Page 5 of 32 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 800

Thread: GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #12

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,203
    I've wondered that also, Backwoods. And the same for anything that might register a ping with a vehicle, such as a GPS.
    I thought about that not to long ago when the human leg was found in the bathtub (unrelated to Lauren.)
    Got me to wondering how far he could have gotten in that time frame, and whether or not it could be triangulated.

    I guess I can assume LE has all of this information and has just chosen not to comment on it?

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Oriah For This Useful Post:


  3. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Oriah View Post
    I've wondered that also, Backwoods. And the same for anything that might register a ping with a vehicle, such as a GPS.
    I thought about that not to long ago when the human leg was found in the bathtub (unrelated to Lauren.)
    Got me to wondering how far he could have gotten in that time frame, and whether or not it could be triangulated.

    I guess I can assume LE has all of this information and has just chosen not to comment on it?
    bbm: Yes, I guess that's what we have to assume, Oriah. (I still can't help but be mighty curious, though!)

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Backwoods For This Useful Post:


  5. #103
    SmoothOperator's Avatar
    SmoothOperator is online now Sadly what connects all these puzzles is that there's a victim@the heart of each
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    5,586
    Rare to post on Lauren's case these days but I haven't a doubt that all of us that have followed her case from the beginning still peek in and most of all think of Lauren often and are still praying for her precious family..

    I have a rather stupid question but am curious about why it's worded this way.. All along we've known from it being continually reported that Lauren was dismembered, totally, as in the only remains found were her torso(and some reports that even the complete torso was not even intact).. With that said I wonder then why in the indictment it is murder with her decapitated??

    For me, ATLEAST that is completely different for the obvious reason that when you hear someone's decapitated I think of body intact, minus the head.. Of course I do realize that is not necessarily true, tho, as we have here while the decapitation is correct however she was also completely dismembered as well..

    I know not really important in the grand scheme of things buts something that immediately caught my eye when I first read the indictment couple weeks back and was just curious as to why possibly they chose that specific wording?

    TIA to anyone who may know or even have an opinion or thought on why that would be

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to SmoothOperator For This Useful Post:


  7. #104
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    Sorry, tomkat, guess I misunderstood.

    Also, on your question a few posts back about whether the dogs hit in Lauren's apartment: At the commitment hearing on the murder charge, Detective Patterson testified that the HRD dog hit in Lauren's apartment, yes. (But I don't think he gave any info as to where in her apartment or on what.)
    No Problem Backwoods. I understand my ramblings can be confusing. haha.

    I had a sudden revelation on decomposition and all angles and questions came to mind at one time

    Thanks for clarification on the dogs

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to tomkat For This Useful Post:


  9. #105
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,788
    Smooth, we talked a little about decapitation being highlighted in the indictment a bit earlier and here is what I remember being suggested as possibilities:

    (1) Way of addressing the cause of death not being known to the grand jury: Since the information before the grand jury did not allow them to know what instrument or manner of death was used, it could have been a way of saying, more or less, "we believe the accused killed her and, though we don't know exactly how she was killed, that doesn't matter, because we also believe the accused (the same person) also decapitated her -- which in and of itself would kill the victim, even if the victim were not already dead".

    (2) Included to set up the "depravity" qualification for a possible capital case.

    (3) Possibility that decapitation might actually be the cause of death but not yet provable

    ETA: I just thought of something else that might tie in, though I doubt that this would be the whole reason: Since several of the internet posts SM made referenced decapitation in one way or another, if the prosecution used the posts in presenting to the grand jury, and hopes to use them in a trial, it would provide another possible "link" between the posts and the crimes.
    Last edited by Backwoods; 11-27-2011 at 09:02 PM. Reason: change wording; add thought

  10. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Backwoods For This Useful Post:


  11. #106
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by SmoothOperator View Post
    Rare to post on Lauren's case these days but I haven't a doubt that all of us that have followed her case from the beginning still peek in and most of all think of Lauren often and are still praying for her precious family..

    I have a rather stupid question but am curious about why it's worded this way.. All along we've known from it being continually reported that Lauren was dismembered, totally, as in the only remains found were her torso(and some reports that even the complete torso was not even intact).. With that said I wonder then why in the indictment it is murder with her decapitated??

