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

[CoolJ]

We don't actually or accurately know what accounts they gave to witnesses or friends. That's my point. There have been enough inaccuracies in the reporting that it would be very easy to see how what you are hanging your hat on is nothing more than equal parts 'the phone game' and a confused reporter still trying to sort out who is who in the early days. It's not like the stories are wildly conflicting. They are fairly close. Nothing has someone miles away or totally uninvolved with the events of the night. They are close enough a tiny misheard, misremembered, or misreported part could explain away the difference and suddenly it's consistent with the narrative. We know there were a lot of mistakes in the early reporting and confusion about CR and JR and a mixing of the two. And it's not like there are piles and piles of these quotes and witness statements in the press that we're dissecting and comparing. There's really very, very little so the margin of error is huge for a tiny mistake to infiltrate the narrative and lead to a false conclusion if you put too much weight on a lone report. If you had 10 witnesses saying "He told me this" and another says "He told me that" while others continue telling these differing accounts to the press then it would hold more weight. Everyone can't get it that wrong in that case. But when it's only a quote or two from extremely limited sources, and when a tiny change would make all the difference in the world to making the statement consistent then I just don't see trying to hammer on the point and saying they've given conflicting and changing stories. I don't see how that advances the cause at all. Even taking the PI's at face value, it's not like they seem to think the smoking gun is in the statements. They aren't explaining what they have a problem with and how it relates to the narrative per se'. They don't say, so we don't know. So to come to any conclusions is speculation.

And very importantly, they aren't only talking about 5N when they say it anyway. They are talking about others as well.

So....
I am not comfortable saying their stories are conflicting and changing nor I am comfortable not countering when it's said as an absolute. It's simply impossible to say that based on what we actually know. If LE ever releases transcripts that could change. But until we know what they told LE at moment one then we're simply in the dark. In fact, you could just as easily say their stories have been amazingly consistent based on what little we know and think we know.

I hope LE has a good reason for keeping the public this much in the dark.

So akh, with all of this lack of any kind of reliable information that we couldn't possibly conclude anyone at 5N responsible, you seem to always bring up JW. I would like to know what you think happened?

 

[akh]

So akh, with all of this lack of any kind of reliable information that we couldn't possibly conclude anyone at 5N responsible, you seem to always bring up JW. I would like to know what you think happened?

We can't conclude them responsible or not responsible based on what we actually know (which is very little). I think it's equally likely that JW stalked her or found her that night/morning as it that there was some kind of OD or other similar scenario that involved 1 or all the 5N PsOI. Those two theories are 1A and 1B.

 

[CoolJ]

We can't conclude them responsible or not responsible based on what we actually know (which is very little). I think it's equally likely that JW stalked her or found her that night/morning as it that there was some kind of OD or other similar scenario that involved 1 or all the 5N PsOI. Those two theories are 1A and 1B.

Well can't say I disagree with that. Just seems to me whenever the 5N crew comes up you are quick to assert we don't have enough info to make any kind of educated guess, yet always seem to follow that up with why JW could be involved?? Do you have reason to want to lean in that direction?

 

[CoolJ]

To me the most perplexing thing about this case is how quickly LS was reported missing. Like I mean super quick. This is why I think the answers lay within her circle of friends and acquaintances.
It was what? Barely 12 hours? That doesn't even make sense. Look at the current Hannah Graham case which is about as similar to this case as your gonna get, right down to the pictures of them walking down their hallway on route to a night out with friends. She was reported missing almost 2 full days later.

Would you report your friend/girlfriend missing at 4pm or 5pm because you weren't able to get a hold of her that day?? My answer to that is.. Only if I had VERY good reason to believe something bad happened to her.

 

[TB Rhine]

How likely is it that these stories are different than what they told LE? And if they are, why?

No one can possibly know how likely it is, because we're not privy to what was said to anyone else. And the PI's were working for the Spierers, don't forget, so they're not exactly an objective source.

 

[CoolJ]

No one can possibly know how likely it is, because we're not privy to what was said to anyone else. And the PI's were working for the Spierers, don't forget, so they're not exactly an objective source.

I think an argument could be made that they are the most objective source. They aren't trying to scapegoat anyone. They are only after the truth.

 

[Ixchel13]

I think an argument could be made that they are the most objective source. They aren't trying to scapegoat anyone. They are only after the truth.

I think an argument could be made that they are the most objective source. They aren't trying to scapegoat anyone. They are only after the truth.

I agree, and also, it was made clear by the PIs that the idea that Lauren and all of her friends did drugs {and so it follows that someone was selling and buying them} was not a new idea, and that it was prevalent throughout the stories they were hearing.

First and foremost, I think they want their daughter back. and IMO, secondly, they want to know how she died. Was it an OD or something worse. Finding
something worse would be why they would want perps prosecuted to the max.

IMO, too much time has gone by for them to forgive high and drunk "kids" who made a mistake by hiding their friends body and trying to keep silent. If not at fault for providing alcohol and drugs far past an acceptable limit, the penalty for hiding a body
would be far less than murder charges, and with the right attys maybe even probation
or a year in jail.

It would not shock me if tomorrow an unknown predator (to us) were arrested for this. Nor would it shock me if tomorrow, the 5N POIs plus others were arrested for
Lauren's death.

IMO, the 5N POIs may have, with their attys and possible parental advice as per we know JW's dad inserted himself into the scenario immediately by making public accusations, made a calculated decision to roll the dice with their clean "crime scene" at 5N. JR has given us a clue in that he admitted that Lauren had picked up an IPod and tried to use it as a phone. That means her prints were there, but the apt seemed clean of any death forensics.

What did they have to lose, we ask, by telling the truth about a possible OD? Was our LE just badgering them because they didn't like their attitude, or because they had nothing else to go on as people have suggested? IMO, no.

Besides the dealing drugs rumors that have prevailed, these guys were starting up tech businesses and then selling them. One was an ap called Team Mash that reported daily scores for all sports,
and can be used to aid in fantasy football betting, a billion dollar industry. Scandal
rocketing through this mega rich group of people could cost their families millions and millions, not just a few million, MB's family alone controls hundreds of millions!
p.s. was not sleuthing the family members, I promise, just googled the name.

Not jealous of their $$$$, just pointing out that a cover up could be all about the money.

 

[CoolJ]

I agree, and also, it was made clear by the PIs that the idea that Lauren and all of her friends did drugs {and so it follows that someone was selling and buying them} was not a new idea, and that it was prevalent throughout the stories they were hearing.

First and foremost, I think they want their daughter back. and IMO, secondly, they want to know how she died. Was it an OD or something worse. Finding
something worse would be why they would want perps prosecuted to the max.

IMO, too much time has gone by for them to forgive high and drunk "kids" who made a mistake by hiding their friends body and trying to keep silent. If not at fault for providing alcohol and drugs far past an acceptable limit, the penalty for hiding a body
would be far less than murder charges, and with the right attys maybe even probation
or a year in jail.

It would not shock me if tomorrow an unknown predator (to us) were arrested for this. Nor would it shock me if tomorrow, the 5N POIs plus others were arrested for
Lauren's death.

IMO, the 5N POIs may have, with their attys and possible parental advice as per we know JW's dad inserted himself into the scenario immediately by making public accusations, made a calculated decision to roll the dice with their clean "crime scene" at 5N. JR has given us a clue in that he admitted that Lauren had picked up an IPod and tried to use it as a phone. That means her prints were there, but the apt seemed clean of any death forensics.

What did they have to lose, we ask, by telling the truth about a possible OD? Was our LE just badgering them because they didn't like their attitude, or because they had nothing else to go on as people have suggested? IMO, no.

Besides the dealing drugs rumors that have prevailed, these guys were starting up tech businesses and then selling them. One was an ap called Team Mash that reported daily scores for all sports,
and can be used to aid in fantasy football betting, a billion dollar industry. Scandal
rocketing through this mega rich group of people could cost their families millions and millions, not just a few million, MB's family alone controls hundreds of millions!
p.s. was not sleuthing the family members, I promise, just googled the name.

Not jealous of their $$$$, just pointing out that a cover up could be all about the money.

Agree with everything you said except....I would be very shocked if an unknown predator were to be arrested tomorrow. Although I do agree it is possible.

The thing is with the kind of wealth some of these POI's have, you can bet that in the aftermath of LS's disappearance there were some professional "fixer" types doing their thing in Bloomington. Yes these "professionals" really do exist and are quite prevalent. You don't need to be in the mob to hire or employ one. Just have the cash.

 

[akh]

Well can't say I disagree with that. Just seems to me whenever the 5N crew comes up you are quick to assert we don't have enough info to make any kind of educated guess, yet always seem to follow that up with why JW could be involved?? Do you have reason to want to lean in that direction?

Because statically he would be the #1 candidate and his alibi doesn't seem to be air tight (based on what has been told to the public anyway). Circumstantially, I think he was very fast to conclude her missing and elevate it to the police. With 5N we have to speculate about a motive, whereas with JW a motive (jealousy/anger) would be easily put into play.

So IF LS was able to leave JR's apartment, which is a question mark itself, then statistically JW would have to be the number 1 direction to look. I just think he should be equally at play here without much more info.

The one witness that we know of that seemingly would call into question LS' ability to be coherent, let alone walk, has had her reported timing discredited by LE. Which means anything from she was wrong about the time, to she was wrong about even seeing LS, to making the entire story up for some reason. Keep in mind Gatto said she didn't place CR as the male. So, if we take that at face value, she says she saw LS with someone other than CR at a time other than what LE says is possible. If we have to discredit the time she reports, then why is it not possible she is actually a witness to seeing LS after she left 5N? Why is it OK to correct her time so it fits the timeline, but gloss over the problem of her not ID'ing CR?

I think the confrontation at SW is probably also a piece of the puzzle and one which we just don't have a full understanding of. I doubt it was just a coincidental happening with no connection to what followed. Of course if nothing else, without that confrontation LS is likely back in her own apartment that night instead of leaving SW again and out into the night IMHO

 

[AbbeyR]

Because statically he would be the #1 candidate and his alibi doesn't seem to be air tight (based on what has been told to the public anyway). Circumstantially, I think he was very fast to conclude her missing and elevate it to the police. With 5N we have to speculate about a motive, whereas with JW a motive (jealousy/anger) would be easily put into play.

Huh? Aren't we speculating about a motive either way? With 5N, based on what witnesses have seen, there are red flags that could point to sexual assault, or possibly overdose - both potential motives. With JW, we can speculate that he could have been jealous, but that isn't anything more than a guess, since no one that knows them has ever actually said he was jealous or angry about anything that night, or ever.

 

[AbbeyR]

The one witness that we know of that seemingly would call into question LS' ability to be coherent, let alone walk, has had her reported timing discredited by LE. Which means anything from she was wrong about the time, to she was wrong about even seeing LS, to making the entire story up for some reason. Keep in mind Gatto said she didn't place CR as the male. So, if we take that at face value, she says she saw LS with someone other than CR at a time other than what LE says is possible. If we have to discredit the time she reports, then why is it not possible she is actually a witness to seeing LS after she left 5N? Why is it OK to correct her time so it fits the timeline, but gloss over the problem of her not ID'ing CR?

Because LE has publicly stated that the time was an hour earlier, based on video evidence, and the man was identified as CR in MSM.

 

[akh]

Because LE has publicly stated that the time was an hour earlier, based on video evidence, and the man was identified as CR in MSM.

No they didn't. LE mush-mouthed the issue and didn't clarify it at all. If that is what they meant, they should have said it clearly. And they could have. For whatever reason they replied in double-speak. All they basically said was she didn't see what said she saw at the time she said.

 

[akh]

Because LE has publicly stated that the time was an hour earlier, based on video evidence, and the man was identified as CR in MSM.

The man IMO was identified as CR simply by process of elimination and assumption that it had to be him, if we fit the witness sighting into the existing timeline, and the knowledge (or assumption) that it was him with her on camera at points before and geographically after that location. Technically, LE hasn't even said it was CR on the video. But that assumes the sighting was during their journey from SW to 5N and that the existing narrative/timeline is accurate in the first place.

I've seen nothing that says the bar manager/witness has backed off her timeline or waffled on the ID'ing (or not ID'ing) the mystery man as CR. If you have please post it.

 

[akh]

Huh? Aren't we speculating about a motive either way? With 5N, based on what witnesses have seen, there are red flags that could point to sexual assault, or possibly overdose - both potential motives. With JW, we can speculate that he could have been jealous, but that isn't anything more than a guess, since no one that knows them has ever actually said he was jealous or angry about anything that night, or ever.

I suppose in the widest sense that would be true but it's far more of a reach to say she OD'ed or was sexually assaulted and then someone, or several people conspired, at 5N to dispose of a body.... Versus thinking her BF would be jealous or angry that she was out partying with another guy.
We don't know that she OD'ed or was sexually assaulted, but we do know she was out with a guy that wasn't her boyfriend.

 

[Mahouston69]

I suppose in the widest sense that would be true but it's far more of a reach to say she OD'ed or was sexually assaulted and then someone, or several people conspired, at 5N to dispose of a body.... Versus thinking her BF would be jealous or angry that she was out partying with another guy.
We don't know that she OD'ed or was sexually assaulted, but we do know she was out with a guy that wasn't her boyfriend.

This has been my thoughts from the beginning, well said. The additional outrage and attack on Lauren's reputation by JW and family sealed it for me. There was zero cause for that and especially publicly, but common behavior for the very guilty. It's worth noting the POIs at 5N have not done that and they're the being sued, and heavily investigated. In addition, his behavior that night, over the weekend and leaving altogether on Tuesday, four days later without knowing where she was or even alive....just can't get away from the simplest explanation.

 

[CoolJ]

This has been my thoughts from the beginning, well said. The additional outrage and attack on Lauren's reputation by JW and family sealed it for me. There was zero cause for that and especially publicly, but common behavior for the very guilty. It's worth noting the POIs at 5N have not done that and they're the being sued, and heavily investigated. In addition, his behavior that night, over the weekend and leaving altogether on Tuesday, four days later without knowing where she was or even alive....just can't get away from the simplest explanation.

Yes those comments towards Lauren were just bizarre. Also mixed within those comments was an attack on BPD. Wonder what that was all about? Hmmm.. This is interesting. Thanks for that post. Giving me some good food for thought.

 

[Ixchel13]

The man IMO was identified as CR simply by process of elimination and assumption that it had to be him, if we fit the witness sighting into the existing timeline, and the knowledge (or assumption) that it was him with her on camera at points before and geographically after that location. Technically, LE hasn't even said it was CR on the video. But that assumes the sighting was during their journey from SW to 5N and that the existing narrative/timeline is accurate in the first place.

I've seen nothing that says the bar manager/witness has backed off her timeline or waffled on the ID'ing (or not ID'ing) the mystery man as CR. If you have please post it.

iirc, LE said something like "the Mystery Man is known to us," never saying he was in fact CR.

 

[Vidocq]

"Plurality must never be posited without necessity." --William of Occam (In other words, all things being equal, go with the simplest solution. This is also called the Law of Parsimony.)

The first thing I found strange about this case was indeed the quickness of the response to her disappearance. My personal memory is wandering out of my domicile the Saturday morning after she disappeared and already seeing a missing sign posted up in my neighborhood. I remember reading on a sign that she'd gone missing at 3:00 am Friday, misinterpreting it as 3:00 Friday night, and thinking, "Wasn't that just last night?" As I find myself writing 3:00 am for the time mentioned in the original posters, I wonder if the initial missing posters did say that she was last seen at 3:00 am, or if I'm imagining that. If true, that would be interesting, since that would match MB's original story about her wandering off as soon as CR had been put to bed.

Along with Occam's fine principle, there's a principle that comes to mind during my thinking about this case that I'll call the Rule of the Useful Lie. This principle says that every lie is motivated by the desire to cover up some specific fact. Probably the most obvious candidate for a lie, that strikes even the casual observer of this case, is the idea that CR watched Lauren walk away alone, with no one walking her home. Assuming this is a lie, what would be its purpose? The answer that occurs to me: the lie would cover the identity of who in fact did attempt to walk her home. Personally, I believe she left 5N at 3:30, but I'm undecided about whether she stumbled off alone, at 3:30 from 5N, to encounter Mystery Man by chance at 10 & C, or whether Mystery Man was in fact present at 5N, and volunteered to walk her home, because, perhaps he lived or was staying at 10 & C, which would have been along the way.

The second most obvious candidate for a lie, in my opinion, that would jump out to even a casual observer in this case, is the convenient amnesia of CR. Applying the Rule of the Useful Lie, what does his amnesia cover? Assuming the amnesia is a lie: it's interesting: it puts him in the position of not having to confirm or deny what the amnesia would be meant to obfuscate. Just speculating, of course, but if this is a lie, the explanation that pops out to me (I know it's been discussed) is that CR had sex with Lauren, most likely between 3 and 3:30. This is just the sort of fact, that if true, he would need to neither confirm nor deny: if he confirms that he had sex with her, then he's had sex with an intoxicated girl, just before she disappeared. On the other hand, if he denies it, and the body is found with his DNA still detectable, then he's caught lying about having sex with a girl who's died under mysterious circumstances. (This would also explain why MB, who was supposedly in studying, seems to have only later claimed to have not been there when CR and Lauren arrived. He doesn't want to have been there when the sex was happening.) Again, just speculating. But those are the thoughts that catching up on the thread has reminded me of.

 

[jamicat]

Because the last person to be with a victim so often is so often involved, a lot of attention was placed on the POIs. A simple answer as to what happened to Lauren is that she had had so much in the way of drugs and booze, on top of a heart condition and being a tiny woman, and died while with JR, perhaps with JR, MB and CR. That those men then rid themselves of her body because they did not want the problems that would come with having a person OD on them. It's very possible that those men did give her drugs and alcohol. In such cases, murder charges are even possible, not to mention the notoriety and unversity disciplinary action. High level of publicity, loss of rep, possible jail time, civil sutis. Not a pleasant prospect at all, and so they simply disposed of the body. They got lawyers (their parents got them as soon as the police started asking them questions, and though a lot has been made of that, it is the way any and all people should do when the situation is that serious. I would do the same, and the Spierers would have for their daugher had she been so involved). Thought they stated what Lauren's journey was with them, CR, whose journey to his place is pretty well documented on film with her, claims he remembers notning, MB, CR's roommate, says CR was not in good shape and went to straight to be, and MB then took Lauren to JR's place. JR agrees that Lauren was at his place, and that she insisted on walking home at 4 AM.

The simplicity of that theory breaks down in that we are talking about 3 very selfish college guys who would throw anyone down river, as would their attorneys, and not one scrap of evidence can refute their stories. Or validate them. Also, their parents with enough money to remove them from the situation left them right there. You can believe that they did pay to get private polygraph tests so that they and the lawyers know what they are dealing with, and if it the story was a bad one, they'd have been out of their.

So, if Lauren did indeed start walking home at 4 am, the simplest story would be that someone picked her up enroute. Doesn't have to be a serial killer, sex offender or even a stranger. Could be someone else she knew; college students galore, and being tired, barefoot, she'd have likely gladly accepted a ride. What happened then could be any number of scenarios. It's the simplest thing to have happened.

 

[Ixchel13]

"Plurality must never be posited without necessity." --William of Occam (In other words, all things being equal, go with the simplest solution. This is also called the Law of Parsimony.)

The first thing I found strange about this case was indeed the quickness of the response to her disappearance. My personal memory is wandering out of my domicile the Saturday morning after she disappeared and already seeing a missing sign posted up in my neighborhood. I remember reading on a sign that she'd gone missing at 3:00 am Friday, misinterpreting it as 3:00 Friday night, and thinking, "Wasn't that just last night?" As I find myself writing 3:00 am for the time mentioned in the original posters, I wonder if the initial missing posters did say that she was last seen at 3:00 am, or if I'm imagining that. If true, that would be interesting, since that would match MB's original story about her wandering off as soon as CR had been put to bed.

