IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #30

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #181
Petition for Removal is the term for asking for the case to be moved to Fed court.
 
  • #182
I live in Greenwood, IN...about 50 miles from Bloomington and 15 miles from downtown Indy. Lauren is a year younger than me and I had several friends attending IU when this happened, so this case has been heavily on my mind since Day 1. This is only my second post on WS, so hi everyone! :newhere:

I just recently started reading these threads and I'm on thread 21, working my way up to finally be current. I just wanted to say all of you guys are amazing. I can't even believe the amount of people who have been on here since basically Day 1.

I don't even have a scenario I'm even close to being sure about. Although I will say I don't think JW was involved in her disappearance and I never have. All the other scenarios mentioned seem at least somewhat plausible to me (besides the fleeing to Israel one about 10 threads back...very, very silly IMHO). I choose the OD/disposal theory over the others, as do most of us. I have had my fair share of drug experiences and I definitely believe Xanax played a part in this. You get the guts to do things you would NEVER, EVER do sober if you take enough...and then you will not remember even one piece of it, no matter how coherent you seemed at the time. There are periods of multiple days that I cannot even come close to remembering. Especially true when alcohol is thrown into the mixture. I've never mixed cocaine with alcohol or Xanax, so I can't say much about that, but I find it very possible because I know many people who have regularly mixed two or three of these drugs, as stupid as it may be.

It's just terrifying for me to think about all the ruralness of the surrounding areas...I know searchers have done an outstanding job, but the amount of places she could be is so much. My family goes to Lake Monroe almost every weekend during the summers & I've been to Brown County State Park many, many times and the possibilities at even those two places are vast. The scariest though, IMO, is Morgon/Monroe State Forest. I went there quite a few times back in high school (Stepp Cemetery was a popular place for people to go in high school to freak themselves out...and it surely does the job) and the pitch black darkness, winding roads, etc. is terrifying.

I don't know, no help coming from me...just my two cents. I basically wanted to say it really means a lot to everyone here in Indiana that all of you are still so on top of this case. This is one of the best sites I've visited on the internet, and I hope to be a long term contributing member. Keep up the good work, guys! :clap:
 
  • #183
:welcome4: Welcome, Ashley!!
 
  • #184
I live in Greenwood, IN...about 50 miles from Bloomington and 15 miles from downtown Indy. Lauren is a year younger than me and I had several friends attending IU when this happened, so this case has been heavily on my mind since Day 1. This is only my second post on WS, so hi everyone! :newhere:

... It's just terrifying for me to think about all the ruralness of the surrounding areas...I know searchers have done an outstanding job, but the amount of places she could be is so much. My family goes to Lake Monroe almost every weekend during the summers & I've been to Brown County State Park many, many times and the possibilities at even those two places are vast. The scariest though, IMO, is Morgon/Monroe State Forest. I went there quite a few times back in high school (Stepp Cemetery was a popular place for people to go in high school to freak themselves out...and it surely does the job) and the pitch black darkness, winding roads, etc. is terrifying.

Respectfully snipped by me.

Welcome, Ashley! Great first post. What interests me most is what you noted about the surrounding areas, especially since you're familiar and have been in these spots. Though I've never been to Bloomington or the areas that border it, I feel like they may be similar to areas JR grew up near (west of West Bloomfield, for example). IDK if that means anything, just that I know the type of area myself, and I get where your coming from. So much ground to cover ... and ground that could easily conceal a body. So yes, the thought is frightening. I also wonder if it's an area JR or, say, DB would gravitate toward. Or, if a random abductor is involved, a place off the beaten path (and there appear to be many).
 
  • #185
Hi keylime! Thank you! And yes, I agree. It's so frightening to even think about. Although I know they searched Lake Monroe, that is a HUGE lake. I'm pretty positive it's the largest lake in Indiana, I think about 11,000 acres. While it is very heavily traveled in the summer months and there are many very nice lake houses around, there is still a vast amount of vegetation. My mom thinks she is around Monroe, more than likely one of the MANY, MANY quarries in the area. I think the state forest is the scariest considering how dark it is and how far it goes back, winding roads, et cetera.