    For me, ATLEAST that is completely different for the obvious reason that when you hear someone's decapitated I think of body intact, minus the head.. Of course I do realize that is not necessarily true, tho, as we have here while the decapitation is correct however she was also completely dismembered as well..

    I know not really important in the grand scheme of things buts something that immediately caught my eye when I first read the indictment couple weeks back and was just curious as to why possibly they chose that specific wording?

    TIA to anyone who may know or even have an opinion or thought on why that would be
    Hi Smooth.

    I dont' know but it seems that you find the indictment a bit limited, shy and lacking as do I. (?) No one seemed to think the short nature of it was important, but it left me quite confused. Even if further was just DISCUSSED and wasn't needed in writing, it seems lacking still to me for such a hienous crime

    I hope someone can answer your question. It does seem quite important. They have not located the Head (this is horrible to type) nor her other parts, so it's not like they HAD discovered one part and can actually gain something by calling it decapitation only

    Thanks for the inquiry so that we might all learn

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to tomkat For This Useful Post:


  13. #107
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    This is going off the topic of the underwear, but I've been meaning to mention this for awhile, so ...

    As I've read more and more on WebSleuths, it has struck me how important cell phone pings (and other cell phone info) have become in so many cases -- almost ubiquitous, it seems.

    And I've thought, we've heard surprisingly little about that in this case.

    Of course, if Lauren was killed in the apartment complex ... and since it was learned so quickly that she was deceased ... it makes sense that we did not hear as much of that info about her phone as we often do about a victim's phone when the "missing" status continues longer.

    But just pondering on the topic has surely gotten me curious about any phone clues about Stephen! I'm thinking, if he is the killer and he drove somewhere to dispose of remains, they could be pretty important. Of course, he certainly could be plenty savvy about pings and such and leave his phone behind ... but, if he is guilty, he certainly made other "mistakes" ... so I can't help but wonder.

    Sometimes I have wondered if he even had a cell? It's hard to comprehend that a young law school student would not, I know -- but sometimes he strikes me as someone who might want to "stay off the grid" to the extent that he could. Guess he probably did have a cell, but ...

    Just some thoughts.
    Just commenting here:
    First, LE certainly haven't given the public much info on this entire case. Just comfort stuff, to make us all feel a little better.
    Second, remember the commitment hearing, the prosecution didnt' want to share too much during the hearing (or they didnt' have it)
    Third: remember the SoL QUOTES on the other forums, one of the sleuthers here discovered that and turned it in to LE.
    Fouth: I really wonder if they have nothing else still, maybe they are waiting on expert sleuthers to find something, like you're suggestion above..........(?)JK

    OR simply they are holding are their eggs until they HAVE a grandiose case and are waiting to tell the defense. They do have to tell them everything, right? So he can build a defense...........???

  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to tomkat For This Useful Post:


  15. #108
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by tomkat View Post
    Just commenting here:
    First, LE certainly haven't given the public much info on this entire case. Just comfort stuff, to make us all feel a little better.
    Second, remember the commitment hearing, the prosecution didnt' want to share too much during the hearing (or they didnt' have it)
    Third: remember the SoL QUOTES on the other forums, one of the sleuthers here discovered that and turned it in to LE.
    Fouth: I really wonder if they have nothing else still, maybe they are waiting on expert sleuthers to find something, like you're suggestion above..........(?)JK

    OR simply they are holding are their eggs until they HAVE a grandiose case and are waiting to tell the defense. They do have to tell them everything, right? So he can build a defense...........???
    about what I bolded: tomkat, that certainly is the question of the moment right now, I think: Just what do they have?

    But we just gotta wait!

    It's natural that the prosecution would want to "hold their eggs", as you say, as long as possible. (That's probably one reason the indictment itself reveals nothing beyond what we have known).

    I hope one of our lawyer types will correct or add to the following comments, as needed, but, as I understand: The discovery phase, when the prosecution turns over more information to the defense, does not begin, I believe, until after the arraignment.

    When it does begin, the prosecution does not exactly have to turn over all its "eggs", I think, but yes, it does have to share with the defense all of certain kinds of evidence, as well as anything substantial it might have in the way of evidence that would tend to point away from SM (exculpatory evidence).

    I think the defense will be privy to all forensic results, for example, but I am not sure that the prosecution has to share a list of all its witnesses (maybe, but not clear on that ...it may be that the defense gets a list but not info about what the witnesses will testify ...? Just not clear on that point.)