Along with Occam's fine principle, there's a principle that comes to mind during my thinking about this case that I'll call the Rule of the Useful Lie. This principle says that every lie is motivated by the desire to cover up some specific fact. Probably the most obvious candidate for a lie, that strikes even the casual observer of this case, is the idea that CR watched Lauren walk away alone, with no one walking her home. Assuming this is a lie, what would be its purpose? The answer that occurs to me: the lie would cover the identity of who in fact did attempt to walk her home. Personally, I believe she left 5N at 3:30, but I'm undecided about whether she stumbled off alone, at 3:30 from 5N, to encounter Mystery Man by chance at 10 & C, or whether Mystery Man was in fact present at 5N, and volunteered to walk her home, because, perhaps he lived or was staying at 10 & C, which would have been along the way.

The second most obvious candidate for a lie, in my opinion, that would jump out to even a casual observer in this case, is the convenient amnesia of CR. Applying the Rule of the Useful Lie, what does his amnesia cover? Assuming the amnesia is a lie: it's interesting: it puts him in the position of not having to confirm or deny what the amnesia would be meant to obfuscate. Just speculating, of course, but if this is a lie, the explanation that pops out to me (I know it's been discussed) is that CR had sex with Lauren, most likely between 3 and 3:30. This is just the sort of fact, that if true, he would need to neither confirm nor deny: if he confirms that he had sex with her, then he's had sex with an intoxicated girl, just before she disappeared. On the other hand, if he denies it, and the body is found with his DNA still detectable, then he's caught lying about having sex with a girl who's died under mysterious circumstances. (This would also explain why MB, who was supposedly in studying, seems to have only later claimed to have not been there when CR and Lauren arrived. He doesn't want to have been there when the sex was happening.) Again, just speculating. But those are the thoughts that catching up on the thread has reminded me of.

BBM Vidocq, one of your best posts ever!
Jamicat and Rhine, both of you tout the fact that there is not a shred of evidence indicating the 5N POIs or JW. Have you listened to the PIs audio?

They indicated that evidence was found, articles were found, with DNA. Then, they never said another word about the articles. Were they warned by LE that this might impede the investigation? LE then stated in their audio
press conferences that articles of Lauren's were recovered. One might jump to the conclusion that both the PIs and LE were talking about the same articles, but I have my doubts. LE removed articles from Lauren's room and cordoned it off like a crime scene. Now why would they do that? Because, as we have been told, she never reached her room. Were articles that she had with her on her last night then placed back in her room? Because we do know who was given keys and allowed into her room when no one was there--JW. It was after this that LE cordoned the room off and removed, wait for it, evidence.

IMO, LE has evidence. It is naive to believe they haven't a shred of evidence. We've talked about the $$$ involved among these POIs. It would be necessary for our LE to keep every single shred of evidence to themselves, no matter how small, until they can charge them. Once charged, they would need to share this evidence, and the money machine would then be able to work their
magic to discredit the evidence. TG outed the bartender, and she was discredited. Not allowed to present rumor as fact, but the prevailing rumor around here is that she has previous drug charges. They need someone else to identify whomever she saw.

As it stands, the POI don't have a clue as to what part of their story LE doesn't believe, despite all of our and many other websites minute examinations and
really, ya gotta hand it to our LE for that restraint.

Don't count our LE out in this case. Not sure if there's ever been a case like this where our LE has gone up against this kind of wealth and power from a group of POIs. I don't think they're afraid of them, just that they know very well what they're dealing with, and, how to deal with it. Unfortunately, IMO, time is the key. Time, and patience. If they want it to stick, they can't reveal a single clue. We are basically working with clues and info that were wrestled from LE by MSM, they have really never willingly given up a single clue.
The big clue they have revealed is that they've viewed hours and hours of video.When actually, how many hours did they really need to view if they were just viewing or trying to view Lauren walking 2 blocks? IMO, people are on these hours of video, people involved, and these people include the unnamed POI.

Undoubtedly JR's apt is clean, or he never would have said she was there last.

Pulling their kids out of school would have been detrimental in more ways than just indicating guilt. It would have left all of the rest of the people around that night still here, with an opportunity to get together and turn on the POIs. They could have remained to remind the others that yeah, they still had stuff on them that could get them in trouble, stuff that had nothing to do with Lauren's disappearance, but could still wreck their world. JMO, conjecture.