GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 # 8

Status
Not open for further replies.

bessie

Verified Insider
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
31,771
Reaction score
1,596
Please continue here.

Previous Threads:

Thread #1
Thread #2
Thread #3
Thread #4
Thread #5
Thread #6
Thread #7


Media Thread


laurengiddings-1.jpg

Lauren Teresa Giddings

April 18, 1984 -- June 26, 2011
Rest in Peace
 
I see it more as hoping that was the reason rather than thinking it was pure hate or evil out there directed at her. If they think he did it because he wanted and loved her so much, it might make it a little easier.

Whether McD did this or not, I am not seeing any evidence he was drooling after her. Nothing. I have to think that may not be behind this crime. I feel if he did do this crime, it was to see if he could do it. Not for any lost chance at love, but an opportunity to see if he had the b@lls to do it. More of a challenge to himself. She was simply convenient. Again, that is IF he did it.

You are inferring as much in deciding he just wanted to see if he could get away with something like this as anyone else is in deciding he was fixated on Lauren, except in the latter case, the family also agrees. To each his own.
 
Angel, thank you so much for this post. Such good insight and knowledge you have shared with us. I will be reading this again.
Ask her another question, Whoajo!

Thanks, I took forever to write it because I was afraid I was sticking my neck out pretty far, so I'm glad someone [and Whoajo] found it interesting :)
 
Just a thought...

If any sexual element to this crime proves true, the idea that Stephen was just playing a game of murder pretty much goes out the window. If this crime were intellectual in nature, if he just wanted to challenge himself, there would not be a sexual assault of any sort, at least not if you follow the profile.
It would likely rule out rage against the whole of the law school as the motive as well. Normally, rage at a body of people is not acted out on one person, but rather on a grand scale involving a large part of that target body of people, mass murder, iow.
 
You are inferring as much in deciding he just wanted to see if he could get away with something like this as anyone else is in deciding he was fixated on Lauren, except in the latter case, the family also agrees. To each his own.

The arrest warrant says, "Accused has previously commented that he could commit murder and provided details of methods to avoid detection which are similar to the facts and circumstances surrounding the killing of LG".

That adds some factual support to the theory that it was an intellectual challenge for SM.

On the other hand, there has been nothing at all revealed to indicate that he was fixated on LG.
 
The arrest warrant says, "Accused has previously commented that he could commit murder and provided details of methods to avoid detection which are similar to the facts and circumstances surrounding the killing of LG".

That adds some factual support to the theory that it was an intellectual challenge for SM.

On the other hand, there has been nothing at all revealed to indicate that he was fixated on LG.

They aren't necessarily going to put motive on the arrest warrant, they would put probable cause to believe he'd commit a murder in such a manner though, which is what that bit is. We don't even know exactly what Stephen said regarding how he'd get away with murder.

Motive is VERY important to the family, and everyone close to the family that I have spoken to says the motive appeared to be some kind of fixation, attraction, obsession. To suggest that the family doesn't really want to know the real motive and would choose to believe something different is pretty bold, considering how crucial the WHY would be to any family. The family knows things the public does not know, many things, much of the information I've been given has come from family knowledge. To shrug off their opinions and beliefs about the crime as inconsequential compared to something *inferred* from the warrant is inappropriate imo.

ETA: This family has not demonstrated in any way that they have a personal ax to grind with Stephen McDaniel, they have stated repeatedly that they only lean toward believing he is the killer because of facts given to them by the MPD explaining why the MPD believes Stephen is guilty. In fact I have noticed a very fair and "legal" mindset among the parents, they appear to believe in the system and right to a fair trial, which suggests they would believe whatever the facts point to, not some alternate reality that they are contriving in their own minds. They seem more concerned with truth than anything else, so when they say something about the case, I take it seriously.
 
We may never know the truth. I am keeping my options open. If McD did this, I still have yet to see one tiny thing showing he was fawning over her. Other than people saying he was infatuated, nothing else points to it. Where do we see evidence of him wanting her? It may be true, but nothing seems to indicate it. I know that blows a lot of theories out of the water, but it could be true.