Those are two huge possibilities...but so is pretty much anywhere else in that part of Indiana. It's so troubling to think about her being so tiny and still gone, she could be absolutely anywhere. I just wish her parents could finally get some peace. I really hope someone cracks during this lawsuit!
 
  • #186
When LE first described the video, two yrs ago, the term..questionable activity...was used in reference to what was going on in the alley. My first thoughts were it was activity related to "making out" of some sorts, partaking in drugs, or relieving oneself. Or vomiting. Carrying or piggybacking someone did not enter my mind, nor would I term this questionable. How do we know that the above, with the exception of carrying did not occur? Dietl described her as very much alive in the alley video.
I doubt the poor girl was capable of doing anything more than struggle to stay on her feet, and she didn't have much success at that. This is the series of mishaps LS suffered as they were, to use Parker's term, "making their way" to 5N.

1. Stumbled out of the elevator at SW.
2. Hit her head on some steps.
3. Fell face first without trying to break her fall.
4. Shortly afterward, "crumbled" to the ground.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9615099&postcount=164"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #30[/ame]
 
  • #187
I doubt the poor girl was capable of doing anything more than struggle to stay on her feet, and she didn't have much success at that. This is the series of mishaps LS suffered as they were, to use Parker's term, "making their way" to 5N.

1. Stumbled out of the elevator at SW.
2. Hit her head on some steps.
3. Fell face first without trying to break her fall.
4. Shortly afterward, "crumbled" to the ground.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #30

Then CR carries LS back to 5N. The report states MB escorted her to JR's. I assume escorted means he walked her there. Then JR states he watched her walk away. How does someone who just went through what LS went through just walk away? I woukd think these are the questions the Spierer's want answers to.
 
  • #188
This bit hurts so much to read. I don't know how her parents can handle this. I am a total stranger, never met Lauren, and I just want to grab her and protect her.

I couldn't agree more PlainJaneDoe :(
 
  • #189
Im sorry, but there is no way MB had a legal duty of care to bring Lauren to a particular apartment simply because she requested it. He didn't invite her over, host the gathering at JR's, go to Kilroy's or bring her back to his apartment. Finding a drunk girl in your apartment almost certainly creates no affirmative duty of care; certainly any duty would be satisfied by trying to get her to stay and then leaving her with a closer friend of hers.

Well, that's what he'll argue lol. He might not be required to take her to particular apartment, although that might be arguable too. I think the general rule is something like once you start assisting someone, you have a duty to finish. In this case, I image they might argue something she was in some kind of medical trouble, and by "assisting" her, he had done so, especially because he has already admitted to knowing she was in pretty bad shape. I just don't know what else they could possibly argue with MB except for something along those lines. I doubt they would go so narrow, but it might even be a plausible argument that he should have taken her to apartment because that's where her heart meds were. However, not a lot of people knew about that and as far as I know she didn't tell them she was having any kind of heart related problems at the moment (she could have and we would never know though!). If it's not thrown out, I'm sure he'll argue exactly your point - he tried to convince her to stay and, according to him, after she refused, her took her to JR's. Personally, I think that is a great argument for him during trial but pretty weak to throw out on, simply because that is all just his word and a judge/jury should be able to decide if that is believable. My guess is the big question is whether his assistance was legally sufficient to create the possibility that there was a duty of care. He'll then probably argue that he didn't legally take on any duty of care, or alternatively, whatever duty he had was satisfied, like you said.

I'm not saying it's a great argument. I'm just saying it might be enough that the judge won't throw out the argument against MB, which is probably what the Spierers are aiming for. They don't need the best argument ever; they just need something a judge won't throw out.
 
  • #190
Then CR carries LS back to 5N. The report states MB escorted her to JR's. I assume escorted means he walked her there. Then JR states he watched her walk away. How does someone who just went through what LS went through just walk away? I woukd think these are the questions the Spierer's want answers to.

I know there are plenty who will disagree with me here- and I am not saying Lauren was capable by any stretch- but an LE friend has told me a few stories of his post by a large college and how many super drunk people he has found passed out in the middle of the street, falling down stairs, even getting hit by cars! who somehow and from somewhere are able to rouse themselves to walk back home. He would arrive at the scene to see that they had left and roll around in his cruiser to see them a few blocks away, headed home with broken bones and bloody faces, totally unaware of how hurt they really were or forgetting that they were even in an accident!
Not saying that this is what happened in LS case, just that it is possible.
 
