GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #10

[Knox]

Apparently, to their credit, the paper didn't publish the full details of the conversation with GM.

Macon.com holding back? I find that surprising :innocent:

 

[Backwoods]

I don't remember GM saying anything about a neurological disorder in her family? Anyone else?

When I read that in the article, I got the same take on it as bessie expresses, that this was something shared in their earlier conversations that they didn't publish. I guess since the postings, they say, mention it, they felt it was now fair game for them to mention, too.

 

[bessie]

Macon.com holding back? I find that surprising :innocent:

Hey, even reporters have some scruples. In this case, there was good reason to withhold the information.

 

[SouthernKate]

I don't remember GM saying anything about a neurological disorder in her family? Anyone else?

I don't either - I thought she just said something about the daughter having a drug problem. Certainly that's not what they're considering a "neurological issue?"

Unless of course, there were more revelations from her that they have not actually written about or maybe left out of their article?

ETA: Oops, Bessie already mentioned this - I hadn't read down that far.

I like how some news sites will publish the entire raw interview - guess it's different for a newspaper website, because it's not on video.

 

[Backwoods]

I've said before, and still believe, that it MAY be that GM comes off a little more, uhmm, intense in those "interview articles" than she would have chosen because she MAY have just been so relieved to tell her thoughts and feelings to someone who would listen -- the reporters -- that it just all poured out of her and she really opened up to them. They had hard decisions to make on what to use and not use. I'm not sure they made all the right choices, but yes, I think they made some right ones.

 

[SwissGuy]

Just a small remark on my lack of involvement in the public thread.

I am monitoring this, and am happy to answer any specific opinions asked of me, but know that they would simply be my opinions, and have no bearing on my representation of the Website or the opinions of any of the Staff, they would be purely my own and must be interpreted as such.

Any questions pertaining to the website and my userbases feelings on this site or the issue at hand can be directed to me in the hidden thread, I have permission from our Admin to represent our site and it's userbase, and only there will the things that I post reflect my capacity of that representation.

I'd like to publicly thank both your Administrators, and Mod staff for their assistance in addressing the issues presented to them, and am glad that we have been able to have an amicable and useful discourse to prevent any issues or bad blood between our two communities.

 

[SmoothOperator]

I certainly do like you, SwissGuy!! You have been more than accommodating to us, who tho not intentionally or in a nefarious way..but still did kinda just bombarde you guys site in our seeking to find a glimpse into who this man at the center of all of what's happening down in Macon, GA..

And I'd like to apologize if any of you were negatively affected by our seeking to learn more about this individual..who, tho was not exactly a regularly active poster, did still make interesting statements[or better yet interesting to some] that we have appreciated having you all's site as a resource and your especially kind and understanding of our, I'm certain at times, "overwhelming presence" that we can be when we all come bounding into you guys territory all at once..lol.. Again your kindness, understanding, and open communication are noted and we are very grateful for your assistance..

You are one helluva a positive representative for you guys site..and you need to go back and tell all the guys just what an impression you've made on all of us..lol..

Again Thanks so much SwissGuy!!

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

I've said before, and still believe, that it MAY be that GM comes off a little more, uhmm, intense in those "interview articles" than she would have chosen because she MAY have just been so relieved to tell her thoughts and feelings to someone who would listen -- the reporters -- that it just all poured out of her and she really opened up to them. They had hard decisions to make on what to use and not use. I'm not sure they made all the right choices, but yes, I think they made some right ones.

Hmm... guess this runs in the family, huh

 

[Backwoods]

Hmm... guess this runs in the family, huh

could be...

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

Above snipped just goes into a little better detail of exactly how it will play out.. Seems as tho the particular defense atty speaking in this article says to sum up what tomorrow's hearing is that "does the evidence show that a particular crime was committed and does the evidence show that this defendant is likely the one who committed it"..

I also now see that my questions about was Buford going to have a line of questioning already preplanned out of what he was going to question him[lead investigator] on.. According to this article the likely answer to that is no..but rather the lead detective will take the stand and thru the duration be under oath when he states an outline of what their investigation has uncovered as far as evidence.. and then once he has concluded with the details that were chosen to be shared in court.. it is at that time that Buford will then be allowed his questioning which would likely be spur of the moment questions due to the new knowledge having just been learned there in open court..

So not a preplanned arsenal of questions but rather the questions hinge on what new details that the lead investigator chooses to disclose while on the stand..and then Buford would be questioning along the lines of that new info..

IMO definitely sounds as tho it is extremely likely that we will learn not just one new detail but possibly several details or pieces of evidence they have on Stephen.. but I do know for certain no matter how "jaw dropping"[if it should so turn out to be something that is a shocker or unexpected]..IMO it still is truly only a tiny modicum of what they truly have against the man.. They are not gonna lay their arsenal out of what IMO are going to be some of the absolute key pieces tying Stephen directly to Lauren's murder..not for "probable cause"..so I will keep that in mind..

Maybe, just maybe, if their case is really strong at this point - maybe more and more coming in from FBI/GBI - they'll be nice enough to reveal enough new info to seriously put everyone's mind at ease that they do in fact have this in the bag.

One last thing from snipped quote above.. I had been wondering on what were the boundaries, limitations, time constraints on these proceedings tomorrow.. Was it specified, was there a specific amount necessary, etc??.. and I see now that it is strictly at the judges discretion.. It seems as tho when they feel that the SA has met their burden in showing probable cause that it is at that point that they let that be known and say that the case may indeed proceed onward.. toward it's being taken to trial on the murder charges..

