Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In that article I linked to earlier, BB made it sound like the tenant had most of his belongings out prior to Lauren's disappearance. Then returned after her body was discovered to collect the remaining items. The article does not say the person came and went in the interim period, nor does it say he didn't.
It's a moot point really until we learn more details from the investigation. They took the fridge, perhaps on a hunch and nothing more, who knows?
The news article I posted tells it differently. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6975169&postcount=655
http://www.macon.com/2011/07/14/1630766/refrigerator-removed-from-apartment.html
Its tenant was in the process of moving during the time Giddings was missing, Bush said. Most of the furnishings had been removed before Giddings’ body was found, and the tenant has since finished moving out.
Read more: http://www.macon.com/2011/07/14/1630766/refrigerator-removed-from-apartment.html#ixzz1TnyQCneU
I think they may be POIs, but people seem to dismiss it as a possibility.
My last post was the last one in Thread 4. Is there any way I can bring it over to this thread because I'd like someone to answer it for me as it has me confused. If there is a way, I don't know how to do it because this is the first case I've really participated in discussing. Any help would be appreciated.
I'm still a bit confused about how physical evidence from a crime is detected, removed, and analyzed. I'll give a specific example. The traps and some pipes were removed from SM's apartment and sent to the FBI to be analyzed. Did LE first verify on scene that there was blood, etc in the trap and pipes before they removed them? Or did they remove them because there might be blood, etc in them? The answer to this question would help me clarify to myself why SM may still be in jail. If LE could verify on scene that there was evidence in the trap and pipes, I could see LE holding SM for a legitimate reason.
My last post was the last one in Thread 4. Is there any way I can bring it over to this thread because I'd like someone to answer it for me as it has me confused. If there is a way, I don't know how to do it because this is the first case I've really participated in discussing. Any help would be appreciated.
Also, pearl, he's being held on "burglary" charges. Nothing in connection with this case.Pearl, I think the safest way to answer that question might be -- we just don't know how it occurred. It may be that there were signs of blood, tissue, etc. that Macon LE was able to detect; or then again there may not have been.
Also, pearl, he's being held on "burglary" charges. Nothing in connection with this case.
The only reason he's been in so long is because his first bond had to be denied due to a second charge.
Then, his attorney canceled the second hearing in order to try the 'conflict of interest' thing.
When that was denied, they requested a bond hearing again (the one they canceled), which is coming up Thurs.
So, his being detained is all about the burglary, nothing more.
.Quote from Angelanalysis
I never felt that anything about McDaniel's reaction was "fake'' exactly, not based on the things he said or even on hearing the audio of his reaction to the finding of a body, it wasn't until I saw the video that I realized he, for whatever reason, guilty or innocent, was exaggerating his behavior for the cameras.
It specifically was the way he sounded when he said "BODY?" and all that took place right after that. You may not be able to judge guilt or innocence based on the content of a person's reaction to something traumatic, but I think it's fair to say that human beings, no matter the situation, can get a gut feeling about if someone is a bad actor.
It's a Rorschach test of course, since everyone may look at one person and see the whole gamut of sincerity to insincerity, but it isn't based necessarily on incorrectly expecting people to follow certain "steps" of grieving or reaction trauma, or hit certain behavioral markers.
It's a bit like a lie detector test, your gut. It's not admissible in a court of law because it isn't 100% proof positive, but it's helpful as an investigative tool
The news article I posted tells it differently. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6975169&postcount=655
.
People said the exact same thing about Richard Jewel. I lived in Atlanta. I was at the Olympics the next day. They thought he was a bad actor. They thought he was weird. They thought he was over dramatic. They knew in their gut something was wrong with him. The reason it's not admissible evidence is because our gut is not reliable regardless of how much we want to believe it is. What you consider normal behavior may be very abnormal for another person. We're all different. I'm not saying he's innocent. I'm saying we can't assume guilt based on the way a person acts in acute distress.
There is a big difference. If, as officially reported, they were moving out the week she was missing and had most of their items out when the body was found, then they had complete access to that apartment. And they were moving boxes and bags out of that apartment during the time she was missing and presumed dead. Plus, they had access to the refrigerator which the FBI hauled away.I don't necessarily see this as an inconsistency. "In the process of moving during the time Giddings was missing" .... that to me does not necessarily imply that he was in and out of the apartment Sunday to Wednesday. Could just as easily be interpreted that he had started the moving process on or before July 25, then gone out of town for a week (or more), and returned after the torso was found. He would still be "in the process of moving" in the early part of the week, in a passive sense, because he was between the start and the finish. The statement in today's story only supports this scenario:
"The last person who lived there, a law school classmate of Giddings and McDaniel from Dublin, had moved out by the time the refrigerator was taken. Bush said the resident had left and carried off most of his stuff before Giddings was killed.
But on the day he went back for a final clean out, he was so shaken by what may have transpired there that he asked Bush to stay with him while he picked up."
http://www.macon.com/2011/07/31/1649731/giddings-case-apartments-gradually.html
Looks to me like he did the bulk of the move out before LG went missing, then didn't return until the final clean out.
If this downstairs neighbor was indeed a "POI" in the same way that SM is a "POI", it would be a shocking twist in the narrative. I have no doubt that he was questioned by LE. Their subsequent actions seem to indicate their focus is on one person and that is SM.
I understand what you're saying.There is a big difference. If, as officially reported, they were moving out the week she was missing and had most of their items out when the body was found, then they had complete access to that apartment. And they were moving boxes and bags out of that apartment during the time she was missing and presumed dead. Plus, they had access to the refrigerator which the FBI hauled away.
That is totally different that what everyone here has been presuming and which has not been reported. That the residents of that apartment left it before she disappeared and did not return until after her body was found. Very, very different scenarios. I have asked if anyone had found any articles verifying they were, indeed, out of that apartment during the week she was missing, or, as it has been reported, were they moving out of the apartment during that week.
What a difference it would make! Everything so many people are supposing would have to be reconsidered. It would toss a monkey wrench into all of the stories people have come up with. Facts tend to do that. I am not looking for what people think happened, I am trying to find the fact regarding where those residents were during the tell-tale week.
As I said, for me it's a moot point for now ... You have your opinion and I mine.
There is a big difference. If, as officially reported, they were moving out the week she was missing and had most of their items out when the body was found, then they had complete access to that apartment. And they were moving boxes and bags out of that apartment during the time she was missing and presumed dead. Plus, they had access to the refrigerator which the FBI hauled away.
That is totally different that what everyone here has been presuming and which has not been reported. That the residents of that apartment left it before she disappeared and did not return until after her body was found. Very, very different scenarios. I have asked if anyone had found any articles verifying they were, indeed, out of that apartment during the week she was missing, or, as it has been reported, were they moving out of the apartment during that week.
What a difference it would make! Everything so many people are supposing would have to be reconsidered. It would toss a monkey wrench into all of the stories people have come up with. Facts tend to do that. I am not looking for what people think happened, I am trying to find the fact regarding where those residents were during the tell-tale week.
.
People said the exact same thing about Richard Jewel. I lived in Atlanta. I was at the Olympics the next day. They thought he was a bad actor. They thought he was weird. They thought he was over dramatic. They knew in their gut something was wrong with him. The reason it's not admissible evidence is because our gut is not reliable regardless of how much we want to believe it is. What you consider normal behavior may be very abnormal for another person. We're all different. I'm not saying he's innocent. I'm saying we can't assume guilt based on the way a person acts in acute distress.
It didn't say "before she was missing." It said "during the time she was missing." While they may have been gone, the newspaper reported it as a direct quote from the landlord. Officially may not be the right word, but I meant not on a blog or someone's individual point of view. Something verifiable is what I meant. That verbalizes a big hole in a lot of theories. You can guess that it meant one thing, but it is stated as another.Its tenant was in the process of moving during the time Giddings was missing, Bush said. Most of the furnishings had been removed before Giddings’ body was found, and the tenant has since finished moving out.