  • #191
Here's a case with an example of the duty of care argument. I've posted this before but it might be useful to compare, since there are a few potential similarities.

Griffen Kramer case: GK goes out with 4 friends, they do heroin (willingly). He passes out and starts foaming at the mouth, and instead of dropping him off at a hospital or calling 911, his friends drive him around trying to get someone else to deal with him. When none of their friends will take him off their hands, one of his friends drags him back to his house, puts him in a bedroom alone and goes to another party. When they found him the next morning, he was dead.

All of the friends were charged with involuntary manslaughter. This wasn't because they gave him the drugs. He purchased them and took them willingly. The argument was that once he passed out in the custody of his friends, they had a "duty to care" for him. It was obvious he needed help and any reasonable person would have called 911. If they had, he would have lived. So, when they chose not to, and instead dragged him around and put him in a room alone, they didn't just fail to get help – their actions contributed to his death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-death-NFL-star-Erik-Karmers-son-Griffen.html
http://agourahills.patch.com/groups...est-to-involuntary-manslaughter-in-a53f0a0fcd

So this is my understanding of how duty of care works -- I'm hoping someone will correct me if this is wrong.

- There's no general duty to care for or rescue someone who is in danger because of something totally unrelated to you. So, for ex: you don't have to perform first aid if you come across the scene of an accident, even if you have training and could help them.

But there are lots of exceptions that can create a duty of care:

- As Sammi said, if you start to assist someone, you have a duty to finish. If you take on helping someone, or if you tell them you are going to help them, you have a duty of care even if you didn't originally.

When Griffen Kramer's friends started trying to get friends to take him, they took it upon themselves to help him. Since they didn't actually help and just left him in a room, they also put him in a situation where he was reliant on them and no one else could help him. ( I think this applies to MB)

-There is a duty of care if you participated in creating the risk.
With CR this seems obvious.

- CR bought her drinks, got her so drunk she couldn't walk on her own, and then when she was totally incapacitated, took her away from a public place, away from Smallwood and to his place. He knew she couldn't walk there without him carrying her and her condition was obvious enough that at least two people tried to stop him, so he can't claim he didn't know what condition she was in or couldn't foresee the risk of her not getting home safely.
And, it wouldn't have been a burden for him to fulfill the 'duty of care'. All he had to do was leave her at her home, call her roommate, call a taxi, call 91… All of these options could easily have been done and weren't. Instead, once he got her out of the reach of help, he abandoned her.

- With JR, if you host a party and provide alcohol to minors, aren't you responsible for the possible consequences (not just the foreseeable ones) if something happens to them?
 
  • #192
I think the lawsuit is filed just in time for several reasons:
They were hoping the guilty would be caught, and jailed before now.
That their daughter would be found.
That did not happen.

Charging them with a duty of care, the natural response from the POI's will be.... we did.
We did 1), 2) 3).
But, since it just so happens that once she "leaves on her own" (according to the accused)- there is NO evidence she went in any direction or left. They only thing that can be proven is CR had her last, very unwell she had to be carried, and other witnesses put her there in his room and JR's. I think he took the alley simply because it led to HIS end of the building, his apt, not JR's and he was headed to his apt.

But, if Lauren left.... at all. At some point, down the alley, down College, down Morton or 11th in either direction- there has to be a camera not to far down. IF she left on her own accord, she wouldn't go any further out of her way than she had to, and probably headed back to where she lost her things and I thought that's where she was seen on camera with CR. She wasn't seen on any cameras ever again. Right?

So they are left with proving they did as they did and she did as they said she did. Their only witnesses, are each other
 
  • #193
Here's a case with an example of the duty of care argument. I've posted this before but it might be useful to compare, since there are a few potential similarities.

Griffen Kramer case: GK goes out with 4 friends, they do heroin (willingly). He passes out and starts foaming at the mouth, and instead of dropping him off at a hospital or calling 911, his friends drive him around trying to get someone else to deal with him. When none of their friends will take him off their hands, one of his friends drags him back to his house, puts him in a bedroom alone and goes to another party. When they found him the next morning, he was dead.

All of the friends were charged with involuntary manslaughter. This wasn't because they gave him the drugs. He purchased them and took them willingly. The argument was that once he passed out in the custody of his friends, they had a "duty to care" for him. It was obvious he needed help and any reasonable person would have called 911. If they had, he would have lived. So, when they chose not to, and instead dragged him around and put him in a room alone, they didn't just fail to get help – their actions contributed to his death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-death-NFL-star-Erik-Karmers-son-Griffen.html
http://agourahills.patch.com/groups...est-to-involuntary-manslaughter-in-a53f0a0fcd

So this is my understanding of how duty of care works -- I'm hoping someone will correct me if this is wrong.

- There's no general duty to care for or rescue someone who is in danger because of something totally unrelated to you. So, for ex: you don't have to perform first aid if you come across the scene of an accident, even if you have training and could help them.

But there are lots of exceptions that can create a duty of care:

- As Sammi said, if you start to assist someone, you have a duty to finish. If you take on helping someone, or if you tell them you are going to help them, you have a duty of care even if you didn't originally.

When Griffen Kramer's friends started trying to get friends to take him, they took it upon themselves to help him. Since they didn't actually help and just left him in a room, they also put him in a situation where he was reliant on them and no one else could help him. ( I think this applies to MB)

-There is a duty of care if you participated in creating the risk.
With CR this seems obvious.

- CR bought her drinks, got her so drunk she couldn't walk on her own, and then when she was totally incapacitated, took her away from a public place, away from Smallwood and to his place. He knew she couldn't walk there without him carrying her and her condition was obvious enough that at least two people tried to stop him, so he can't claim he didn't know what condition she was in or couldn't foresee the risk of her not getting home safely.
And, it wouldn't have been a burden for him to fulfill the 'duty of care'. All he had to do was leave her at her home, call her roommate, call a taxi, call 91… All of these options could easily have been done and weren't. Instead, once he got her out of the reach of help, he abandoned her.

- With JR, if you host a party and provide alcohol to minors, aren't you responsible for the possible consequences (not just the foreseeable ones) if something happens to them?

Excellent summary, Abbey. Thank you. :clap:
 
  • #194
- CR bought her drinks, got

Respectfully snipped by me.

her so drunk she couldn't walk on her own, and then when she was totally incapacitated, took her away from a public place, away from Smallwood and to his place. He knew she couldn't walk there without him carrying her and her condition was obvious enough that at least two people tried to stop him, so he can't claim he didn't know what condition she was in or couldn't foresee the risk of her not getting home safely.
And, it wouldn't have been a burden for him to fulfill the 'duty of care'. All he had to do was leave her at her home, call her roommate, call a taxi, call 91… All of these options could easily have been done and weren't. Instead, once he got her out of the reach of help, he abandoned her.

- With JR, if you host a party and provide alcohol to minors, aren't you responsible for the possible consequences (not just the foreseeable ones) if something happens to them?

I think the social host law in IN would apply to JR ... and maybe CR since he bought her the drinks at Sports. Then again, Sports served them, so IDK. Here's an excerpt from the webside socialhostliability.org re: IN:

430
Under IC7.1-5-10-15.5, a commercial server or a social host is not liable for the actions of intoxicated patrons or guests unless (1) the commercial server/social host had “actual knowledge” that the patron/guest was visibly intoxicated at the time alcoholic beverages were “furnished” and (2) the intoxicated person was the proximate cause of the injury or damage alleged. Weida v. Dowden, 664 N.E.2d 742 (Ind. App. 1996), Vanderhoek v. Willy, 728 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. App. 2000), and Culver v. McRoberts, 192 F.3d 1095 (7th Cir. 1999) Also under IC7.1-5-7-8(b), educational institutions, it appears, are not subject to civil liability unless they sell/furnish alcoholic beverages to a minor. A licensee is not normally liable for the injuries resulting from the criminal conduct (e.g., murder) of an intoxicated patron. Such conduct
is either not foreseeable or is an intervening act that breaks the necessary probable cause for liability under the Dram Shop Act. Merchants Nat. Bank v. Simrell’s Sports Bar, 741 N.E.2d 383 (Ind. App. 2000)
431
Historical Note: After April 1, 1986, common law dram shop actions were restricted by IC7.1-5-10-15.5. The Gariup Const. Co. and Ashlock decisions were based on factual situations that occurred prior to this date.
432
In the Delta Tau Delta case, a guest at a fraternity house was attacked by another guest who was intoxicated. The State Supreme Court held that the dram shop law did not apply in this social host liability situation since there was no indication to the social host (the fraternity) knew that the injury-causing guest was visibly intoxicated. Note: The court, however, did find that the social host was liable under the common law for failure to maintain a safe place for guests.