    I do hope maybe we will hear further from some of the lawyers who post here. (One thing, though: I think there is an attitude that it is best not to try to look too far ahead just now, since, until the arraignment, we don't know for certain that SM won't plead guilty/make a deal, etc., and a trial be avoided all together.)

    It's a waiting game right now, IMO.

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Backwoods For This Useful Post:


  17. #109
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    about what I bolded: tomkat, that certainly is the question of the moment right now, I think: Just what do they have?

    But we just gotta wait!

    It's natural that the prosecution would want to "hold their eggs", as you say, as long as possible. (That's probably one reason the indictment itself reveals nothing beyond what we have known).

    I hope one of our lawyer types will correct or add to the following comments, as needed, but, as I understand: The discovery phase, when the prosecution turns over more information to the defense, does not begin, I believe, until after the arraignment.

    When it does begin, the prosecution does not exactly have to turn over all its "eggs", I think, but yes, it does have to share with the defense all of certain kinds of evidence, as well as anything substantial it might have in the way of evidence that would tend to point away from SM (exculpatory evidence).

    I think the defense will be privy to all forensic results, for example, but I am not sure that the prosecution has to share a list of all its witnesses (maybe, but not clear on that ...it may be that the defense gets a list but not info about what the witnesses will testify ...? Just not clear on that point.)

    I do hope maybe we will hear further from some of the lawyers who post here. (One thing, though: I think there is an attitude that it is best not to try to look too far ahead just now, since, until the arraignment, we don't know for certain that SM won't plead guilty/make a deal, etc., and a trial be avoided all together.)

    It's a waiting game right now, IMO.
    Oh I agree, in my mind there are 2 simple reasons. Holding on til arraignment or still hoping for more from forensics or further investigation, either way, they are not telling.
    Thanks for clarification on the sharing of evidence or witnesses. Yes, after arraignment/For the trial.

    I've heard so many cases, real and fictional where there are surprises, may have been just surprise witnesses that were not announced by the prosecution prior to them being called to testify and it seems to be a no no in court, for both parties not to be made aware

    We shall wait, arraigment soon right and will we hear anything then or just get McDee Plee

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to tomkat For This Useful Post:


  19. #110
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    20,023
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    This is going off the topic of the underwear, but I've been meaning to mention this for awhile, so ...

    As I've read more and more on WebSleuths, it has struck me how important cell phone pings (and other cell phone info) have become in so many cases -- almost ubiquitous, it seems.

    And I've thought, we've heard surprisingly little about that in this case.

    Of course, if Lauren was killed in the apartment complex ... and since it was learned so quickly that she was deceased ... it makes sense that we did not hear as much of that info about her phone as we often do about a victim's phone when the "missing" status continues longer.

    But just pondering on the topic has surely gotten me curious about any phone clues about Stephen! I'm thinking, if he is the killer and he drove somewhere to dispose of remains, they could be pretty important. Of course, he certainly could be plenty savvy about pings and such and leave his phone behind ... but, if he is guilty, he certainly made other "mistakes" ... so I can't help but wonder.

    Sometimes I have wondered if he even had a cell? It's hard to comprehend that a young law school student would not, I know -- but sometimes he strikes me as someone who might want to "stay off the grid" to the extent that he could. Guess he probably did have a cell, but ...

    Just some thoughts.
    It's hard for me to imagine that McD would be unaware of how cell phone technology can be used to trace a person's whereabouts. For one thing, it's a controversial issue and one that any "true son of liberty" would be aware of. I'd also be a little surprised to learn McD had a cell phone rather than a landline. If he did have one, I really doubt he would have taken it with him to dispose of LG's remains. Why would he? I mean, who was he going to call?

    I hope he did have one, and I hope LE has all of the pings. I don't think they do, however, because I *think* they would have used the information to find Lauren's remains.
    __________________________________
    Muddy water in the street
    ; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"



  20. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to bessie For This Useful Post:


  21. #111
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,203
    Quote Originally Posted by bessie View Post
    It's hard for me to imagine that McD would be unaware of how cell phone technology can be used to trace a person's whereabouts. For one thing, it's a controversial issue and one that any "true son of liberty" would be aware of. I'd also be a little surprised to learn McD had a cell phone rather than a landline. If he did have one, I really doubt he would have taken it with him to dispose of LG's remains. Why would he? I mean, who was he going to call?

    I hope he did have one, and I hope LE has all of the pings. I don't think they do, however, because I *think* they would have used the information to find Lauren's remains.
    I tend to agree that he likely wouldn't have taken a cell with him, knowing that it could possibly be traced. I can, however, see an instance where he would take one- if he wanted to utilize features other than calling in or out.
    It has crossed my mind that this sort of crime seems to often be immortalized in digital media these days.

    If he did have one with him, and LE does have the pings- I unfortunately can still see it being a bit of a needle in a haystack to locate remains. At any rate, I hope he was stupid enough, or crazy enough, to mess up somewhere in the planning of this heinous crime. Just one little mistake, to help bring Lauren back to her family.

  22. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Oriah For This Useful Post:


  23. #112
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,784
    Well naturallythey have HER DNA on them but more importantly, they were found in his apt and sent to lab for testing. DA was not happy about the leak of information.

    http://www.13wmaz.com/laurengiddings...dings-Evidence

    He's a goner.

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tomkat For This Useful Post:


  25. #113
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,203
    Quote Originally Posted by tomkat View Post
    Well naturallythey have HER DNA on them but more importantly, they were found in his apt and sent to lab for testing. DA was not happy about the leak of information.

    http://www.13wmaz.com/laurengiddings...dings-Evidence

    He's a goner.
    Yes, I agree.

    I meant the location of Lauren's remains- brought back to her family.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Oriah For This Useful Post:


  27. #114
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    20,023
    Quote Originally Posted by Oriah View Post
    I tend to agree that he likely wouldn't have taken a cell with him, knowing that it could possibly be traced. I can, however, see an instance where he would take one- if he wanted to utilize features other than calling in or out.
    It has crossed my mind that this sort of crime seems to often be immortalized in digital media these days.

    If he did have one with him, and LE does have the pings- I unfortunately can still see it being a bit of a needle in a haystack to locate remains. At any rate, I hope he was stupid enough, or crazy enough, to mess up somewhere in the planning of this heinous crime. Just one little mistake, to help bring Lauren back to her family.
    You're so right! I didn't mean that pings would lead LE directly to LG's remains. It should have narrowed it down for them, or suggested areas to search. IIRC, the only LE led searches have been in the landfills and dumps, and along the river where LG was known to go jogging. They seem to be at a loss for other areas to search, which is why I don't think they have cell records to guide them. Or, it's just not a priority.

    Which leads me to another question. How important is it to LE to recover LG's remains? If they feel there's enough evidence already in hand, would they go through the time and expense of searching for the rest of her body? I know they finally searched the landfill, but that was a joint effort between private and public concerns, and was touted as a goodwill gesture on LE's part. Other than that one, LE hasn't led any searches other than the cursory ones I listed above. So, I guess what I'm wondering is if that's because they don't have any leads on where to search? Or, they have an idea or two, perhaps from cell records, but they can make a case without her remains, and budgetary constraints are a larger consideration?

    Then my other question is this one. If LE has a lead on where the remains might be, through ping records or otherwise, but they don't feel it's necessary from a LE standpoint to search for them, would they share the information with the family so they could put together a private search? Have you ever encountered a situation like that, Oriah?

    The answer might vary from case to case and between jurisdicitons. But is there a legal reason that would preclude sharing the information with next of kin?
    __________________________________
    Muddy water in the street
    ; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"



  28. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to bessie For This Useful Post:


  29. #115
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,788
    I don't know a whole lot about pings and triangulation, etc. (though I know enough, now, after reading on WebSleuths, not to take mine with me if I turn to a life of crime...unless I were to forget... ) -- but I guess it might be (just one possibility) that his phone (if he has one) pinged during the pertinent days so to show that he was around and about with it in Macon, but nowhere else, yet not in such a way to really "track" to any possible local sites where he might have disposed of remains (if he is the killer)...?

  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Backwoods For This Useful Post:


  31. #116
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    540
    Would LE be able to gain any info from a disposable cell phone if SM had one? Just a thought.

  32. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to pearl For This Useful Post:


  33. #117
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,203
    Quote Originally Posted by bessie View Post
    You're so right! I didn't mean that pings would lead LE directly to LG's remains. It should have narrowed it down for them, or suggested areas to search. IIRC, the only LE led searches have been in the landfills and dumps, and along the river where LG was known to go jogging. They seem to be at a loss for other areas to search, which is why I don't think they have cell records to guide them. Or, it's just not a priority.

    Which leads me to another question. How important is it to LE to recover LG's remains? If they feel there's enough evidence already in hand, would they go through the time and expense of searching for the rest of her body? I know they finally searched the landfill, but that was a joint effort between private and public concerns, and was touted as a goodwill gesture on LE's part. Other than that one, LE hasn't led any searches other than the cursory ones I listed above. So, I guess what I'm wondering is if that's because they don't have any leads on where to search? Or, they have an idea or two, perhaps from cell records, but they can make a case without her remains, and budgetary constraints are a larger consideration?

    Then my other question is this one. If LE has a lead on where the remains might be, through ping records or otherwise, but they don't feel it's necessary from a LE standpoint to search for them, would they share the information with the family so they could put together a private search? Have you ever encountered a situation like that, Oriah?

    The answer might vary from case to case and between jurisdicitons. But is there a legal reason that would preclude sharing the information with next of kin?
    BBM:
    This gave me pause for thought, bessie.
    Zahra Baker.

    I do think that most LEA's would share that with family (if family were not suspect, as Lauren's family is not.)
    However, I also think that if LE had even an inkling of an idea as to where partial remains might be located, they may wish to remain in control of possible future search efforts until the case has been closed. Especially if a COD cannot be determined from the partial remains already located.

    I also think that some jursidictions are so completely upset by these sorts of crimes (thank god for that- not all LE is hardened AT ALL) that even though budgetary restrictions may prevent them from moving forward with searches for partial remains that are not *necessary* for prosecution, they would keep that option on the back burner so to say, should an area of interest come up.

    Also, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see another 'volunteer/professional/goodwill' search in the future, with a lot of LE participation.

    I think the nature of this terrible crime has a lot of LE wanting to do everything they can- either on the clock, or on their own time- to try and bring full resolution to Lauren's family. To bring her home.

  34. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Oriah For This Useful Post:


  35. #118
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,784
    IN regards to the searches. I think it was the article relating to McD's grandfather and his land.........the family wanted to search and LE told the Giddings (basically) not to , that it could affect the investigation

    http://tlc.macon.com/2011/11/13/1674...or-search.html

    Which leads to my question:

    Why is it that, according to the article, Grandpa told LE or FBI they could search and also told Giddings family they could search, now LE is leading the Giddings away from THAT site for any possible search, and LE won't search there at this time but n LE was willing to search OTHER areas and DID...............

    they didnt' wait for the arraignment to do the first searches. So when do they plan to do this? MID JANUARY/February when conditions for searches are worse? If they found her, then what does that do to the case, rather to the defense?

    Did McD have an attorney during the early searches? Had he been named a suspect? Arrested yet?

    Which (for some reason unknown to me) might be the difference if he did NOT have an attorney or was not named a suspect early and now he IS and does have an attorney (reason for the touchy situation in the searches for Lauren)

  36. #119
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    20,023
    Thanks for reminding me about that article, Tomkat. I was on vacation when it was published, and just skimmed over it. It supports what Oriah said, that LE would want to retain control of any searches, even if they're not ready to do one themselves. That's horrible for Lauren's family.
    Last edited by bessie; 11-29-2011 at 01:08 AM.
    __________________________________
    Muddy water in the street
    ; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"



  37. The Following User Says Thank You to bessie For This Useful Post:


  38. #120
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    20,023
    Quote Originally Posted by pearl View Post
    Would LE be able to gain any info from a disposable cell phone if SM had one? Just a thought.
    Not necessarily. Unless something has changed very recently, I believe it is still possible to buy a prepaid phone with cash and load minutes onto it without providing personal information. Now, if McD had such a phone, and LE found it or learned the number during the search of his apartment, they might have been able to trace the ping records associated with the number. But if he tossed it and left no trace of the number where LE could find it, then they'd never know he had one.
    __________________________________
    Muddy water in the street
    ; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"



  39. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to bessie For This Useful Post:


  40. #121
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,203
    Quote Originally Posted by bessie View Post
    Not necessarily. Unless something has changed very recently, I believe it is still possible to buy a prepaid phone with cash and load minutes onto it without providing personal information. Now, if McD had such a phone, and LE found it or learned the number during the search of his apartment, they might have been able to trace the ping records associated with the number. But if he tossed it and left no trace of the number where LE could find it, then they'd never know he had one.
    You can sometimes track prepaid phones (and minutes purchased) by the distributer. Retailers keep track of their inventory, and when they scan and activate the phone at the register it's recorded in a sort of 'cache' with the service provider- mostly for market anaylsis.

    It's quite a tedious process though- especially in areas where there are a lot of retailers.

    I wonder if LE has investigated this, in the pursuit of locating Lauren's remains.

  41. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Oriah For This Useful Post:


  42. #122
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    20,023
    Right, Oriah, but the numbers are all anonymous. If he had a phone and threw it away, tracing those numbers wouldn't do a bit of good.
    __________________________________
    Muddy water in the street
    ; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"



  43. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to bessie For This Useful Post:


  44. #123
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,203
    Quote Originally Posted by bessie View Post
    Right, Oriah, but the numbers are all anonymous. If he had a phone and threw it away, tracing those numbers wouldn't do a bit of good.
    If he threw away a prepaid phone (if one even existed to begin with) then I am not sure that tracing the numbers would be useless? Just coming from the perspective of trying to utilize any and every possibility to locate Lauren.

    The cell numbers of prepaid phones are randomly generated as they are activated by the service provider. The service provider has a log of that while the minutes are still available, unless it is past the expiration date of the minutes or data has exceeded the limit. I think.

    Maybe I'm just reaching here, because I want Lauren brought home to her family.

    Gosh- idk.

  45. The Following User Says Thank You to Oriah For This Useful Post:


  46. #124
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by bessie View Post
    Thanks for reminding me about that article, Tomkat. I was on vacation when it was published, and just skimmed over it. It supports what Oriah said, that LE would want to retain control of any searches, even if they're not ready to do one themselves. That's horrible for Lauren's family.
    YES! TERRIBLE for Giddings family, knowing she may be there, more torture,waiting and feeling so strongly that she may be there, how terrible.

    BUT, the article stated that LE didnt feel the need to search there or some such, as if they dont' think she's there either

  47. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to tomkat For This Useful Post:


  48. #125
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,788
    While we are in "waiting" mode, I am just throwing a few things out there that have nagged at me or that I have been unclear on in this case.

    Here's one, going back to one of the very basic details of this crime, Lauren's remains being found in the rollaway garbage bin at the apartment.

    What I'm wondering is: At a small apartment complex like Barristers Hall, does the garbage pick-up truck enter the parking lot and go around to each apartment to empty the bins?

    I'm accustomed to pick-up at a single-family dwelling, where we have to roll the bin out the driveway and place it at the side of the road each week, so I don't really know how pick-up normally works at multi-residence places.

    If residents don't roll their bins to the curb, is there an area or spot within the complex at which they are supposed to place them for pick-up? If so -- do residents usually keep the bins at whichever spot they need to be for emptying and just carry their bagged trash out to them as needed during the week, or would they be more likely to keep the bins close to their door during the week, then roll them to the pick-up spot for trash day?

    I can't find where we ever discussed this before -- if I'm wrong, somebody please point the way for me, if you can. And, any of you who are local and "know" Barristers Hall and how garbage pick-up works there, you probably are the only hope for a definitive answer -- but, anybody who has thoughts on this, please share them.

    I'm wondering, of course, if the bin where Lauren was found was in the spot it should have been to be picked up. There was so much confusion over exactly where her remains were found, at first -- remember, we did not have confirmation for a while even that it was in the bin -- that I have never been clear on where exactly the bin was and whether it was where it should have been for a normal pick-up.
    Last edited by Backwoods; 11-30-2011 at 12:14 AM. Reason: typos

  49. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Backwoods For This Useful Post:


Page 5 of 32 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 - #14
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 756
    Last Post: 09-19-2013, 05:45 PM
  2. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #13
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 768
    Last Post: 06-24-2012, 04:13 AM
  3. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #5
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 686
    Last Post: 08-04-2011, 04:49 PM
  4. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #4
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 675
    Last Post: 08-01-2011, 02:44 PM
  5. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #3
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 540
    Last Post: 07-27-2011, 12:43 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •