IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #34

[Ixchel13]

"Among Tamir’s public remarks are two pieces of information that have raised eyebrows — both involving a mutual friend of Tamir and Spierer — Jason Rosenbaum. Tamir says it was Lauren who made a mysterious 4:15 a.m. phone call from Rosenbaum’s phone and that it was Rosenbaum who was last to see Lauren, at 4:30am, walking away from his home.

Wallach made several media appearances in the days after Spierer’s disappearance on June 3, including
interviews on Fox News and WIBC Radio in Indianapolis.

In response to an offer from TonyGatto.com to come forward, anonymously, with information. Wallach replied, “You have put false names out in the media. Leave Hadar and I out of this and do not contact me.” Wallach did not elaborate on what she meant by “false names.”

Wallach is just one of a number of Spierer’s friends who were contacted by TonyGatto.com

“She was watching the basketball game”, is all that was offered by a business school student who lives in the same apartment building as Spierer. Spierer is believed to have watched Game 2 of the NBA playoffs with a group of young men who are persons of interest in her disappearance. In an example of how students are motivated more to protect each other than answer questions about Lauren, the student added, “Half my roommates were already home for the summer.”

Charlene Spierer, the missing girl’s mother, has castigated her daughter’s friends and acquaintances for not coming forward with information, “What are you waiting for?” she asked. “I am extremely disappointed by the fact that only one of Lauren’s friends have called the Bloomington Police Department with information.”

Whether it’s police, the family or the media, it seems many students just don’t want to be bothered.. All students contacted by TonyGatto.com have been offered anonymity to provide any piece of information that may be helpful. Instead, our queries are met with arrogant declarations, as in this cryptic message from a student, “You know nothing please don’t contact me.”

When asked about the lack of cooperation by Spierer’s friends, Bloomington police Capt. Joe Qualters described the situation as, “Curious, perplexing, disturbing and unfortunate.”"

snipped from an old Gatto story. Sorry so long but it has a good synopsis in it of how LE viewed her friends, and that LE knew others were around.

here's the link:
http://tonygatto.com/2011/06/26/mis...e-to-stonewall-leave-hadar-and-i-out-of-this/

Here is Tamir saying Lauren made the phone call. She doesn't say, "JR said Lauren made the phone call." HT often seems to betray herself with tiny slip ups, like referring to Lauren in the past tense at the very beginning, IMO, and this isn't just me talking on other MSM sites they are dedicated to dissing HT for a myriad of things either real or imagined.

Also, Lauren was partying right along with other girls all night, but at the end they all seem to magically go to sleep except Lauren. That always has been a gray area for me, there had to be other chicks around.

BTW, if anyone clicks on the above link, they will see the infamous, much talked about Xanax on the stuck out tongue of HT. All around her are the implements to make lemon drops.

So....HT is drinking shots of vodka and taking
Xanax and from her front and center pose in front of the bar, serving/making the lemon drops while someone else is merrily posting it. Does she have any room to talk about Lauren?
But really just wanted to point out another person saying Lauren was speaking.

hope the link is allowed I'm not sure now.

 

[AbbeyR]

ZC did not say that she spoke to Lauren. She said that Lauren and Corey had come to their apt. but everyone was sleeping and they did not answer the door.

And yes, HT originally relayed JR's story, but it came out later that JR and MB made those phone calls themselves, not Lauren. It's in the lawsuit docs and reported by the private investigators.

It is well known that she was at a friend's place before heading out that night. There is nothing that suggests her friends knew what was going on later in the night though. I know you have some big conspiracy theory about people all contacting each other by phone or stealing Lauren's phone or whatever, but there's never been anything at all to support that.

 

[Ixchel13]

ZC did not say that she spoke to Lauren. She said that Lauren and Corey had come to their apt. but everyone was sleeping and they did not answer the door.

And yes, HT originally relayed JR's story, but it came out later that JR and MB made those phone calls themselves, not Lauren. It's in the lawsuit docs and reported by the private investigators.

It is well known that she was at a friend's place before heading out that night. There is nothing that suggests her friends knew what was going on later in the night though. I know you have some big conspiracy theory about people all contacting each other by phone or stealing Lauren's phone or whatever, but there's never been anything at all to support that.

