Did you guys see this?
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/10/20/suspect-held-in-7-murders-in-northwest-indiana/
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/10/20/suspect-held-in-7-murders-in-northwest-indiana/
IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #33
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
- Status
bessie
Verified Insider
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 31,769
- Reaction score
- 1,836
Please see the thread in the Serial Killer forum.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259985
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259985
chaplain1
New Member
Gary and Bloomington are not well connected. The highway to get down to Indy is 2 lane.
Chilling. But we can rule out LS per post #41 (Bessie's) on the above thread, as he was incarcerated in TX in 2011 ...
Good to know. Thanks!
Ixchel13
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,658
- Reaction score
- 1,146
If he's not a reporter, what is he?
Maybe his reporting had a theme because that is where the stories he was told led him? I have no idea. Neither do you.
You're just picking and choosing because on one hand you have a random neighbor repeating what she remembers from MB and if we take it as 100% accurately reported and remembered then MB has told a differing account (which doesn't line up with the official narrative). So that is OK? But since Gatto's report of his witness doesn't line up with the official narrative then we just have to discard that and twist it back and change it so that it fits and then that is OK? If that is not picking and choosing I don't know what is.
The truth is, neither fits neatly in the package and we're left wondering what is accurate and what is not. Neither presents a smoking gun just for that reason.
And how do we know LE and the PI's don't have it wrong about this bar manager and just made an assumption that what she saw must've been an hour earlier and been CR? Maybe that is part of the problem they have solving the case. Or, since we're speculating, how do we even know LE doesn't know the bar manager was totally accurate, know who she saw, that it cleared 5N, and that is LE's trump card ultimately if they could ever find LS? You act like they've laid their cards on the table and not only told us a everything they know, but have been honest about things rather than keeping some things concealed up their sleeves or intentionally murky.
Of all the things that LE has said, nothing was more convoluted and filled with double-speak than what they said about this bar manager witness. It was just plain odd. It was intentionally unclear and easily could've been made clear, had they wanted it to be clear. IMHO they wanted ambiguity there for some reason. You could take it 50 different ways and hear what you want to hear, or hear nothing at all but confusion.
Re: Gatto - In the context of Lauren's case, he was a blogger. (Last I checked, outside of Lauren's case, he seems to post 'breaking news' in social media sites, i.e. reposting headlines that will get a lot of clicks.) Unlike the other reports we use as sources, Gatto's blog had no standards of reporting or accountability whatsoever. His stories had a theme because of his anonymous sources, and I know, just like everyone else here, what he has told us here on WS - that they were unreliable. We also know from Gatto that he only spoke to the bartender witness once, and that she wouldn't talk to him again after that, so he didn't know the answers to, and couldn't clarify even basic things like whether her description was referring to skin tone or race, yet, it definitely wasn't corey. Just like how his witness from Kilroy's swore that Lauren was alone, and NOT with Corey Rossman. Only it wasn't true. In both of these cases, we now know there is video evidence and the person Lauren was with was identified in MSM and in the lawsuit docs as Corey.
You keep saying the statement from LE is totally not clear, and perhaps that is your impression. I don't think it's as convoluted as you do. If you listen to the press conference statement, they are replying to a question about the authenticity of Gatto's report. Taken in that context, they answer a few key questions: Yes, there is a witness, as he claimed. The man she was with was not a 'mystery', he is known to them. The time is wrong - based on video evidence Lauren did not appear with the man at the time reported by the witness, but almost an hour earlier.
I don't think we have the whole story, that LE has told us everything, or that they know everything. Obviously they haven't solved the case! But I also don't think it's likely that there is a big conspiracy involving LE and the private investigators. I think the 'mystery man' is not a key part of the story, because Gatto invented that. He was identified as Corey Rossman from the beginning, and he was carrying Lauren home, just like the reports before and after that encounter, which makes sense in terms of the timeline and the stories from the POI themselves.
The only reason the statement from LE sounds convoluted at all is that Corey's name hadn't been released yet. But this was clarified in the reports from the private investigators and it was pretty clear in that context. There is video evidence. The PIs interviewed the same witness. They name mystery man as Corey Rossman, and place the encounter in a timeline, reporting the same thing as LE, with a lot more detail.
People are free to explore any hypothetical situation they can imagine, but as I've said before, I just personally don't see the point in totally disregarding the information from the most reliable sources we have - that which has been given by LE, the PIs and reported in MSM, unless there is good reason. JMO!
Ixchel13
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,658
- Reaction score
- 1,146
BBM I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. It would have been so easy for Qualters and Parker to say, "CR is the mysteryman, folks, no mystery here". Not that we would automatically expect LE to be this forthcoming, but they received many, many inquiries about that exact question. They would say that LAUREN was seen walking in the alley with CR; and that the mysteryman was known to them; but would not combine
the two into one sentence. Implying things that may not be true is a modus operendi of LE, to get results.
No one is criticizing them for this, it's just what they do. Note that the bartender didn't say the mysteryman was in the alley, iirc, she said he walked up the street carrying Lauren.
Anyway, not that I think this bartender is completely just a passerby witness, IMO she told LE a whole lot more than just seeing Lauren on the steps, MOO, but I do believe her story. From what I hear on the street, she had previous drug charges and was in no position to be unforthcoming with LE. IMO, she was not an innocent bystander, nor was she guilty of harming Lauren. There are numerous reasons why LE would blur her story in order to trip up POIs. Qualters said more than once that after taking statements from one tier of witnesses he would go back and question people he had already questioned. I would think these people would have been second and third tiers, not the POIs who were all clammed up by their attys. What emerged, IMO, was people contradicting the POIs versions.
left and right and back and forth. The bartender is very important, IMO, but, she probably won't play very well on the witness stand and they know it because of the aforementioned charges.
Interesting, you said police may have been using her to trip up POIs. Was her "eye witness" account public before LE released they had video placing " someone they knew" with Lauren? Could be they do have more information and exact time but we're hoping they'd be "corrected" by POIs that were told there was an eye witness...
At that time they had not named Corey - that was my point about why it seemed unclear. LE was referring only to a male companion.
Looking a little deeper at the bar manager and Gatto's report... LE's winding mention about this witness does seem it would confirm their existence and that this person gave a time other than what should fit in their time line. So that much of Gatto's report is about as closely corroborated as we're going to get. As much double-speak that was involved in their reply, this much then was at least fairly clear. The next part is they don't actually identify CR, only that LS is with someone that is known to them. This part is just odd, especially over time, that they don't identify CR. What is to gain by not mentioning him where they know he is with her?
LE has pretty good tape of CR and Lauren making their way home and the times seem to jive. Further investigation of the camera footage in later hours did not match other witness accounts. Just couldn't have happened when and where the witnesses said it did and just didn't work with the time line of what LE knows happened.
Whatever the journey, it all comes down to the last person who admits he was left with Lauren until she left him. That's the crux of the matter. Is what HE says happened when the truth? Can't tell. No witnesses, no cameras. Yes, it is possible and just looking through this whole website we can easily see that though strager danger is over emphasized, disoriented, lone young women at night are prey . They are just out there for the pickings by some predator. If JR told the truth, then she was picked up by someone, went with someone in a black hole area as far as surveillance cameras go, and disappeared from there. And there's no telling where the "ride" took here. Without a trace.
LE wasn't naming any names though at that point. They have hardly released any information at all. What is to gain by that? I don't know. I do think that it could have been beneficial from the beginning to give clearer information to the public in this case, but perhaps they too were getting conflicting stories from the POI and didn't want to make aspects of the investigation public, like letting the POI know exactly what they had on video surveillance and exactly what witnesses had seen.
ninij9
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2014
- Messages
- 4,536
- Reaction score
- 618
Lurker here. The success of the Hannah Graham case seemed to hinge on LE releasing so much CCTV tape so the public could assist. Does anyone here think LE on the Lauren Spierer case could reconsider their position on the takes they have so far suppressed? Sorry if this question is dumb. Been a member for just a few weeks. Prayers for the return of this beautiful young lady. Its been way to long for her family to be stuck in this nightmarish limbo. BTW, the dedication to this case by WS is very impressive to me!
I don't know what would have been lost or gained in releasing video footage in this case. There are those who feel strongly it should have been released. Apparently, Lauren was very unsteady in some of the footage,and CR did not look so disabled and was helping her a lot to the point of carrying her at times. That it came down to whether she left JR's place the way he said she did, however, became the crux of the situation. No evidence to the contrary could be found.
I have always felt that if surveillance videos from a larger radius from where Lauren was last pinpointed were immediately obtained and viewed, LE would have had some more leads. That a car left either the corner where JR said he last saw her or even several blocks from that point might have been caught had a video dragent bee obtained as tightly as possible around the area. It took civilians, not LE to do this in the Leiby Kletzky case, and a civiliian who found the boy getting into the car with the perp. So much attention was given to search groups, massive searches, and very little to other ways of tracking who was doing what at that time in the morning IMO. There simply was not that much activity at 4 AM and so it would not have been so difficult to get a picture of it.
Also so much was put on those three students who admitted outright that they saw Lauren at the last reported times, that I think other alternatives were not investigates as thoroughly as they could have been. They lawyered up and stayed put. LE did not have any reason to give out their names, they had no recourse with them. Their silence will have served them well in the civil suit that the Spierers have levied against them. They did not admit to doing much of anything. TO prove they gave Lauren anything more than their company, their advice and offer to stay around, and her way--and she is an adult, is going to be tough. That was likely why their attorneys advised them to say nothing. I would not be surprised if the source of some of the contraband Lauren likely had that night and early morning was from them, but there is no proof.
Le hardly got any stories from the POIs, THey were lawyered up as are such folks of privilege. Morgan Harrington's friends who were in the arena while she was outside of it, lawyered up too, and they were never suspected in the least of killing her. There is a pattern here that is unmistable in the cases of Lauren, Morgan and Hannah. Partying with friends from college, all of privilege, taking enough substance to become disoriented, leaving the group with friends not accompanying though we are talking young women, under the influence, alone when dark, and then disappearing. We know what happened to Hannah and Morgan. Lauren has not yet been found, and I think most people knowing about this case, think the same happened to her. The difference is that there is not a clean proven break from the college friends in Lauren's case, only someone's word that has neither been disproven or proven.
I have always felt that if surveillance videos from a larger radius from where Lauren was last pinpointed were immediately obtained and viewed, LE would have had some more leads. That a car left either the corner where JR said he last saw her or even several blocks from that point might have been caught had a video dragent bee obtained as tightly as possible around the area. It took civilians, not LE to do this in the Leiby Kletzky case, and a civiliian who found the boy getting into the car with the perp. So much attention was given to search groups, massive searches, and very little to other ways of tracking who was doing what at that time in the morning IMO. There simply was not that much activity at 4 AM and so it would not have been so difficult to get a picture of it.
Also so much was put on those three students who admitted outright that they saw Lauren at the last reported times, that I think other alternatives were not investigates as thoroughly as they could have been. They lawyered up and stayed put. LE did not have any reason to give out their names, they had no recourse with them. Their silence will have served them well in the civil suit that the Spierers have levied against them. They did not admit to doing much of anything. TO prove they gave Lauren anything more than their company, their advice and offer to stay around, and her way--and she is an adult, is going to be tough. That was likely why their attorneys advised them to say nothing. I would not be surprised if the source of some of the contraband Lauren likely had that night and early morning was from them, but there is no proof.
Le hardly got any stories from the POIs, THey were lawyered up as are such folks of privilege. Morgan Harrington's friends who were in the arena while she was outside of it, lawyered up too, and they were never suspected in the least of killing her. There is a pattern here that is unmistable in the cases of Lauren, Morgan and Hannah. Partying with friends from college, all of privilege, taking enough substance to become disoriented, leaving the group with friends not accompanying though we are talking young women, under the influence, alone when dark, and then disappearing. We know what happened to Hannah and Morgan. Lauren has not yet been found, and I think most people knowing about this case, think the same happened to her. The difference is that there is not a clean proven break from the college friends in Lauren's case, only someone's word that has neither been disproven or proven.
Welcome, ninij9, and thanks for joining us! I've been following Hannah's case as well and have also wondered what could have been done differently with this one or could still be done. You raise a good point about the tapes, IMO. For one thing, just seeing it might make it more real for someone. Maybe someone only saw a back view, for example, or a glimpse. Maybe they question what they saw and thus feel reluctant to get involved. IDK.
I will say that I'd given a bit more thought to random abduction after HG's case and the recent discoveries in western IN. One thing I return to is the old discussion of the Waffle House. It's been so long ... I don't remember if she'd be on camera going that way or not or if the WH has surveillance of any kind. I'll always struggle with the POIs' behavior that night, but I'm more than willing to consider a logical alternative.
ninij9
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2014
- Messages
- 4,536
- Reaction score
- 618
Thanks for the welcome! I was very amazed at the speed at which the HG case is unfolding. I have read as many threads on Lauren as I can to catch up on (still plodding). Its just so sad that perhaps LE has focused so hard on the boys from that night that they may have possibly lost a trail for a random, unrelated event happening to her. She was so vulnerable if she did indeed attempt to go home. I would think that after all of this time they would have gotten something of enough value to charge the friend/friends if they were involved. Jmo.
Ixchel13
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,658
- Reaction score
- 1,146
BBM,UBM There is also a pattern of predators looking for these women. I agree that people should stick together when out clubbing. Men and Women. In this environment, we have the wolves among the lambs, no doubt. But, women who go out and get lost from their friends
or have one too many drinks are most likely than not to be of average means. Mixed in with those women are a some wealthy girls. It has nothing to do with money in general, although in this particular case, yes.
In Lauren's case either all the crazy things that went on led up to her walking out the door and being abducted. In this case, all of the interactions had to happen in order for the
event to happen at the precise moment; yet no one person is singularly to blame, unless one is inclined to blame them, and that's ok too IMO. OR all of the running around all night by everyone led up to some final altercation or event that caused Lauren to die. In that case, within these interactions are the ones that caused Lauren to die and so it is important to look at all of them and vet them through a scenario, JMO.
- Status
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 64
- Guests online
- 2,880
- Total visitors
- 2,944