Tweet
Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER
Wait what?
Wait what?
The Rules of Pacers Digest
Hello everyone,
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?"
In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*""Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
"In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less
-
-
Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER
You can find this floating around in several places:
Doesn't mean it's 100% accurate though. Just that that part of the story has gotten muddied. There was a purse found that didn't belong to Lauren. The muddied part is if it was the only purse found... or a second purse.Update 6-16-11: Apparently the purse found belonged to a former homicide victim Angela Holder not Crystal Grubb. Holder was a 39 year old resident who worked at the Scottish Inn. She apparently argued with her boyfriend and was found stabbed to death in her residence on June 7, 2011. Bruce Edward Foster has been arrested on charges of murder.
---
BTW.... Rosenbaum said Lauren called Rohn at around 4:15AM to see if he knew where her cellphone was. ...IIRC the rest of the story was he was in bed and didn't answer. Some speculation has been was that call really Lauren trying to reach Rohn or was it Rosenbaum making the call to tell Rohn something bad had happened.
Did Rosenbaum know Rohn? Would he even have had Rohn's number? I've forgetten if I've read whether there was a connection there or not. I suppose if not, then it would bolster Rosenbaum's story that Lauren borrowed his cellphone to call Rohn. Otherwise, why would he call Rohn or even have the number? That then bolsters the timeline these guys have given police. But if they know each other then it's just another weird thing in this event that helps as much as it hurts... unless she left a voicemail that can be retrieved.
And one other random thought... The boyfriend, according to reports, called Lauren's parents early on to report her missing. I initially found that odd that he'd want to worry them needlessly before making sure she just hadn't crashed at a friend's. Especially since he knew she was out partying and had lost her cellphone at Kilroy's because Kilroy's had returned a text telling him she'd left it there. So at some point he knew that was why he couldn't reach her. But then maybe he didn't call to tell them she was missing as much as just called to say he was looking for her and wondered if they'd heard from her. ...and things just snowballed from there.
But I would find it odd if he'd called the parents flat out to tell them she's missing when at that point the most likely answer would be she'd crashed at a friend's place. The earlier he'd make that call the more I'd question it. Even if he's starting to wonder/worry himself you'd think he wouldn't want to worry the parents just yet. But that said, to call and ask if they'd heard from her... that's not so nefarious sounding...
Context is key.Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.
------
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."
-John WoodenComment
-
Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER
I'm so confused where everything was found.
So bball to the best of your understanding, cell phone and her shoes are at Kilroys. Her keys are in an alley way with a murder victim's purse? Bizarre. And then we don't know where her purse was or was it at Kilroys?
Comment
-
Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER
Shoes and cellphone at Kilroy's. I'm not sure how they made the connection that it was her shoes at Kilroy's. ...And technically, did they find her shoes at Kilroys or did someone just claim she left them at Kilroy's? There's several mentions of the phone being physically claimed from Kilroy's including a Kilroy's employee returning one of the texts the BF sent the phone to tell him his friend had left her phone at Kilroy's the previous night. So they physically have her phone.Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
Initially it was said her coin purse and keys were found in the alley where she was last caught on video. Later it was said the keys were found on a railing leading into the apartment building.
At some point the search found a purse belonging to a murder victim. It's not clear if this was a 2nd purse found elsewhere or the same purse originally attributed to Lauren and said to be found in the alley.
I'm going to guess that Lauren's keys were in or attached to a small coin purse and were more or less one item that was found together on the railing and not multiple items scattered about. The police might not even consider the coin purse a 'a purse' per se'. Then, someone in the search party found this other purse elsewhere and it's more what anyone would describe as a purse. And so once the police noted this find and attributed it to someone other than Lauren that is where the confusion set in- The police telling of this purse found belonging to a murder victim and not Lauren and the press losing sight that this isn't the same as the coin purse they originally heard about. Any press questions about "the purse" might trigger the police to talk about the murder victim's purse and not the 'coin purse'.
But I'm just guessing on that... I don't know if there's one purse or two. If there's only one then it wasn't Lauren's purse they found. If there's two then some in the press have become confused and thus confused people like us following the story.Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.
------
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."
-John WoodenComment
-
Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER
These kids have to know that getting busted for some coke is far better than hiding a body and leading police on a wild goose chase for three weeks. How many 20 year old college students would chose hiding a body over just calling police like most people would?
