saying LE was working with facebook (?)- It's clear that the Spierers, possibly under the advice of LE, wanted to keep the details of the altercation quiet at that point. The posts were deleted on the public "Find Lauren" page by the person running it, or possibly by the witnesses themselves who may have been asked by LE (or the Spierers) not to talk publicly about it. Other people involved in this case have claimed that they were asked the same thing by LE.

I don't think the Spierers were lying at all. Lauren wasn't involved in the altercation (this doesn't mean it wasn't about her), and they said more than once early on that they had not seen the video. Others misinterpreted what he was saying, IMO.

 

[Ixchel13]

BBM - No, I'm not saying LE was working with facebook (?)- It's clear that the Spierers, possibly under the advice of LE, wanted to keep the details of the altercation quiet at that point. The posts were deleted on the public "Find Lauren" page by the person running it, or possibly by the witnesses themselves who may have been asked by LE (or the Spierers) not to talk publicly about it. Other people involved in this case have claimed that they were asked the same thing by LE.

I don't think the Spierers were lying at all. Lauren wasn't involved in the altercation (this doesn't mean it wasn't about her), and they said more than once early on that they had not seen the video. Others misinterpreted what he was saying, IMO.

ok, let's get back to the subect of who was at the altercation. Is it fuzzy logic to say because A, B, and C were there, there is no possibility of D, E, F, and G being there as well? Especially when you factor in that D, G,E and F were in the direct vicinity. I love the show 'Numbers', if David were here he could whip that into a formula in seconds.

 

[AbbeyR]

Your question was about whether HT was present at the altercation. By all accounts, she was not. The witness stories match up with the accounts from the private investigators, and there is video that has, according to reports, been viewed by scores of people. So, the private investigators and LE obviously know who witnessed the altercation, and who was coming and going from Smallwood. There is no evidence that Lauren went to her apt. after Kilroy's, that she 'wasn't let in' or any indication that her roommates knew what was going on. Had they, my guess is that the night would have ended very differently. We don't even know if Lauren and CR were headed to her apt., back to the friend's apt that she had come from earlier in the night, DR's apt, or somewhere else on that floor -- not that it matters, since they didn't get there anyway.

I have questions about why HT chose to speak for JR to the media, and I wonder whether her intent was to make the story public, on behalf of Lauren, or to defend JR. But even if it's the latter, we know she wasn't with them, so it makes no sense to me that JR or the other POI would tell her anything incriminating anyway. It seems like the opposite - that he used her to get the story that he wanted known to the public out, without having to commit to it by speaking himself or through his lawyer.

Also, worth a reminder:

LS's roommates also are off limits unless you have MSM to show they were with LS after Kilroy's. If they made public statements, those can be discussed, but you cannot speculate about their involvement in LS's disappearance.

 

[Ixchel13]

Your question was about whether HT was present at the altercation. By all accounts, she was not. The witness stories match up with the accounts from the private investigators, and there is video that has, according to reports, been viewed by scores of people. So, the private investigators and LE obviously know who witnessed the altercation, and who was coming and going from Smallwood. There is no evidence that Lauren went to her apt. after Kilroy's, that she 'wasn't let in' or any indication that her roommates knew what was going on. Had they, my guess is that the night would have ended very differently. We don't even know if Lauren and CR were headed to her apt., back to the friend's apt that she had come from earlier in the night, DR's apt, or somewhere else on that floor -- not that it matters, since they didn't get there anyway.

I have questions about why HT chose to speak for JR to the media, and I wonder whether her intent was to make the story public, on behalf of Lauren, or to defend JR. But even if it's the latter, we know she wasn't with them, so it makes no sense to me that JR or the other POI would tell her anything incriminating anyway. It seems like the opposite - that he used her to get the story that he wanted known to the public out, without having to commit to it by speaking himself or through his lawyer.