Abby, I didn't even mention the phone being stolen this time, lol.

BBM Phone records of several people were requested by the Spierers. LE has indicated they looked at peoples' phone records. PIs indicated that they have evidence JW was not where he said he was. How would they know that? JW, a suspect, requested Lauren's phone from Kilroys. Remember, we had the discussion of POI vs suspect, and people are on the fence whether a POI is in fact a suspect. No matter, a person of interest picked up a piece of evidence and likely tampered with it. Tampering with evidence instantly would put him in LE crosshairs.

There is nothing we know of that proves her friends didn't know anything that goes on, but there's alot that suggests it. First of all, they became the official spokepeople in the days right after, and not just to LE, but to the national, and international media. If they weren't even halfway sure of what transpired, why on earth would they put themselves out there like that?Blair Wallach wasn't even there that night but in NY. No, in my opinion, they were there to support the POIs...HT even made the "going too far" statement, virtually throwing her missing friend under the bus
on national media. A profiler might say she was showing resentment towards Lauren.

You could rack it up to irresponsible journalism, which has become the poster child for
any slip ups these "kids" made during their brief encounter with the media, before they clammed up.

There is no official statement from LE that Lauren didn't speak after leaving Kilroys, period. And they didn't hint at that, ask if it was true, and neither did the PIs.

ZC knew that LAUREN tried to get in. CR couldn't have told her, because supposedly he doesn't even remember trying to get in. So, someone heard them or got their message.
Or else how did she or her roommates, all asleep, know this?

If a handful of people lying about what they did, where they were and who was there,
and then someone ends up dead and they say they don't know a thing about it,
and the deceased person's phone with who knows what evidence in it is found in the sand at the last public place she was, and a suspect comes for the phone the next day,
then a big YES, there is a conspiracy, and the liklihood that these people communicated by phone the whole time this was happening is very likely, given that these "kids" simply cannot stop themselves from doing so, it's ingrained in their culture just that deeply.

And obviously, this is JMO, but I am definitely not the only one who has that opinion.
WS is monitored very closely so that our opinions don't run amok, not so with other sites and it is safe to say my opinion on this is mild compared to countless others on MSM sites!

edited to say, just in case, Abby, you want to remind me that Lauren last used her phone around 12:15 at SW, as per her mom reporting this, that may be true, but really, who called the phone, who texted the phone (besides JW!) what times and what info they contained is probably what interests LE the most! Especially when they matched them to other texts by these same people to other people involved. In this way, LE would know exactly who knew Lauren left SW with CR and what they had to say, and who they might've texted after not getting a response from Lauren. I find it interesting that LE never uses the word "Texted" instead, they always say, "Called" or "made a call", when we know these "kids" usually only text. Texts can be received and acted upon w/o ever answering the texter. If all the calls that MB made, and JR made,
were actually texts, then a good number of people knew Lauren was in trouble.

If, by their civil lawsuit the Spierers did in fact receive this information, then I wouldn't say their lawsuit was a failure but a victory. They can use this very valuable info, and also if they received the medical files on the POIs AND others present, they will be able to compile evidence that will allow a broader scope of people to be possibly charged or at least investigated, pulled in if you will, for a trial in the future. If these people know they will be included, then the theory might follow that they will plead themselves out of trouble by talking.

 

[AbbeyR]

WS doesn't monitor opinions, they just have a rule that you can't post information as fact without supporting it with evidence. There have been lots of people over the years that have tried to insert themselves into this case and post their own supposed 'inside' information, which has just about always turned out to be false, so I think it's a good rule.

 

[AbbeyR]

[/B]

ZC knew that LAUREN tried to get in. CR couldn't have told her, because supposedly he doesn't even remember trying to get in. So, someone heard them or got their message.
Or else how did she or her roommates, all asleep, know this?

ZC didn't say LAUREN specifically, she said Lauren and Corey.

Indiana University student Zoe Camp saw Lauren Spierer swallowing shots at a party hours before she disappeared, but remains haunted by another encounter with the missing coed she slept through.