And who is to say that they would have even been busted for the coke? They could have gotten rid of the stuff pretty quickly you'd think - you know, flush it down the toilet or something. If they are capable of hiding a body and lying about it then they would certainly be capable of hiding and fibbing about some cocaine. They could have just said that she all of the sudden died, but that they didn't know how she got the coke and weren't the ones doing it with her. How could the police ever prove otherwise if the only witness to them giving her coke is dead? That seems more likely than a few guys agreeing that the best way to handle the situation was to engage in a massive cover-up conspiracy that involves hiding a body and leading police on a wild goose chase for 2 and a half weeks and counting.
If they managed to pull off a massive cover-up that has lasted 2 and a half weeks then they are some pretty slick drugged up 20 year olds. They apparently have mafia-like skill at cleaning up after themselves if they indeed pulled this off. First, they had to leave the apartment carrying the body with no one noticing. Then, it means they had to have found the perfect secluded spot in the middle of the night to hide the body (well, good enough that it still hasn't been found in two and a half weeks). Then, they would have had to buy stuff to clean up whatever evidence was left in the apartment, vehicle, what have you...yet so far no one has said they saw them doing any of that. Finally, they had to get their stories straight, so straight that apparently none of them have conflicted at this point.
I'm not saying all of that is impossible, I'm just saying that pretty much everything had to go PERFECT for them to pull it off and not get in trouble.
And where did the drug theory even come from? I recall it gaining steam only after a reporter asked at the press conference if the BPD was considering it as a possibility to which the chief responded along the lines of "absolutely." But his reply was in the context of exploring every possible theory out there. He wasn't inferring that was the direction they were leaning in. If you asked him if they were looking into the possibility that aliens abducted her he would have said the same thing. All he meant was that nothing was off the table. Yet immediately after that, news outlets were recklessly reporting that police were investigating the drug theory, as if it were a main theory.
Yes, random abductions are extremely rare.....but they do happen. Plenty of people have been abducted by complete strangers and, sadly, plenty more will be in the future. The odds may be tiny, but all it takes is that one time. So the odds being low really don't mean much because the odds are always low and yet it's happened time and time again.
I think the odds of a random abduction are just as great, if not greater than:
1) These kids being dumb/bold enough to hide a death as opposed to reporting it like 99.9% of college kids and..
2) Pulling it off so perfectly that the police are still on a wild goose chase some two and a half weeks later.
3) These kids being so cold-hearted that seeing these devastated parent's doesn't phase them.
We certainly don't know everything. You know the police have probably explored every possible avenue as far as those guys are concerned. Either there just isn't anything there or they do think they're responsible but just don't have enough to get them.
I don't put too much into them getting nice attorneys. If you're loaded and you're worried your kids are getting mixed up in an out-of-state missing persons case then you are going to want the best attorney money can buy.Last edited by Sollozzo; 06-20-2011, 10:06 PM.Comment
-
Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER
I just don't see how a vehicle involved in a random abduction could have gotten away. It's just almost like she disappeared off the face of the earth. No blood, no vomit, nothing. Not a single trace. Not a hair. The best thing they have right now is what, her keys? Good luck with that. Usually there is SOMETHING, which is why that truck was such a big deal, but not shcokingly it was just some dude who I'm sure was terrified his company's name would now become synonymous with the attractive college girl that disappeared in Bloomington so he demanded to stay anonymous, and thus the police had to maintain the front of "we're still looking for this ****ing truck" and that set them back another 3 or 4 days. Everything is so *** damned consequential that it feels like the bad lead up in a CSI Miami where suddenly Dave Caruso takes off his glasses, makes a bad pun and suddenly solves the case. Only at least Caruso has the body. Is there any evidence? Any at all against anyone? I mean there's motive and opportunity like Adam pointed out on both sides, but no evidence...nothing. It's such a cold trail, that I can't even imagine how frustrated the lead investigators must be by now.
I mean even the time frame of her disappearance is so fuzzy that it's hard to get a grip on when she actually DISAPPEARED. Can anyone think of any real evidence they have? An alien abduction sounds as good as anything else at this point.Last edited by Trader Joe; 06-20-2011, 10:15 PM.
Comment
-
Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER
Like they have this truck multiple times on video, but not the car she was abducted in? Doesn't make any sense unless someone, threw in a trunk til the next morning or something like that and then left a parking garage, but that seems like a pretty big stretch especially since there are definitely cameras in parking garages.
Comment
-
Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER
Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
As far as I know, the last 100% reliable piece of evidence they have is her and a man (presumably Rossman, right?) on a security camera in an ally heading north toward Rossman's apartment at 2:51. Everything after that is just the word of those kids. It seems like they have no evidence that could actually help find her, unless of course they are withholding things which is possible. But the vibe that I (and many, I would think) get from the press conferences leads me to think they still really don't have a clue. Well, either they don't have a clue, or they think it's those boys but just don't have anything that they can pin on them.