9:30am.. Going to very interesting IMO.. alot more interesting than I originally was even giving it even an ounce credit for, even just this time last week...

i.e. will definitely be done come lunch time :great:

 

[PsychoMom]

I think moving the info was a great idea. And having a representative involved is fantastic. It will give more perspective to some of the comments. When put into a different context, almost anything could sound good or bad depending on the interpreter. We have serious discussions about criminal behavior at work, and it would sound like we were plotting a murder.

Think of all the scenarios posted here by different members. Any of those taken out of context could make us look horrid. We have to keep that in mind when reading bits and blurbs. Some of the descriptions of the crime on here have shown great imagination, or is a murderous mind? Scary to think about!

 

[tomkat]

I don't remember GM saying anything about a neurological disorder in her family? Anyone else?

I do not recall that either.

On the topic of Mom. And quotes from site are on this article this morning.

http://www.macon.com/2011/08/26/1678356/mcdaniel-posts-describe-torture.html

QUESTION: I'm thinking instead of not being able to have the girl he wanted (as has been speculated) and knew he could never have.

MAYBE instead, he really hates his mother, stemming from those judgemental types that picked on him in school, and his mother being so overbearing/controlling, as we see it or from what I have gathered from reading posts from sleuthers in regards to her personality. Maybe additionally he hated Lauren secretly, maybe she was an easy target, maybe he hated her advice to "smile more", "don't be so shy" and maybe subconsciously he hated her and reminded him of those who never accepted him and in her voicing her opinion of his actions, he felt she was also of the same type who picked on him in school, and "knows it all" as his mother and acted on that? I dont' know. Just sayin', IT crossed my mind. He does talk alot about torturing a woman/women and I noted something in todays article that lead to my ponderings of this idea.

I also think he didnt' get his handgum permit for concealed weapons becuase of fingerprints and he said in some postings that was in the article named herein, stated he rationalized himself out of it time and again , maybe he knew he'd do something like this one day and did not want his fingerprints on file. DUH.

Which leads me to mention again that was on the earlier sleuth at the end just prior to being shutdown, ARE WE THINKING PRE MEDITATION NOW, with some of the newer evidence???

 

[Irene_Adler]

So not a preplanned arsenal of questions but rather the questions hinge on what new details that the lead investigator chooses to disclose while on the stand..and then Buford would be questioning along the lines of that new info..

One last thing from snipped quote above.. I had been wondering on what were the boundaries, limitations, time constraints on these proceedings tomorrow.. Was it specified, was there a specific amount necessary, etc??.. and I see now that it is strictly at the judges discretion.. It seems as tho when they feel that the SA has met their burden in showing probable cause that it is at that point that they let that be known and say that the case may indeed proceed onward.. toward it's being taken to trial on the murder charges..

9:30am.. Going to very interesting IMO.. alot more interesting than I originally was even giving it even an ounce credit for, even just this time last week...

Snipped for focus and BBM

First, let me start with this disclaimer: I AM NOT A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, nor have I ever even so much as touched a criminal case. I think I may not have made that clear enough in my first couple of posts. With that said, the observation about Buford's line of questioning is fairly standard in all litigation. When you're questioning a witness, there's always an element of unpredictability which requires you to mold your questions as you go. Sometimes this is true, unfortunately, even when your own witness is on the stand. However, I'm sure that there are certain aspects of the detective's testimony that Buford can readily anticipate. For instance, based on the warrant alone, we know that the detective will more likely than not testify about the saw and its packaging (I think this is much more likely than, say, testifying about the hypothetical, given all of our sleuths' awesome work recently). There are tons of questions that Buford could formulate based on that alone. Particularly if he's looking to preserve these answers for impeachment purposes.

Second, I posted a link to the Uniform Magistrate Court Rules upthread that might be useful to look at. They're not as descriptive enough to answer all of your (and my) questions, but they do at least give us some idea of the content of the hearing. Maybe one of our criminal attorneys or those more familiar with criminal proceedings can provide further illumination....although I guess we'll all know in less than an hour.

If you scroll down to Rule 25.2 on page 36, you'll see the provision regarding commitment hearings.

http://www.georgiacourts.org/files/Uniform+Magistrate+Court+Rules_08_10.pdf


FWIW

 

[MaconMom]

As always, can someone please post highlights from the commitment hearing? I wish 13 WMAZ would make their live streaming compatible with mobile phones.

 

[wilksterette]

Is anyone able to view the hearing?? I've tried Macon.com and wmaz. Neither has video up and running right now. :waitasec:

EDIT: Okay it's up on wmaz, but very slow/choppy for me.

 

[bessie]

Nope. Nothing yet.

 

[MaconMom]

Is anyone able to view the hearing?? I've tried Macon.com and wmaz. Neither has video up and running right now. :waitasec:

Are you trying to view it with your phone? I think it only works on a PC. I've complained to them every time they stream a video but they never fix it. On a mobile phone it always says no video is available.

 

[wilksterette]

Are you trying to view it with your phone? I think it only works on a PC. I've complained to them every time they stream a video but they never fix it. On a mobile phone it always says no video is available.

Trying on my computer. Was working for a moment, and now it says "video you are trying to watch is currently unavailable." Just a little frustrating!

 

[wilksterette]

It's working better on Macon.com!

 

[LurkerSmurf]

I have been following this case from the beginning and signed up when one discussion was moved "downstairs" (didn't want to miss anything, LOL!). The input I have read has been both informative and instructional. The input from those who live close has been great.

Thank you all!