Shortly after 3 a.m. June 3, 2011, a drunken Spierer – who’d just fallen on her face and smacked her head on concrete – and her companion Corey Rossman rang the doorbell to Camp’s apartment, where she and her three roommates were asleep.

Since no one answered, the two left, with Rossman slinging Spierer over his shoulders as he carried her down the steps. An hour later, she vanished.

“We’ll never know what would have happened if we answered,” Camp told The Journal News Wednesday. “One of us could have walked her home, or she could have slept at our house. Maybe things would have turned out differently.”

I would guess that CR texted or left a message, or that LE investigated after seeing video. The same goes for Smallwood - the investigators obviously know who witnessed the altercation because they were captured on video. And I'm sure, as you note, the phone records play a role too.

I'm most interested in the calls made by the POI that night. Their stories reinforce that Lauren wasn't able to communicate, since they, by their own accounts, were calling looking for help on her behalf. Why didn't she answer the friends at Smallwood, or the witness who stopped them in the street? Why didn't she call someone for a ride herself? Or call a taxi? The obvious answer is that she was in no condition to, which is supported by the accounts where she is on video and can't even walk.

And why did MB call JR who was right next door, and then bring Lauren over there. What was said in that call, I wonder.

ETA: Also, I think that Gatto article about lauren's friends was misleading. Leading up to that article he had been sucking up to HT and others trying to get them to talk to him (See his posts here). He did a huge turnaround when they said no and wrote a blog post implying they were the ones 'stonewalling' and using old social media photos giving an impression that they were partying after Lauren's disappearance. What that article does show is that early on, people close to the case knew that Tony was blogging info that wasn't accurate. JMO.

 

[Ixchel13]

ZC didn't say LAUREN specifically, she said Lauren and Corey.




I would guess that CR texted or left a message, or that LE investigated after seeing video. The same goes for Smallwood - the investigators obviously know who witnessed the altercation because they were captured on video. And I'm sure, as you note, the phone records play a role too.

I'm most interested in the calls made by the POI that night. Their stories reinforce that Lauren wasn't able to communicate, since they, by their own accounts, were calling looking for help on her behalf. Why didn't she answer the friends at Smallwood, or the witness who stopped them in the street? Why didn't she call someone for a ride herself? Or call a taxi? The obvious answer is that she was in no condition to, which is supported by the accounts where she is on video and can't even walk.

And why did MB call JR who was right next door, and then bring Lauren over there. What was said in that call, I wonder.

ETA: Also, I think that Gatto article about lauren's friends was misleading. Leading up to that article he had been sucking up to HT and others trying to get them to talk to him (See his posts here). He did a huge turnaround when they said no and wrote a blog post implying they were the ones 'stonewalling' and using old social media photos giving an impression that they were partying after Lauren's disappearance. What that article does show is that early on, people close to the case knew that Tony was blogging info that wasn't accurate. JMO.

No, it treinforces what you've said many times, that their stories contradict themselves. MB has reported that Lauren asked him if he wanted to party, she said she didn't want to sleep on his couch, she told JR she didn't want to sleep on his couch as well. and she also told both MB and JR that she wanted to go home. and IIRC she also told MB she had alcohol at her place. all examples of the POIs saying she talked. Also, let us not forget that she insisted on walking home so she took the supposed sobriety walking test--thus they have her walking and talking. just sayin, not saying I think it's true.

 

[Ixchel13]

"Shortly after 3 a.m. June 3, 2011, a drunken Spierer – who’d just fallen on her face and smacked her head on concrete – and her companion Corey Rossman rang the doorbell to Camp’s apartment, where she and her three roommates were asleep."

snipped this from Abbey's post above.

see, here we have it again where someone is saying it is AFTER 3 a.m. when video shows them emerging from the alley at 2:52 and all of that stuff had already happened.

LE has pieced two events together, or maybe we have done it because of the lack of facts, but IMO, the story just does not fit together, by story I mean timeline. IMO the timeline hads been compromosed and purposely.

 

[Ros]

Ixchel13, would you please clarify your concerns about the timeline? I am confused.