Trader Joe, assuming the location of the cameras on post 4 is correct (and I think it is because this guy has been taking photographs all over the place), then it would be possible for her to be taken out of the range of a camera if someone got her at the beginning of her walk down College.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=140457
And I think they only recorded the truck once, but the times on the cameras didn't match and that led them to believe it went around multiple times.Last edited by Sollozzo; 06-21-2011, 12:13 AM.Comment
-
Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER
http://www.wpix.com/news/wxin-lauren...,2877132.storyFriendships forged four years ago at the Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity house on the IU campus may play a role in this investigation. It was at the AEP house that Spierer's boyfriend, Jesse Wolff, met Jay Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum is believed to be the last person to have seen Spierer at 4:30 a.m. at his apartment.
So the boyfriend and the last known person to see her alive do know each other...Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.
------
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."
-John WoodenComment
-
Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER
That's gotta ring some bells right? Plus you take into account the boyfriend going to NYC and his buddies punching out Rossman...I'd have to think he's gotta be POI number 1 right now.Originally posted by Bball View Post
Comment
-
Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER
The fact that her BF and Rosenbaum know each other isn't anything really of significance, IMHO. While IU is a BIG campus, it's still pretty small when you enter into a group of friends. If Lauren knew Rosenbaum well enough to show up at his apartment at 4am then I'm pretty sure he BF, that she's obviously dated for a while, would know him.
The biggest question I have, is who in the **** are the BF's friends who punched Rossman. I find it very odd that they haven't released that info, or if they did I just missed it.
I wonder if it was Rosenbaum, and others, that was involved in the confrontation. She could have went there to confront them over what happened, knowing they'd still be up, and an argument broke out and something happened.
And until I find out something otherwise, I don't put any stock into the whole cocaine direction. If that was true, then there would be a lot more chatter about it, and plus she would have to be extremely dumb to be doing a drug like that with a heart condition as serious as the one she has. When she first went missing they said she has to take medication daily and if/when she was found she would need to be rushed to the hospital. Coke would be one of the dumbest things she could do.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER
How much more chatter about the coke could there be? You have people saying to the press she was at Kilroy's talking about doing coke and X that night.Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.
------
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."
-John WoodenComment
-
Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER
Unless she's a routine user of either, which I doubt, she would have been noticeable/rememberable when she was at Kilroy's, and her actions on camera would have been "odd." Neither are drugs people use to chill. She would have been literally off the walls.
Obviously I'm just speculating, anything is possible at this point, but I've seen enough people on both to know how college age kids react to party drugs like those.
Plus, neither are drugs that people do alone. (Sure people CAN, but they're going to be junkies looking for their fix rather than college kids looking to party, more often than not.) If her and Rossman had been together the entire night, which is how it sounds, then I would imagine he would have been on them too. Going to sleep isn't in the behavior of someone high on either.
There would be stories of her actions at the bar that night. There's no way someone does exstasy without something like that happening. The strong emotional feelings that it makes you have, so I've been told and witnessed, she wouldn't be able to merely blend into the crowd.
It just doesn't pass the smell test, IMHO.
EDIT: Plus there would be text messages and things indicating drug usage. People just don't do drugs, and not talk about them. Obviously she wouldn't send out a mass text, but she would, most likely, inform someone that she was high. Or at the very least be discussing it with someone who she was going to use it with.Last edited by Since86; 06-21-2011, 01:19 PM.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER
Since,
This report would dovetail perfectly with what you'd seem to expect but I have no idea who Tony Gatto is or where he got his info:
http://tonygatto.wordpress.com/2011/...t-with-friend/
Snippet here-
BLOOMINGTON, Indiana – Lauren Spierer was thrown out of Kilroy’s Sports Bar on the morning the Indiana University student disappeared, and she may not have been drinking at the bar with a friend, as had been first reported.
A person close to the case says Spierer was in a “stupor” and that she “was pouring her heart out” about being drunk and high on Cocaine and Xanax. This same person says Spierer was at Kilroy’s Sports for at least 45 minutes alone, not with her friend Corey Rossman. News reports to this point had placed Rossman with Spierer at the bar, but sources who were at Kilroy’s Sports at that time say they never saw Rossman. This source says Spierer was ejected simply because of the state she was in.Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.
------
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."
-John WoodenComment
-
Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER
I mean knowing about the drug scene at IU, and your typical users of Coke down there, I definitely would not be shocked if we found out she was using coke that night.
Comment
Comment