IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 - #21

[elmomom]

I don't have time right now to go around searching but I did read that a free landline with free local calls is included in some of the buildings that the students rent apts from.

 

[elmomom]

Yes, the entry for Day 15, Friday, June 17. I agree, that is a big difference, but I have no way to know whether it's sloppiness on the part of HT. If it was in fact an unknown number it would explain why DR didn't answer it.

By June 17, the ID of the caller would be known, wouldn't it?

What dates don't match up? The day-by-day story of June 17 is referring to when RC provided his quote, not when the call occurred.

I read the post about "unknown caller" and it struck me as odd since I remembered it as "his lawyer couldn't say who called becasue he didn't know". So I think it was originally reported more like "the caller was unknown to him" rather than the caller ID read "unknown caller".

But I do make mistakes!!!!

 

[bx2]

I was going to address that in my original post. As I understand it, JR might have DR's number for when he wants party supplies.

The original invite to come over to JR's had to come from somewhere too. Where would LS and DR get the idea to go over there in the first place from? If it was from JR, well, who did he talk to because that person surely knew his number or had him listed.

 

[elmomom]

can you share?

Thanks Jupiter - yes. For Party supplies. You may have a business name in your phone, but chances are they don't have you in theirs.

 

[bloom54]

I was going to address that in my original post. As I understand it, JR might have DR's number for when he wants party supplies.

ah!! like paper products, etc... got it!! :floorlaugh:

 

[bloom54]

I don't have time right now to go around searching but I did read that a free landline with free local calls is included in some of the buildings that the students rent apts from.

Those would most likely be the apartments with lobbies... that's how people ring the rooms...

 

[Jupiter812]

Today I wondered if there are criteria for who can file a MP report and why, mainly because there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer as to who filed it. This may be because when stories say that JW was the first to report it, he did so informally whereas when her two GF's reorted it they did so with LE. ??

The IC is an interesting read.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title5/ar2/ch17.html

This is the electronic MP report.

https://www.findthemissing.org/cases/case_report_html/11173

 

[bloom54]

I remember reading early on (perhaps in the HTO) that JW reported it first to LE (via phone?), but that the girlfriends were the ones who filed the paperwork. I presumed at the time that was at his request. I didn't find that odd at the time, and still don't.... but I could also simply have mis-remembered it!

 

[Jupiter812]

I read the post about "unknown caller" and it struck me as odd since I remembered it as "his lawyer couldn't say who called becasue he didn't know". So I think it was originally reported more like "the caller was unknown to him" rather than the caller ID read "unknown caller".

But I do make mistakes!!!!

I've been envisioning a number displayed on the phone (probably because that's what my phone shows).

I'm confused though. Is it ever said that DR doesn't know the caller or the number? Because in this story, RC says HE (not DR) doesn't know who called.

"http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2011/06/17/news.327394.sto"

Sounds like RC is sidestepping the issue. And again, two weeks into the case I would think these calls would have been IDed.

 

[Jupiter812]

I remember reading early on (perhaps in the HTO) that JW reported it first to LE (via phone?), but that the girlfriends were the ones who filed the paperwork. I presumed at the time that was at his request. I didn't find that odd at the time, and still don't.... but I could also simply have mis-remembered it!

That sounds familiar. But it does raise my suspicion a bit because making the report in person to LE would be a major problem for a guilty person unless s/he is a sociopath.

 

[bx2]

I've been envisioning a number displayed on the phone (probably because that's what my phone shows).

I'm confused though. Is it ever said that DR doesn't know the caller or the number? Because in this story, RC says HE (not DR) doesn't know who called.

"http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2011/06/17/news.327394.sto"

Sounds like RC is sidestepping the issue. And again, two weeks into the case I would think these calls would have been IDed.

Right, the phone # identity has no doubt been verified. No way was Chapman going to intentionally tie his client to JR. Notice his quote "I don't know who called". Well, duh, the call wasn't answered so no one except the caller knows who actually called.

 

[bx2]

That sounds familiar. But it does raise my suspicion a bit because making the report in person to LE would be a major problem for a guilty person unless s/he is a sociopath.

This can go either way. Its likely that her girl friends had more specific info about what she was wearing. I can also see myself in the same situation as not wanting to be tied down for a few hours with LE while there was still people to talk to, places to search.

 

[bloom54]

This can go either way. Its likely that her girl friends had more specific info about what she was wearing. I can also see myself in the same situation as not wanting to be tied down for a few hours with LE while there was still people to talk to, places to search.

That was my thought, too... but I do admit that I just have a hard time believing JW had anything to do with LS disappearance... so I always come up with an excuse...

 

[jenniek]

HT and her girlfriends were not with her that night but DR was.

so? he wasn't still out. and how would DR get her into her room anyways. I'm having a hard time believing that phone call anyways. jmo

 

[bx2]

so? he wasn't still out. and how would DR get her into her room anyways. I'm having a hard time believing that phone call anyways. jmo

If the reason for making the call was indeed to try and find her phone like has been stated, it would make sense that she would call DR and not her girlfriends that weren't with her.

 

[jenniek]

If the reason for making the call was indeed to try and find her phone like has been stated, it would make sense that she would call DR and not her girlfriends that weren't with her.

sorry I'm not following. I don't believe she made any phone calls though.

 

[bx2]

sorry I'm not following. I don't believe she made any phone calls though.

You had asked why would she call DR and not one of her girlfriends or HT. The answer is because DR would be the only one that may actually know where her phone was since he had been with her earlier that night.

Whether LS physically made the call to DR or not, we have no idea. There has only been 1 story told about who made that call publicly though, and so that is what I was trying to make sense of. Personally, I don't find any reason to not believe it quite yet.

 

[elmomom]

I must have missed something somewhere. Or you are all :drink::drink:

It's getting a little more balanced in here than I remember it being.

Great!!

Carry on:seeya:

 

[bloom54]

Surely though, she knew that she took the phone with her to the bar -- and DR wasn't at the bar with her (that we know of)... I still don't get why she would have chosen to call DR. I DO understand why JR might call him though, even if only to get LS a ride home. That would at least get her back into her own building. Maybe security would have let her into her apartment?

 

[bloom54]

I must have missed something somewhere. Or you are all :drink::drink:

It's getting a little more balanced in here than I remember it being.

Great!!

Carry on:seeya:

Hey now.. don't go accusing us of being balanced!! :truce: