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

[Mahouston69]

I also think him going into detail about the evening and his participation WAS him "caving" and that's all there was to tell...

 

[Ixchel13]

I also think him going into detail about the evening and his participation WAS him "caving" and that's all there was to tell...

I agree that MB wasn't the last to see Lauren, and I also think the big gaps/changes in everyone's stories includes the drugs they took sold or shared, including MB. IMO, he knew enough of the scenario that if it wasn't random, he could make an educated surmisal of what could have happened much better than we, IOW, he is privy to info we're not, as in, who else was around including other women too, and who was awake when they said they were sleeping, etc.

 

[Vidocq]

But how do you account for Valerie Sokolov's claim that MB told her LS had left when he was upstairs with CR? Here's the link ... it's a little ways down:

http://www.indianapolismonthly.com/features/the-lauren-spierer-mystery-unraveled/ ...

I've notice that people who tend to be conspiracy theorists (of which I account myself as one) tend to believe earlier witness reports, on the grounds that earlier on the conspirators haven't yet had time to get their false story out. Whereas believers in Official Stories tend to believe the later consensus, on the grounds that early on witnesses were getting things wrong in the heat of the moment. So, being more of a conspiracy theorist than a believer in Official Stories, my explanation of VS's claim about MB's story is that it represents MB telling an inconvenient truth, before him and the other guys had gotten their stories straight.

The testimony of VS in that story, as well as the testimony of the bar-manager witness are central to my thinking on the case, as both witnesses had no reason to lie, and their stories fit together nicely: if Lauren wandered off soon after arriving at MB's then it becomes completely plausible that she would have made it down to the south-east steps of T&C at 3:38 am. Furthermore, if Lauren went on to die inside T&C, then it would makes sense that people who shared responsibility, and that perhaps were collectively involved in illegal activity tangential to her death, would want to concoct a story that has her disappearing an hour later, and a block away. (Hence, MB changes his story.) For one thing it would get the cadaver dogs, if there were any, sniffing in the wrong place.

 

[akh]

I've notice that people who tend to be conspiracy theorists (of which I account myself as one) tend to believe earlier witness reports, on the grounds that earlier on the conspirators haven't yet had time to get their false story out. Whereas believers in Official Stories tend to believe the later consensus, on the grounds that early on witnesses were getting things wrong in the heat of the moment. So, being more of a conspiracy theorist than a believer in Official Stories, my explanation of VS's claim about MB's story is that it represents MB telling an inconvenient truth, before him and the other guys had gotten their stories straight.

The testimony of VS in that story, as well as the testimony of the bar-manager witness are central to my thinking on the case, as both witnesses had no reason to lie, and their stories fit together nicely: if Lauren wandered off soon after arriving at MB's then it becomes completely plausible that she would have made it down to the south-east steps of T&C at 3:38 am. Furthermore, if Lauren went on to die inside T&C, then it would makes sense that people who shared responsibility, and that perhaps were collectively involved in illegal activity tangential to her death, would want to concoct a story that has her disappearing an hour later, and a block away. (Hence, MB changes his story.) For one thing it would get the cadaver dogs, if there were any, sniffing in the wrong place.

Where I differ with your theory is that the VS quote is pretty easy to see it being a muddled version of the basic account we've all now heard. No reason to lie, but every reason to wonder if she misheard, misremembered, or was misquoted by the bad reporting that followed this story early on. It would be different if VS was quoted retelling MB's story and it was wildly different. Something where even if you assume she isn't remembering it 100%, or the reporter isn't understanding 100%, it still doesn't connect at all with the overall story in any sense. Example being if she'd have told the reporter he said he was out of town that night and didn't return until 5AM and found CR already in bed. There'd be little way to reconcile that with what we think we know now. But "came downstairs and she was gone" isn't far from "walked her downstairs (to JR) and didn't see her again". Easy to see how one could become the other in a retelling.

Meanwhile, the bar employee witness I see as much more compelling. It simply makes sense this person would have some idea when the bar closed and when they were able to leave. Plus, wasn't the time even specific (and not an approximation)?

Of course if we account for DST and a clock that was not adjusted for it then we're turning 3:30 into 4:30AM in reality. So maybe what the bar employee does is corroborate LS leaving 5N at approx 4:30AM....

 

[AbbeyR]

If the discrepancies in MB's stories had just been misunderstandings by reporters, etc., you'd think the private investigators would have quickly figured this out, since they said they interviewed the POI and just about everyone involved. Instead, after speaking to them, they gave a public statement to the media that the POI were certainly withholding information, that teir stories had contradictions and didn't add up. The Spierers have also said this, specifically about JR, CR and MB. This leads me to think that what appear to be problems with their accounts probably are.

As for the time of the other witness, her account has been cross referenced with video and other evidence, so I am inclined to believe the police when they said that the timing of her encounter was off by an hour in the other direction - i.e., closer to 2:39, not 4:30.
For me, LE is a more reliable source of information than a blogger.

 

[Ixchel13]

I've notice that people who tend to be conspiracy theorists (of which I account myself as one) tend to believe earlier witness reports, on the grounds that earlier on the conspirators haven't yet had time to get their false story out. Whereas believers in Official Stories tend to believe the later consensus, on the grounds that early on witnesses were getting things wrong in the heat of the moment. So, being more of a conspiracy theorist than a believer in Official Stories, my explanation of VS's claim about MB's story is that it represents MB telling an inconvenient truth, before him and the other guys had gotten their stories straight.

The testimony of VS in that story, as well as the testimony of the bar-manager witness are central to my thinking on the case, as both witnesses had no reason to lie, and their stories fit together nicely: if Lauren wandered off soon after arriving at MB's then it becomes completely plausible that she would have made it down to the south-east steps of T&C at 3:38 am. Furthermore, if Lauren went on to die inside T&C, then it would makes sense that people who shared responsibility, and that perhaps were collectively involved in illegal activity tangential to her death, would want to concoct a story that has her disappearing an hour later, and a block away. (Hence, MB changes his story.) For one thing it would get the cadaver dogs, if there were any, sniffing in the wrong place.

BBM going back to 10&C is one of the scenarios I often think about. But, you're not the only poster to say she might have "wandered" back down there. What if she wasn't "wandering", but had a destination and a definite reason for going there. Doubting Thomas has often brought up the fact that MB called
JR's to say Lauren was there when they could have just walked over in 20 seconds. That led a lot of folks to speculate that JR was possibly already down at 10th and C. If the POIs wanted to take attention away from 10th and C, they could easily say she was at JR's. Precisely because there would be forensic evidence of her being there as she was there earlier. But no cadaverine.
W/O a doubt, there will be no evidence at the end of the day that she died at JR's. Without that, their story sticks.
ZO could be a POI not because of the altercation but because there might have been a party at his apt at 10th and C AFTER the altercation. Just a wild spec, but could the bartender witness have been attending this party? Also, I feel if the POIs were all male, LE would have said so.
Could people have been passing Lauren's phone around because they knew she was frantic to get it? Not to start a big ruckus about the phone again, but the only reason Kilroy's says she left it there is because they found it there.
They don't have Lauren on video "leaving" her phone. This is something a woman would do to another woman, make sure her boyfriend got the phone
and this could have been happening at the same time Lauren was trying so
hard to get her phone.IMO, she left the phone at SW at the party she was at when she abruptly left with DR to go to JR's. If so, she would have been leaving it near HT and most likely ZC. We assumed that ZC was at JR's when she saw Lauren doing shots, but remember, he had run out of hard booze and only had beer. So, ZC must have seen Lauren doing shots at the party at SW. So here's Lauren probably talking and texting with CR, and these other women watching and listening and perhaps there were pics? Then, I speculate, Lauren leaves her phone there after making her last call. People ask, why would someone then
bring her phone back to Kilroy's? well, they realize it is GPSessed and that it has to look like Lauren must have left it at Kilroys, no matter if it pings at all the places in between because everyone was running back and forth anyway.
My guess (just a scenario) is the phone went to 10th and C right after Lauren went with DR to JR's and remained there until she died and someone threw it over the fence at Kilroys.

 

[Ixchel13]

Where I differ with your theory is that the VS quote is pretty easy to see it being a muddled version of the basic account we've all now heard. No reason to lie, but every reason to wonder if she misheard, misremembered, or was misquoted by the bad reporting that followed this story early on. It would be different if VS was quoted retelling MB's story and it was wildly different. Something where even if you assume she isn't remembering it 100%, or the reporter isn't understanding 100%, it still doesn't connect at all with the overall story in any sense. Example being if she'd have told the reporter he said he was out of town that night and didn't return until 5AM and found CR already in bed. There'd be little way to reconcile that with what we think we know now. But "came downstairs and she was gone" isn't far from "walked her downstairs (to JR) and didn't see her again". Easy to see how one could become the other in a retelling.

Meanwhile, the bar employee witness I see as much more compelling. It simply makes sense this person would have some idea when the bar closed and when they were able to leave. Plus, wasn't the time even specific (and not an approximation)?

Of course if we account for DST and a clock that was not adjusted for it then we're turning 3:30 into 4:30AM in reality. So maybe what the bar employee does is corroborate LS leaving 5N at approx 4:30AM....

BBM, maybe, in that way people do, he was speaking subliminally, "gone" as in
passed iinstead of just not there.

 

[imkeylime]

BBM, maybe, in that way people do, he was speaking subliminally, "gone" as in
passed iinstead of just not there.

A Freudian slip? IDK what to make of MB's statement. His lawyer brought up VS, much as CR's brought up LS helping CR home. I speculatively lump these together as red herrings. JMO.

 

[Vidocq]

BBM going back to 10&C is one of the scenarios I often think about. But, you're not the only poster to say she might have "wandered" back down there. What if she wasn't "wandering", but had a destination and a definite reason for going there. Doubting Thomas has often brought up the fact that MB called
JR's to say Lauren was there when they could have just walked over in 20 seconds. That led a lot of folks to speculate that JR was possibly already down at 10th and C.

I think Doubting Thomas and the folks got that idea from me, but, hey, we're all on the same team.

ZO could be a POI not because of the altercation but because there might have been a party at his apt at 10th and C AFTER the altercation. Just a wild spec, but could the bartender witness have been attending this party?

I have reason to believe that the boy the bar-manager witness was visiting was living at the time on the third floor of T&C. ZO, AB, and BB, all lived together on the third floor of T&C. In December of 2011, JW, according to a suit filed against him by the company managing T&C, had been living on the third floor of T&C. All roads seem to lead to the third floor of T&C. I tend to think that Mystery Man was a partier from the third floor, though perhaps not an official resident, who found Lauren as she was walking to Smallwood from 5 North, or else they left a party on the third floor, that both of them had been at. Either way, Mystery Man and Lauren were on the south-east steps, when bar-manager witness left the building. It doesn't appear to me that the bar manager was hanging out with ZO and crew that night, or even knew them. The boy she was visiting was not anyone who's been named in the media.

My guess (just a scenario) is the phone went to 10th and C right after Lauren went with DR to JR's and remained there until she died and someone threw it over the fence at Kilroys.

A fascinating suggestion. It's always struck, probably most of us, funny that even an intoxicated person would forget her phone and her shoes at a bar. Even if she was kicked out, you'd think they'd let her back in to get her shoes. Perhaps a thrower over-the-fence threw her phone and her shoes. Of course, this requires the ominous fact that somebody wanting to get rid of things not only had her phone, but also had her shoes.

 

[akh]

If she was kicked out then they would not have let her back in to get her shoes or anything else. But that assumes reports of her being kicked out are true.

 

[ontheclock]

Kickout story and possessions left behind - wish we had more info on those two points. Something pivotal there, IMO.

 

[akh]

I have reason to believe that the boy the bar-manager witness was visiting was living at the time on the third floor of T&C. ZO, AB, and BB, all lived together on the third floor of T&C. In December of 2011, JW, according to a suit filed against him by the company managing T&C, had been living on the third floor of T&C. All roads seem to lead to the third floor of T&C. I tend to think that Mystery Man was a partier from the third floor, though perhaps not an official resident, who found Lauren as she was walking to Smallwood from 5 North, or else they left a party on the third floor, that both of them had been at. Either way, Mystery Man and Lauren were on the south-east steps, when bar-manager witness left the building. It doesn't appear to me that the bar manager was hanging out with ZO and crew that night, or even knew them. The boy she was visiting was not anyone who's been named in the media.

This is very interesting. It would make more sense the bar manager witness would be wrong about the time with it be later than she said, not earlier. At least from the outside looking in because you'd have the potential of her looking at a clock that wasn't changed for DST or simply losing track of time and it being later than she assumed. At least if she closed down a bar as has been reported. She should know what time she closed the bar and have some reference to that time for anything that happened close to that time. You'd think anyway....

What an interesting twist to the story it would be if there was some way to know the problem with the bar manager's time wasn't that what she saw was when or even earlier than when she thought (like LE/PI has seemed to imply... although LE was so busy double-speaking about it that I'm not sure they really implied anything), but actually later.... ...after LS had left 5N.

If true, this could mean LE has known for some time that nothing happened at 5N. Or it could mean they were so focused on what they thought happened, and/or their original timeline, they only assumed she was wrong about the time in the one possible direction that supported the original timeline rather than actually a sighting after leaving 5N and even later in the night/morning (placing her as even a later witness than JR).

 

[imkeylime]

BBM going back to 10&C is one of the scenarios I often think about. But, you're not the only poster to say she might have "wandered" back down there. What if she wasn't "wandering", but had a destination and a definite reason for going there. Doubting Thomas has often brought up the fact that MB called
JR's to say Lauren was there when they could have just walked over in 20 seconds. That led a lot of folks to speculate that JR was possibly already down at 10th and C. If the POIs wanted to take attention away from 10th and C, they could easily say she was at JR's. Precisely because there would be forensic evidence of her being there as she was there earlier. But no cadaverine.
W/O a doubt, there will be no evidence at the end of the day that she died at JR's. Without that, their story sticks.
ZO could be a POI not because of the altercation but because there might have been a party at his apt at 10th and C AFTER the altercation. Just a wild spec, but could the bartender witness have been attending this party? Also, I feel if the POIs were all male, LE would have said so.
Could people have been passing Lauren's phone around because they knew she was frantic to get it? Not to start a big ruckus about the phone again, but the only reason Kilroy's says she left it there is because they found it there.
They don't have Lauren on video "leaving" her phone. This is something a woman would do to another woman, make sure her boyfriend got the phone
and this could have been happening at the same time Lauren was trying so
hard to get her phone.IMO, she left the phone at SW at the party she was at when she abruptly left with DR to go to JR's. If so, she would have been leaving it near HT and most likely ZC. We assumed that ZC was at JR's when she saw Lauren doing shots, but remember, he had run out of hard booze and only had beer. So, ZC must have seen Lauren doing shots at the party at SW. So here's Lauren probably talking and texting with CR, and these other women watching and listening and perhaps there were pics? Then, I speculate, Lauren leaves her phone there after making her last call. People ask, why would someone then
bring her phone back to Kilroy's? well, they realize it is GPSessed and that it has to look like Lauren must have left it at Kilroys, no matter if it pings at all the places in between because everyone was running back and forth anyway.
My guess (just a scenario) is the phone went to 10th and C right after Lauren went with DR to JR's and remained there until she died and someone threw it over the fence at Kilroys.

While I've never been too involved in the phone debate, you raise a good point about why (GPS tracking) someone might return her phone to Sports. IMO, it might make more sense for LS to have left her shoes at the bar than her phone. She may have taken off her shoes in the volleyball area with the thought of playing ... or simply because they hurt or she liked being barefoot (my daughter does). I'm not as sure about her leaving her phone with her shoes.

One thing that's always bothered me is that there's been no mention of the jacket she wore that night. If she had the phone in her jacket, and someone buried her with the jacket on, perhaps the someone would have removed the phone in order to avoid the ping. I wonder if there's proof of when her phone was found at Sports. Do we know that?

Also, if someone brought her phone back to Sports, would it be a person who knew she'd left her shoes there (given there's video proof that she was barefoot)?

BTW, I've considered someone having her phone for troublemaking reasons (even just to keep her from texting or to read her texts). My daughter was bullied during HS over a boy ... a "friend" took a real friend's phone and sent her terrible messages. It definitely happens.

 

[akh]

I guess for me, the thing about the phone debate is I don't see how it matters? At this point it's 99.99% certain she was a victim of foul play. So if she left the phone at Kilroy's it's not much of a clue. But OTOH, if the phone was later tossed into Kilroy's (or directly planted), since apparently nobody witnessed that or caught it on video I still don't see how it matters. It would matter if there was some question about whether she was the victim of foul play but that doesn't seem to be in question.

So how does a planted phone versus a lost phone make any difference at this point?

 

[AbbeyR]

What an interesting twist to the story it would be if there was some way to know the problem with the bar manager's time wasn't that what she saw was when or even earlier than when she thought (like LE/PI has seemed to imply... although LE was so busy double-speaking about it that I'm not sure they really implied anything), but actually later.... ...after LS had left 5N.

If true, this could mean LE has known for some time that nothing happened at 5N. Or it could mean they were so focused on what they thought happened, and/or their original timeline, they only assumed she was wrong about the time in the one possible direction that supported the original timeline rather than actually a sighting after leaving 5N and even later in the night/morning (placing her as even a later witness than JR).

It would be an interesting twist, but it's not just the time that makes it problematic. The witnesses report was about the scene she described with the 'mystery man', and this person was identified as being Corey Rossman. So you have to basically take out the few bits of information that we actually have to imagine this scene happening later with someone else...

Also, about the hypothetical situations at 10th and college, how do we get around that there are cameras there?

 

[imkeylime]

I guess for me, the thing about the phone debate is I don't see how it matters? At this point it's 99.99% certain she was a victim of foul play. So if she left the phone at Kilroy's it's not much of a clue. But OTOH, if the phone was later tossed into Kilroy's (or directly planted), since apparently nobody witnessed that or caught it on video I still don't see how it matters. It would matter if there was some question about whether she was the victim of foul play but that doesn't seem to be in question.