And some people have been known to add a sexual element to a crime even if it were not sexually motivated. Some do it because they become excited over the thrill of the kill. Some do it as a power trip, not a sexual thrill (actually most sexual assaults involve a power trip). Some do it because it is a way to demoralize the other person, not for sexual gratification. Some do it to throw people off the trail (as in the case where the mother sexually assaulted her daughter's playmate to cover up her murder of the child. she thought they would look for a man.) Endless reasons for a sexual assault if that is the case.

It could have been a simple death, intentional or accidental, and a panicked attempt to hide the body. Smaller pieces were moved throughout the week, and the larger part was just there until a way to move it discreetly could be determined, but time ran out.

All of that is supposing McD did this. If he didn't, then a whole new path is open out there.

BTW, why did the analogy about the shoe box disappear? I didn't think it was bad. Just curious.
 
They aren't necessarily going to put motive on the arrest warrant, they would put probable cause to believe he'd commit a murder in such a manner though, which is what that bit is. We don't even know exactly what Stephen said regarding how he'd get away with murder.

Motive is VERY important to the family, and everyone close to the family that I have spoken to says the motive appeared to be some kind of fixation, attraction, obsession. To suggest that the family doesn't really want to know the real motive and would choose to believe something different is pretty bold, considering how crucial the WHY would be to any family. The family knows things the public does not know, many things, much of the information I've been given has come from family knowledge. To shrug off their opinions and beliefs about the crime as inconsequential compared to something *inferred* from the warrant is inappropriate imo.

I am curious. Since you claim to know all these people involved in the case so closely, first of all, have you been accepted as an expert in that area here? I know there is a process to becoming an expert. If so, great! We can pick your brain thoroughly about what the family thinks and what they have seen or heard. And second of all, what behavioral examples have they given to support the infatuation theory? Not just feelings, but true actions that back up that belief.
 
They aren't necessarily going to put motive on the arrest warrant, they would put probable cause to believe he'd commit a murder in such a manner though, which is what that bit is. We don't even know exactly what Stephen said regarding how he'd get away with murder.

Motive is VERY important to the family, and everyone close to the family that I have spoken to says the motive appeared to be some kind of fixation, attraction, obsession. To suggest that the family doesn't really want to know the real motive and would choose to believe something different is pretty bold, considering how crucial the WHY would be to any family. The family knows things the public does not know, many things, much of the information I've been given has come from family knowledge. To shrug off their opinions and beliefs about the crime as inconsequential compared to something *inferred* from the warrant is inappropriate imo.

I think AA is correct. I'd be much more inclined to follow LG's family and their feelings/knowledge about the case. I'm sure they know things from LE that we do not know. They also were pretty close with her and know things she might have said to them in the past about SM. I'm sure they are talking to LG's friends and boyfriend....she may have confided in them over the years about things SM did or said to her that would lead them to that conclusion.
 
I think AA is correct. I'd be much more inclined to follow LG's family and their feelings/knowledge about the case. I'm sure they know things from LE that we do not know. They also were pretty close with her and know things she might have said to them in the past about SM. I'm sure they are talking to LG's friends and boyfriend....she may have confided in them over the years about things SM did or said to her that would lead them to that conclusion.

That may be true, but without examples, it is purely a guess. I was hoping someone closely involved with the family would be able to provide supporting evidence of such an emotional connection. If there is no behaviors to back it up, it may not exist, no matter how much someone feels it should be that way. I would love to have that piece of the puzzle completed.
 
They aren't necessarily going to put motive on the arrest warrant, they would put probable cause to believe he'd commit a murder in such a manner though, which is what that bit is. We don't even know exactly what Stephen said regarding how he'd get away with murder.

Motive is VERY important to the family, and everyone close to the family that I have spoken to says the motive appeared to be some kind of fixation, attraction, obsession. To suggest that the family doesn't really want to know the real motive and would choose to believe something different is pretty bold, considering how crucial the WHY would be to any family. The family knows things the public does not know, many things, much of the information I've been given has come from family knowledge. To shrug off their opinions and beliefs about the crime as inconsequential compared to something *inferred* from the warrant is inappropriate imo.

I'm certainly not shrugging anything off. But I haven't seen any evidence that SM was fixated on her (yet). I've seen some evidence that SM liked to pit his IQ against those around him, not based solely on the arrest warrant but on other things we know to be true.