 

[AbbeyR]

"Shortly after 3 a.m. June 3, 2011, a drunken Spierer – who’d just fallen on her face and smacked her head on concrete – and her companion Corey Rossman rang the doorbell to Camp’s apartment, where she and her three roommates were asleep."

snipped this from Abbey's post above.



see, here we have it again where someone is saying it is AFTER 3 a.m. when video shows them emerging from the alley at 2:52 and all of that stuff had already happened.

LE has pieced two events together, or maybe we have done it because of the lack of facts, but IMO, the story just does not fit together, by story I mean timeline. IMO the timeline hads been compromosed and purposely.

That article has a typo - it should read "shortly before 3 am". This was verified by Bx2 in an email to the author. He posted the email here.

 

[imkeylime]

ZC did not say that she spoke to Lauren. She said that Lauren and Corey had come to their apt. but everyone was sleeping and they did not answer the door.

And yes, HT originally relayed JR's story, but it came out later that JR and MB made those phone calls themselves, not Lauren. It's in the lawsuit docs and reported by the private investigators.

It is well known that she was at a friend's place before heading out that night. There is nothing that suggests her friends knew what was going on later in the night though. I know you have some big conspiracy theory about people all contacting each other by phone or stealing Lauren's phone or whatever, but there's never been anything at all to support that.

First of all, I'd like to say that both you and Ixchel make interesting points in the above exchanges. I'd like to add that I do believe that a conspiracy of some sort may exist here, if only to keep certain aspects of the night from public exposure. IMO, and this is purely opinion based on what's come to light in interviews, etc., someone provided more than alcohol to LS that night and doing so could have gotten said someone kicked out of IU or worse. I'm not suggesting a big drug lord theory here, just that it's both illegal and against school policy to share one's prescription drugs or coke, either of which could have happened.

The longer thing case drags on, the more I think that someone (or more than someone) had a knee-jerk reaction that set something bigger in motion. And FWIW, I do think the JW's behavior the next day and weeks was somehow off. I don't necessarily think he knows specifically what happened to LS, but I think he knows more about what went down that night than he's apparently shared. Then again, maybe he's told LE more than we think he has. Who knows at this point.

 

[Jacobite]

Has anyone else heard this one? A doctor's wife found a ID on Walnut Street just after Lauren went missing. It was her picture and a fake name.

 

[Ros]

I recall that someone commented in an early news article (IDS, H-T, ...?) that her fake ID had been found (did not say by whom) on Walnut, I think near 12th or 11th, not sure. I posted this about it a couple of years ago. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Spierer-20-Bloomington-03-June-2011-30/page61

This article said that BPD did not respond when asked if LS had a fake ID. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest...Spierer-goes-missing-in-a-safe-and-civil-city

But BPD must have seen either the ID or an image of the ID because it was used as evidence against Kilroy's. http://ww.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2011/09/15/news.qp-0329186.sto

However, I seem to recall that JR said she had two personal items still with her at 5N, and one was a fake ID. I think that was in the lawsuit. Can someone confirm what, if anything, he said she had with her?

 

[Ixchel13]

Ixchel13, would you please clarify your concerns about the timeline? I am confused.

Supposedly, they emerge from the alley at 2:52. ZC has her trying to get in the apartment shortly after 3 a.m.

The alley they supposedly emerged from is at the end of 10th and C. The gravel lot they emerge in front of leads to 5N so we have been assuming they headed towards CRs apt at that time.

But if they are still going to try to get in ZCs apt after emerging, well, then, the bar witnesses statement sounds more true.

She could have fallen face forward, the PIs describe this, while travelling with CR towards his house.
Then, while trying to get in ZCs apt, she falls backwards while sitting on the steps and hits her head again.
Anyway, if she was trying to get in ZCs apt after emerging at 2;52 from the alley, the official timeline is compromised.
Or what we consider the official timeline. It puts her not in CRs apt after 3 am but still out on the street and still mobile because there are no reports of her being carried into the arcade or being carried up the steps to try to get in ZCs apt.
And iirc, there are videos of her trying to get in ZCs apt.
and these would be time stamped.
Qualters has said there was a mix up of times, but I'm not sure if he meant via ZCs statements, it was another statement about them emerging at I believe 3:20.
So yeah, IMO the timeline has been messed with and IMO it has something to do with the witness. She may have, for one reason or another, retracted her statement. We are looking at it as if she was proven to be mistaken by LE, what if she turned around and denied her earlier statement instead?
All she would have to do is say, "I was under the influence and had my times wrong" or something like that, and voila,
the mystery man becomes CR. Because CR is seen on video picking Lauren up.
IDK, does anyone else think the timeline is hinky?

 

[Ixchel13]

That article has a typo - it should read "shortly before 3 am". This was verified by Bx2 in an email to the author. He posted the email here.

IIRC, This isn't the first time you've quoted that article after we knew it was flawed. So, I guess my question is that if the time is wrong, should we take the entire article with a grain of salt?

The article is written in a sensationalist manner, the author inserts incidents within the timeline as if the person being interviewed is saying it, when in fact the author is inserting bits and pieces from MSM into a seemingly (not to me) smooth timeline. Really, this article is a prime example of just how what we believe to have happened has developed , when really, we aren't sure of the timeline and we know it.

For some reason, we diss TG, as we should, lol, but take whatever SC puts together as the
undisputed truth, and IMO that's a mistake.

and then, there is that possibility that ZC DID say after 3 am afterall. and for whatever reason it was corrected. If that would be true, then 2 people would be saying
Lauren was down there at 10th and College after 3 am.

 

[AbbeyR]

IIRC, This isn't the first time you've quoted that article after we knew it was flawed. So, I guess my question is that if the time is wrong, should we take the entire article with a grain of salt?

The article is written in a sensationalist manner, the author inserts incidents within the timeline as if the person being interviewed is saying it, when in fact the author is inserting bits and pieces from MSM into a seemingly (not to me) smooth timeline. Really, this article is a prime example of just how what we believe to have happened has developed , when really, we aren't sure of the timeline and we know it.

For some reason, we diss TG, as we should, lol, but take whatever SC puts together as the
undisputed truth, and IMO that's a mistake.

and then, there is that possibility that ZC DID say after 3 am afterall. and for whatever reason it was corrected. If that would be true, then 2 people would be saying
Lauren was down there at 10th and College after 3 am.

What is sensationalistic about it? The author interviewed ZC directly. We also have an email from him directly saying that the "after" was his mistake, so I'm going to take him at his word.

The difference between SC and Gatto is that SC is a journalist, while Gatto was a blogger who had zero standards to live up to or accountability, and he openly admitted that he used questionable tactics to get information and relied on non-confirmed information and anonymous sources.

 

[Ros]

Could someone please post a link to the original article by SC and a link to the WS post with the correction?

 

[AbbeyR]

Here's a link to the original article. It's behind a paywall now, but if you google a snippet of the text it will take you to sites (including here) where the article was quoted at length: http://www.lohud.com/article/20130531/NEWS/305310113

I tried to quickly search for the email - can't find it, but I only had a few minutes to look. Here's a post from Bx2 confirming that he verified the mistake from SC. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...mington-03-June-2011-31&p=9906629#post9906629

 

[Ixchel13]

Here's a link to the original article. It's behind a paywall now, but if you google a snippet of the text it will take you to sites (including here) where the article was quoted at length: http://www.lohud.com/article/20130531/NEWS/305310113

I tried to quickly search for the email - can't find it, but I only had a few minutes to look. Here's a post from Bx2 confirming that he verified the mistake from SC. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...mington-03-June-2011-31&p=9906629#post9906629

if we all know it's flawed, why were you posting it again w/o that caveat? We have also had the discussion about SC. It is my opinion that he is a sensationalist and all the links in the world will not change my mind.

He is indeed inserting ideas, as , into the story you posted the link to. He paraphrases what ZC says without quotes, and then inserts part of the timeline in as if ZC could be verifying it..not once but several times. How do I gather this? Because when I read the story, I'll think, "now wait a minute, she can't know that if she were asleep," and then I'll realize that it's SC inserting his own ideas [off the record? speculation? who can know?].
Hey, if that's his style, so be it. Like you said a few posts up, people[and I do mean SC] have acted like they had inside info on this case, and then it turned out false.
In this particular case, correcting that "error"
was unusually coincidental, beings that it conflicts with the only person who admits to seeing anything, our bar mgr. witness;
And also the way SC calls it ZC's last "encounter" with Lauren. An encounter should be interactive, no?
If she was sleeping, how could she have an encounter?
IMO, because she is lying! Or, is it just SC's poor
journalism once again? Maybe he should have written, "near encounter" or" missed encounter" but there it is, he has ZC saying "last encounter". Whatever she said , or SC meant, encounter is just not the word. It's called a thesaurus, SC, use it.
To me, it made me wonder if SC had some sort of inside info. But, LE has said many times that they gave NO private interviews with MSM so then SC must also be piecing things together from MSM and whatever unverified interviews he's had with people, just like blogger TG and may I add Vidocq? Who may not be a journalist or a professional blogger, but has interviewed many people involved, and afaic, is at least as honest
as those two. JMO, and not meant to be snarky.

edited to say, wait a minute! IIRC, it was Capt. Qualters that said LE had made the mistake. So SC didn't make the original mistake anyway.

And so, how could ZC be saying that? See?

Either ZC is reading SC's version of LE's mistake in his first articles before he interviewed her and then reporting it back to SC in her interview, or,

SC is putting a timeline in ZC's mouth that she never said; or, ZC is actually getting the right time from her answering machine, etc.

I just fiind it hard to believe he made such a glaring error in the face of an obvious timeline already in MSM.

LE made the first mistake, so SC would be apologizing for republishing an incorrect article,
not for typing in the wrong time accidentally.

Does that make sense to anyone? because I'm confused.

 

[pappa rob]

if we all know it's flawed, why were you posting it again w/o that caveat? We have also had the discussion about SC. It is my opinion that he is a sensationalist and all the links in the world will not change my mind.

He is indeed inserting ideas, as , into the story you posted the link to. He paraphrases what ZC says without quotes, and then inserts part of the timeline in as if ZC could be verifying it..not once but several times. How do I gather this? Because when I read the story, I'll think, "now wait a minute, she can't know that if she were asleep," and then I'll realize that it's SC inserting his own ideas [off the record? speculation? who can know?].
Hey, if that's his style, so be it. Like you said a few posts up, people[and I do mean SC] have acted like they had inside info on this case, and then it turned out false.
In this particular case, correcting that "error"
was unusually coincidental, beings that it conflicts with the only person who admits to seeing anything, our bar mgr. witness;
And also the way SC calls it ZC's last "encounter" with Lauren. An encounter should be interactive, no?
If she was sleeping, how could she have an encounter?
IMO, because she is lying! Or, is it just SC's poor
journalism once again? Maybe he should have written, "near encounter" or" missed encounter" but there it is, he has ZC saying "last encounter". Whatever she said , or SC meant, encounter is just not the word. It's called a thesaurus, SC, use it.
To me, it made me wonder if SC had some sort of inside info. But, LE has said many times that they gave NO private interviews with MSM so then SC must also be piecing things together from MSM and whatever unverified interviews he's had with people, just like blogger TG and may I add Vidocq? Who may not be a journalist or a professional blogger, but has interviewed many people involved, and afaic, is at least as honest
as those two. JMO, and not meant to be snarky.

edited to say, wait a minute! IIRC, it was Capt. Qualters that said LE had made the mistake. So SC didn't make the original mistake anyway.

And so, how could ZC be saying that? See?

Either ZC is reading SC's version of LE's mistake in his first articles before he interviewed her and then reporting it back to SC in her interview, or,

SC is putting a timeline in ZC's mouth that she never said; or, ZC is actually getting the right time from her answering machine, etc.

I just fiind it hard to believe he made such a glaring error in the face of an obvious timeline already in MSM.

LE made the first mistake, so SC would be apologizing for republishing an incorrect article,
not for typing in the wrong time accidentally.

Does that make sense to anyone? because I'm confused.

I've never seen so much to-do over ten minutes. OK it was a mistake lets get on with it......

 

[akh]

A couple points that have hit me reading these last few pages.
#1 We have to be careful adjusting the narrative, timeline, etc. based on info from the lawsuit. Just because the lawsuit claimed something doesn't mean it's true. It simply means it's something the parents or lawyers believed to be true based on their investigation and either think they can prove it or strongly imply it. In fact, they could even risk a couple of points just to try and skew the case more in their favor during the motion process or even to smoke out a statement from the defendants that they could use.
I think confidence would be high on the accuracy of any quotes, but it gets much murkier if for example the lawsuit claims that LS didn't make the calls that the original timeline claimed JR said she did. (Note: I don't recall if the lawsuit had a quote by the defendants saying the calls weren't made by LS or if it simply said she didn't make the calls. I'm just using this scenario to make a point). Assuming there's no quote then it's more or less an accusation she didn't make the calls. Probably based on the theory that she wasn't capable of making phone calls at that point. So it could ultimately boil down to JR saying she did, and the family saying she couldn't have. And neither really having a way to conclusively prove the truth in what they say.
And that would be true of any of these type of things in the lawsuit. So, it shouldn't really be used to conclusively change the 'official' narrative at all. A springboard for speculation, sure... but not actually a confirmed change in the official narrative or 'new' information that wasn't already known. More or less, it could simply be speculation itself.

Which brings me to point #2...
Speaking of speculation and the "official narrative"...
Just what IS the official narrative? After all of this time, there's really very little if anything that has been officially corrected, changed, or added to. From the outside looking in the case seems hopelessly cold and no closer to being solved than it was probably in the first few months of the disappearance.

All of which leads me to believe that the police are not interested in the public's help in this case. Early on when it was a PR issue they seemed to be interested in public input but that dimmed rather quickly. Now, I don't expect LE to still be holding daily pressers. But at some point that has already passed, I would've expected LE to either go to the media (whether thru a new presser complete with a ppt presentation and other media, reach out to producers of a Dateline type program or Greta, or indirectly through the parents or investigators, etc.) and try and jumpstart the investigation.

For one thing, clean up the official timeline. Update it with the most recent information and take away any rumors or put them in context as rumors. Add further to it by carrying the timeline out for another 24-48 hours. For another, explain away any reporting inconsistencies that have plagued the case.
Explain the bar witness account better and why or why not the reported time didn't fit.
Clear up exactly what is confirmed with their path and movements that night. Clear up timestamp confusion.
Without making accusations, show the faces of the players in the case. Someone might remember something they saw when they see the faces and hear the official account and know something in it doesn't fit. Let's say a convenience store worker might remember seeing one of them at some early hour somewhere they shouldn't have been according to the timeline.
If the videos don't give away anything that is being kept close to their vest for later, then show the videos. Or the parts they can without compromising any future court proceedings. Maybe those would trigger a memory. Or might've back when memories were fresh...
Clear up questions about the dumpsters and when they were checked. When they were emptied. Even the landfill check. (And on a related note, IIRC the landfill required a search warrant as a matter of procedure to allow LE to search the landfill. What reason did LE give in the application for the warrant to believe the landfill needed searched? I don't think "We're running out of options and want to cover all bases" would've been good enough.)
What about the SW confrontation? Could that be explained and cleared up better?

We're probably not going to hear from any of the PsOI, although maybe we'd hear from their attorneys. And we could hear anything that LE wanted to share from their statements or the statements of witnesses. And they could also get with investigators to weave anything they have discovered into this new narrative.

Point being, right now the official narrative is mush. And what narrative that exists has been just rumored upon, speculated upon, allowed to grow stale, etc. until it's pretty much a mess with little value any longer. A cleaned up, thorough, official narrative could do nothing but help refresh memories and potentially bring someone forward with information that they didn't realize they even had. Or make someone realize info they thought must be common knowledge, isn't known at all.

All of this leads me to believe that LE thinks they know what happened and who did it. Otherwise, I think they would've taken another swing at this case with the public. I'm doubtful they've shared it with the parents though or the PI's in order to protect the case. I think it's a case of no body, no case. I don't think they have anything conclusive enough to make a case without a body to prove there really was a crime.

Otherwise, then it either veers into ineptness or some type of weird conspiracy (and I'm thinking more along the lines of not wanting to hurt IU/Bloomington by stirring the pot on admitting they think there's a serial killer or something of that nature at play) to explain things. And I'm not one to believe in conspiracy theories, particularly when they start getting too far out there and require too many connections.