From what I can conclude, if it can be proven that JR and CR could tell that LS was visibly intoxicated, the social host law would be applicable. The fact that LS was a minor would be another issue, I'm sure. Maybe someone who can read legalese could help me out here. But it appears JR and CR both knew LS was visibly intoxicated, based on what MB states. Perhaps JR also didn't maintain a safe place for guests?

The social host law is big in my state right now, with end-of-the-year and graduation parties everywhere. My heart goes out to Griffen Kramer's family. (Slightly OT, but his dad was one of my favorite underdog quarterbacks for the Detroit Lions). But this can happen at so many levels. A close friend of mine threw a celebratory party for the HS football team here. She did everything right ... talking with LE, the coach, etc., beforehand. And it still went south ... the party got out of hand, with kids sneaking in clear alcohol in sports bottles, and she had to call EMS when a team member became visibly intoxicated. She did the right thing, but it was a horrible wake-up experience.
 
  • #195
I think the social host law in IN would apply to JR ... and maybe CR since he bought her the drinks at Sports. Then again, Sports served them, so IDK. Here's an excerpt from the webside socialhostliability.org re: IN:

430
Under IC7.1-5-10-15.5, a commercial server or a social host is not liable for the actions of intoxicated patrons or guests unless (1) the commercial server/social host had “actual knowledge” that the patron/guest was visibly intoxicated at the time alcoholic beverages were “furnished” and (2) the intoxicated person was the proximate cause of the injury or damage alleged. Weida v. Dowden, 664 N.E.2d 742 (Ind. App. 1996), Vanderhoek v. Willy, 728 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. App. 2000), and Culver v. McRoberts, 192 F.3d 1095 (7th Cir. 1999) Also under IC7.1-5-7-8(b), educational institutions, it appears, are not subject to civil liability unless they sell/furnish alcoholic beverages to a minor. A licensee is not normally liable for the injuries resulting from the criminal conduct (e.g., murder) of an intoxicated patron. Such conduct
is either not foreseeable or is an intervening act that breaks the necessary probable cause for liability under the Dram Shop Act. Merchants Nat. Bank v. Simrell’s Sports Bar, 741 N.E.2d 383 (Ind. App. 2000)
431
Historical Note: After April 1, 1986, common law dram shop actions were restricted by IC7.1-5-10-15.5. The Gariup Const. Co. and Ashlock decisions were based on factual situations that occurred prior to this date.
432
In the Delta Tau Delta case, a guest at a fraternity house was attacked by another guest who was intoxicated. The State Supreme Court held that the dram shop law did not apply in this social host liability situation since there was no indication to the social host (the fraternity) knew that the injury-causing guest was visibly intoxicated. Note: The court, however, did find that the social host was liable under the common law for failure to maintain a safe place for guests.

From what I can conclude, if it can be proven that JR and CR could tell that LS was visibly intoxicated, the social host law would be applicable. The fact that LS was a minor would be another issue, I'm sure. Maybe someone who can read legalese could help me out here. But it appears JR and CR both knew LS was visibly intoxicated, based on what MB states. Perhaps JR also didn't maintain a safe place for guests?

The social host law is big in my state right now, with end-of-the-year and graduation parties everywhere. My heart goes out to Griffen Kramer's family. (Slightly OT, but his dad was one of my favorite underdog quarterbacks for the Detroit Lions). But this can happen at so many levels. A close friend of mine threw a celebratory party for the HS football team here. She did everything right ... talking with LE, the coach, etc., beforehand. And it still went south ... the party got out of hand, with kids sneaking in clear alcohol in sports bottles, and she had to call EMS when a team member became visibly intoxicated. She did the right thing, but it was a horrible wake-up experience.

I would agree. In the suit, I noticed the wording of how CR "helped" Lauren drink the drinks. Perhaps this is a form of hosting; I would think "buying" drinks for her counts as well.
 
  • #196
There is approx. 1 to 1.5 hours for which Lauren is unaccounted.

We don't have any activity from the time MB takes her to JR's (let's say 3:15-ish) to the time JR says he called friends to come get her which is 4:15. He says she walked away at 4:30.

This is the darkest hour. What happened during this time?

Edited to add: Does anyone know of descriptive info that MB or JR has given as to what they did while Lauren was at their apartment?
 
  • #197
The argument was that once he passed out in the custody of his friends, they had a "duty to care" for him. It was obvious he needed help and any reasonable person would have called 911. If they had, he would have lived. So, when they chose not to, and instead dragged him around and put him in a room alone, they didn't just fail to get help – their actions contributed to his death.

With JR, if you host a party and provide alcohol to minors, aren't you responsible for the possible consequences (not just the foreseeable ones) if something happens to them?

Thanks Abbey! That helps me understand the concept of "duty of care" a LOT better.

I agree with that, and it's pretty obvious something happened and no one cared for her the way they should've...but what's troubling is the lack of proof. Don't get me wrong, I think those boys did something heinous that they shouldn't have done in a million years and I do think they should be locked up for it; but without concrete proof (pretty much a body), can they actually prosecute them? Maybe they can, I'm going to search different duty of care cases and see what I find.

And I found a great link further explaining furnishing alcohol to a minor and prohibitions against hosting underage drinking parties: http://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/Prohibitions_Against_Hosting_Underage_Drinking_Parties.html
I've read many stories where people are charged with providing minors with liquor, but I think a majority of the time, it's just a ticket...but in this case, I'd think it'd be more than a ticket.
 
  • #198
There is approx. 1 to 1.5 hours for which Lauren is unaccounted.

We don't have any activity from the time MB takes her to JR's (let's say 3:15-ish) to the time JR says he called friends to come get her which is 4:15. He says she walked away at 4:30.

This is the darkest hour. What happened during this time?

Edited to add: Does anyone know of descriptive info that MB or JR has given as to what they did while Lauren was at their apartment?

I wish we knew what happened during this time! It makes me crazy to think about. I just want to know what condition she was in...whether it be drunk, high, sober, sad, alive, dead...:scared:

As far as I know, there's not any descriptive info regarding what she did there besides the fact that they were drinking before Kilroy's at JR's townhome. And then of course, allegedly talking to MB, asking him to party, getting turned down, and being "escorted" to JR's door. None of it's concrete though...:banghead:
 
  • #199
We don't have any activity from the time MB takes her to JR's (let's say 3:15-ish) to the time JR says he called friends to come get her which is 4:15. He says she walked away at 4:30.
Snipped by me.

The suit filed states MB returned home from JR's at 3:30. It also states he was there when JR made the calls(4:15). The question for me would be how long after he returned home did he take LS back to JR's. How long would it have taken to put CR to bed and walk LS over to JR's? What was she doing while they were trying to locate friends?
 
  • #200
We don't have any activity from the time MB takes her to JR's (let's say 3:15-ish) to the time JR says he called friends to come get her which is 4:15. He says she walked away at 4:30.
Snipped by me.

The suit filed states MB returned home from JR's at 3:30. It also states he was there when JR made the calls(4:15). The question for me would be how long after he returned home did he take LS back to JR's. How long would it have taken to put CR to bed and walk LS over to JR's? What was she doing while they were trying to locate friends?

Thanks, I'll have to have another look at the filing.

Interesting that MB's storyline is the one that has changed the most in the past two years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
126
Guests online
3,284
Total visitors
3,410

Forum statistics

Threads
632,633
Messages
18,629,477
Members
243,231
Latest member
Irena21D
Back
Top