So how does a planted phone versus a lost phone make any difference at this point?

IMO, it could make a difference if there was a way to prove that the phone WAS planted, as it would help rule out random abduction (unless random abductor knew she'd been at Sports that night). Also, if there was proof that deception occurred earlier in the evening, it might support deception later on as well. For example, if someone wanted LS to not be able to reach JW, it would help to know who or why.

The problem, of course, is that we can't really answer how the phone got where it did or why. LE and Sports might know approximately when, though. Do we even know if a customer or employee turned it in before closing or if it was found the next morning? I don't recall this info.

I agree that it isn't the biggest piece of the puzzle, but the fact that the phone comes into play later in the night (per the call from JR's) and could track location does make it of interest to me. JMO.

 

[akh]

It would be an interesting twist, but it's not just the time that makes it problematic. The witnesses report was about the scene she described with the 'mystery man', and this person was identified as being Corey Rossman. So you have to basically take out the few bits of information that we actually have to imagine this scene happening later with someone else...

Also, about the hypothetical situations at 10th and college, how do we get around that there are cameras there?

But, unless something has changed, Gatto reported she said the Mystery Man wasn't CR (via photos). So basically we're left saying her story is totally inaccurate but it supports the official timeline just fine if we just discard or change the parts that aren't convenient. But we can only change them to support the official timeline.

As for the cameras... Until someone posts video of what the cameras actually saw and didn't/couldn't see (area) as well as confirms what ones were working, then I don't think something not showing on video means much of anything. Let alone if we're even accurately informed as to location anyway.

 

[Ixchel13]

I guess for me, the thing about the phone debate is I don't see how it matters? At this point it's 99.99% certain she was a victim of foul play. So if she left the phone at Kilroy's it's not much of a clue. But OTOH, if the phone was later tossed into Kilroy's (or directly planted), since apparently nobody witnessed that or caught it on video I still don't see how it matters. It would matter if there was some question about whether she was the victim of foul play but that doesn't seem to be in question.

BBM

that's a good question, akh. It's not why(foul play) someone left the phone, but who left it.

So how does a planted phone versus a lost phone make any difference at this point?

it shows a cover up might have ensued and would probably include women. Again, BTown's video, or the video he said he viewed, shows a car at the curb and a woman on the sidewalk near Kilroys, at the time Lauren was said to be walking home. He made it clear it wasn't Lauren.

To me, I think it's important to find everyone involved. Sorry if they're young and have their whole lives ahead--if they knew where Lauren was put, or know who put her there, or even what happened; and then they helped cover it up--they need to face at least accessory or obstruction charges for not coming forward, even anonymously. JMO

just an aside about the bartender witness--we know what LE released of her statement, but we don't know everything she told LE. If they say she's a witness, that doesn't mean she was an innocent passerby. According to a friend of her's who was also a co-worker with her, she was leaving when she saw Lauren smack her head, offered to help but was rebuffed, and didn't even know Lauren was missing until later that week. IMO, she knows these people, she wasn't just a passerby. MOO

 

[Ixchel13]

If she was kicked out then they would not have let her back in to get her shoes or anything else. But that assumes reports of her being kicked out are true.

that's correct. I think the LIE about her being kicked out of Sports was started by Sports. According to video, she was served drinks. But, they wanted it to seem like they weren't the ones who got her drunk. They were probably clearing the bar out anyway. My guess is that the next morning, when they were picking up in the beach area, they found her phone and brought it up front. I am not about to give Kilroys or their employees the benefit of the doubt. They never apologized for serving Lauren, would that have been so difficult? I mean, they admitted serving her. Would it have been so terrible to say, "I'm sorry we did that"?

 

[AbbeyR]

But, unless something has changed, Gatto reported she said the Mystery Man wasn't CR (via photos).So basically we're left saying her story is totally inaccurate but it supports the official timeline just fine if we just discard or change the parts that aren't convenient. But we can only change them to support the official timeline.

As for the cameras... Until someone posts video of what the cameras actually saw and didn't/couldn't see (area) as well as confirms what ones were working, then I don't think something not showing on video means much of anything. Let alone if we're even accurately informed as to location anyway.

BBM - What does that mean though? That she saw a picture of CR and couldn't identify him? I'm not picking and choosing the parts of Gatto's account that are convenient, I'm disregarding his account because he is neither an investigator nor a reporter, and all of his 'reporting' had major mistakes and a theme (CR had nothing to do with anything). So, I'm going with what has been confirmed by LE, the private investigators and reported in MSM. I really don't believe that they would identify the 'mystery man' in the witnesses report as Corey Rossman, or claim to have video evidence, if this was not actually the case.