There is a great deal we don't know and of course the family knows things we don't. I also don't know a whole lot about what people do in times of grief, especially after a horrendous loss like this, as I'm not a psychologist of any sort. I don't think that a professional's opinion as to why a grieving family might wish to focus on one possible motive for the loss of their loved one over another, combined with known factual support, is inappropriate. I appreciate the opportunity to consider that opinion and point of view.
 
I am curious. Since you claim to know all these people involved in the case so closely, first of all, have you been accepted as an expert in that area here? I know there is a process to becoming an expert. If so, great! We can pick your brain thoroughly about what the family thinks and what they have seen or heard. And second of all, what behavioral examples have they given to support the infatuation theory? Not just feelings, but true actions that back up that belief.

I am not a local, nor an "expert", but people talk to me privately and tell me things. You don't need to pick my brain to discern what the family believes, they have stated it openly in the media. They aren't going to reveal certain details of the investigation to the media that the police have asked them not to. For now it's all a matter of how you interpret the facts made available to you as an individual, and you have every right to interpret them any way you choose, as do I.
 
~snipped

ETA: This family has not demonstrated in any way that they have a personal ax to grind with Stephen McDaniel, they have stated repeatedly that they only lean toward believing he is the killer because of facts given to them by the MPD explaining why the MPD believes Stephen is guilty. In fact I have noticed a very fair and "legal" mindset among the parents, they appear to believe in the system and right to a fair trial, which suggests they would believe whatever the facts point to, not some alternate reality that they are contriving in their own minds. They seem more concerned with truth than anything else, so when they say something about the case, I take it seriously.

You are bringing up a connection to the family again. What connection do you have with the family that puts you in a position to know intimate details of them and their thought processes any more than any other person on here? If you have been deemed an expert because of your connection to the family, I am all for it! It would be nice to have an insider. Thank you in advance for explaining your connection so we can have a better understanding from where your information is coming.

Sorry. We posted at the same time.

I am not a local, nor an "expert", but people talk to me privately and tell me things. You don't need to pick my brain to discern what the family believes, they have stated it openly in the media. They aren't going to reveal certain details of the investigation to the media that the police have asked them not to. For now it's all a matter of how you interpret the facts made available to you as an individual, and you have every right to interpret them any way you choose, as do I.
I guess that explains it. Thank you.
 
I think AngelAnalyzes should become an expert witness for this trial, I think she has been spot on all along since day one about this thing. I also think the quotes from the Giddings family we are seeing now are typical guilt feelings one would expect now that they know what McD did, but they really believed he was harmless. Did anyone see the Joe Kovacs article about the crayon drawing on McD's mirror in his apt. with a rainbow that said "I Love You , Lauren" that MPD Paid special attention to ?
 
You are bringing up a connection to the family again. What connection do you have with the family that puts you in a position to know intimate details of them and their thought processes any more than any other person on here? If you have been deemed an expert because of your connection to the family, I am all for it! It would be nice to have an insider. Thank you in advance for explaining your connection so we can have a better understanding from where your information is coming.




I guess that explains it. Thank you.

To clarify, regarding my statements about the family being fair and not having an ax to grind with Stephen, that is entirely based on how they have handled themselves in the media. It's clear to see in the interviews they've given, they've said that they only lean toward Stephen's guilt because of information provided to them by police, but that they believe in the right to a fair trial. I respect that.
 
She added, “Part of the reason I have talked is because things have been overlooked. A lot of things had been put out that should not have been put out because (it) was supposed to be privileged information -- such as a warrant and what’s in the warrant, and they were talking about suppressing it and yet at the same time, they were talking about that it had already been released -- to the media and to the press and online and all over the place.”
http://www.macon.com/2011/08/12/1662957/source-mcdaniel-missed-2nd-class.html#ixzz1UpOqFWbg

Does GM not realize that we have learned more from her media interviews about privileged information, than rumors or LE put together?

Also in that same story ...
"I have heard all kinds of wild ideas as far as what he bought, but I haven’t checked his receipts. He hasn’t told me what’s on his receipts. The police have his receipts, and they have not shared that information with us.”

Is she saying that she has access to the receipt from Wal-Mart?

 
I think AngelAnalyzes should become an expert witness for this trial, I think she has been spot on all along since day one about this thing. I also think the quotes from the Giddings family we are seeing now are typical guilt feelings one would expect now that they know what McD did, but they really believed he was harmless. Did anyone see the Joe Kovacs article about the crayon drawing on McD's mirror in his apt. with a rainbow that said "I Love You , Lauren" that MPD Paid special attention to ?

I did...and the way he wrote it and played it out in that article was perfect...I gasped and thought how creepy that was...Then, I read down and found out his oldest niece/adopted sister has the same name. So, therefore indicating the drawing was made and signed by her.

But if it wasn't and he had made that...that gives me chills.

I'll try to find the link.

ETA - here it is.

http://www.macon.com/2011/08/07/1657322_p2/man-on-the-street-how-fledgling.html

This is a two page article; this is the link to page 2, where the drawing description is.
 
To clarify, regarding my statements about the family being fair and not having an ax to grind with Stephen, that is entirely based on how they have handled themselves in the media. It's clear to see in the interviews they've given, they've said that they only lean toward Stephen's guilt because of information provided to them by police, but that they believe in the right to a fair trial. I respect that.

I respect that, myself. It helps to know your opinion is coming from your interpretation of what you see portrayed in the media. It sounded as if you were having direct conversations with them and reporting back what they were telling you. The two are very different views.

As a therapist, and as a mother, I can tell you, I would much rather know someone loved my child so much that they couldn't bear to see them leave than to think some evil fell out of the sky totally unprovoked and uninvolved and tortured my child. It is something I believe most parents would say if they were dealing with a tragic horrifying death of a child. Even if the crime itself is evil in all aspects, you like to think something inside the monster had a moment of caring, and you can ascribe those feelings to the monster because it makes the crime a little more palatable.

That is why I wanted to see historical evidence of behaviors which supported the belief. It creates two distinct monsters. One is emotionally motivated. One is emotionally void. It gives a path to follow. In this case, I am not seeing the evidence of emotions being attached. That is a much scarier monster to me. One devoid of human caring and compassion.
 
I did...and the way he wrote it and played it out in that article was perfect...I gasped and thought how creepy that was...Then, I read down and found out his oldest niece/adopted sister has the same name. So, therefore indicating the drawing was made and signed by her.

But if it wasn't and he had made that...that gives me chills.

I'll try to find the link.

ETA - here it is.

http://www.macon.com/2011/08/07/1657322_p2/man-on-the-street-how-fledgling.html

This is a two page article; this is the link to page 2, where the drawing description is.
Exactly! But maybe in his mind he imagined it coming from LG and therefore saved it where he could look at it every day ?? Chills is right .
 
I respect that, myself. It helps to know your opinion is coming from your interpretation of what you see portrayed in the media. It sounded as if you were having direct conversations with them and reporting back what they were telling you. The two are very different views.

As a therapist, and as a mother, I can tell you, I would much rather know someone loved my child so much that they couldn't bear to see them leave than to think some evil fell out of the sky totally unprovoked and uninvolved and tortured my child. It is something I believe most parents would say if they were dealing with a tragic horrifying death of a child. Even if the crime itself is evil in all aspects, you like to think something inside the monster had a moment of caring, and you can ascribe those feelings to the monster because it makes the crime a little more palatable.

That is why I wanted to see historical evidence of behaviors which supported the belief. It creates two distinct monsters. One is emotionally motivated. One is emotionally void. It gives a path to follow. In this case, I am not seeing the evidence of emotions being attached. That is a much scarier monster to me. One devoid of human caring and compassion.

This crime, no matter how you look at it, was not motivated by love.

Obsession and love are very different. Just based on the condition of the body and the likelihood that Lauren knew her killer, this is an example of what's called a "lust murder," especially if certain additional things done to the body aside from the dismemberment are made official public knowledge. But I appreciate and understand that not everyone believes in behavioral forensics/profiling. Certainly in the past, mistakes have been made in the field, but I believe it has improved in the past 15 years as more data has been compiled to perfect the practice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
170
Guests online
1,357
Total visitors
1,527

Forum statistics

Threads
589,160
Messages
17,914,981
Members
227,744
Latest member
McKeith
Back
Top