Also, worth a reminder:

let's put it this way, then: HT described the night's events, to the media. She had contact with a POI before Lauren was reported missing.She allowed a POI access to Lauren's room before she was reported missing.
She also did more than a little subliminal victim blaming "this time
Lauren just went too far."
we went through this :scores: of people having viewed the video.
that's lots of people viewing a video that LE has said many times
is sequestered for evidence.
let's assume for a second you're right--all these people viewed it.
let's say, and this is total speculation, that a security guard viewed it and
saw Lauren and CR kissing in the hallway. This guard told ZO about it, and bingo, now he has video evidence to back up his "CR being inappropriate" malarkey. With his four friends as his "witnesses", it
wouldn't be hard to beef this story up. Let's see--ZO was criminally trespassing--he was banned from SW and had just committed assault and battery. Would he have a reason to lie about what he had done?
Since you brought up rumors, and what is being said about what was seen at the altercation, it is rumored that while he was down, the other guys gave him a few kicks for good measure.
Not that more than a few people wouldn't like to give him a few kicks, lol.
iirc, the Spierers are bringing up the altercation in their civil suit, someone correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe what some of us here want to know is, was anyone on Lauren'a "side" present at the altercation that
could have possibly helped her? If any of them gave her klonopin, or provided alcohol, wouldn't they also be somewhat required to help her?
Once Lauren left that altercation, everything set in motion and didn't stop until she disappeared. Does anyone else think the altercation shouldn't be divorced from Lauren's outcome?

 

[Mahouston69]

I have a question or two. When msm, LE or PIs reported Lauren also was seen having an argument with two other men, was that separate from the Smallwood altercation, or in reference to the Smallwood altercation it has also been said she was not "involved" in? Was this argument on video or reported by eye witnesses?

 

[Ixchel13]

I have a question or two. When msm, LE or PIs reported Lauren also was seen having an argument with two other men, was that separate from the Smallwood altercation, or in reference to the Smallwood altercation it has also been said she was not "involved" in? Was this argument on video or reported by eye witnesses?

iirc, the reports were saying she was arguing outside in the back by SW with two,
or did they say, several, men. To get to 10th and College, they probably took the alley behind SW which would end on the curb of 10th St., right across from 10th and C apts.
It is my opinion that ZO and friends followed them from Kilroys to SW and met up with them in the foyer. And when Lauren and CR left, they most likely followed them out.
JMO, IMO, MOO. IMO, Lauren was probably being stalked but didn't know it until the altercation. I don't believe ZO just happened upon them, no not at all.

 

[Mahouston69]

Thank you, makes me curious if they were still out and about around 3-4:30 am. And if Lauren was concerned that they might be.

 

[AbbeyR]

I have a question or two. When msm, LE or PIs reported Lauren also was seen having an argument with two other men, was that separate from the Smallwood altercation, or in reference to the Smallwood altercation it has also been said she was not "involved" in? Was this argument on video or reported by eye witnesses?

I don't recall this. Could you please post a link? Thanks in advance!

You would think if this were true, it would have been reported in the detailed account from the private investigators. There is, as far as I know, no reported incident in MSM of her arguing with anyone. The only witnesses say she was incoherent.

 

[Mahouston69]

I don't recall this. Could you please post a link? Thanks in advance!

You would think if this were true, it would have been reported in the detailed account from the private investigators. There is, as far as I know, no reported incident in MSM of her arguing with anyone. The only witnesses say she was incoherent.

This is the second page of a Google search for - Lauren Sperier argument with several men, that's why I asked..is this report referring to the security camera video of the altercation or eye witness accounts or both?

 

[Mahouston69]

I don't recall this. Could you please post a link? Thanks in advance!

You would think if this were true, it would have been reported in the detailed account from the private investigators. There is, as far as I know, no reported incident in MSM of her arguing with anyone. The only witnesses say she was incoherent.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...htm?siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-a43Tfom.FbqPOZacQBXJ.Q

Paragraph, and sentence beginning with Parker part way down refers to security camera footage and the argument with several men.

 

[AbbeyR]

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...htm?siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-a43Tfom.FbqPOZacQBXJ.Q

Paragraph, and sentence beginning with Parker part way down refers to security camera footage and the argument with several men.

Thanks Mahouston. That is the article that we were just talking about above - After it was published, Lauren's uncle made a statement saying that the article had gotten it wrong and Rob Spierer had never said that (i.e. that Lauren was involved in the altercation) and Lauren's dad added that he had not seen any video. See the link I posted to his statement above. It's clear, IMO, that this was in reference to the altercation that we know about between ZO and CR that was described by the PIs and captured on video, and that that particular article misquoted RS.