GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 # 7

[~SuperSleuth~]

I have watched the full interview several times. McD never mentions any name in reference to someone who would harm Lauren even when he is asked if he knows anyone who would want to harm her or if she had any enemies. In fact, he goes out of his way to imply that she is 'just gone' and that maybe she was snatched while running.... When asked if he heard anything he replies he heard nothing. This would have been the perfect time to implicate DD [changed to initials] (MM) IF framing someone had been McD's original plan. IMO

Thanks. I didn't think he had. I had not heard SM speak of or refer to MM in any fashion, so was confused when another poster questioned his manner of reference.

You're right; this is some evidence that there was no plan to frame anybody at that point in time.

Again, I think SM was smart enough to know not to mention it too early,
and probably did mention it during the pre-burglary charge interview IF this was the plan.
SM was also smart enough to know he would be a prime POI.

With that said, I still think it's more likely that the plan was "missing person",
and therefore no frame job needed.

 

[tomkat]

No matter what I can say this with an absolute 100% certainty.. Regardless what we learn, what Glenda drops as her next little bread crumb attempting to divert the trail that leads to her son and at this present moment those bread crumbs are being attempted to lead to DD.. Will that continue to be the plan, goal, etc?? None of us know and can only wait patiently and see..

But without a doubt no matter what.. What we will never be privy to the public is anything even remotely near the amount and level of importance of evidence necessary to even pretend as tho it is sufficient enough to decide guilt or innocence or anything in between those two.. There will always be reasonable doubt in place when speaking of what we will have as knowledge about the details of this crime until it is laid out in trial before a jury of his peers in a court of law..

So IMO TO suggest repeatedly that there is too much reasonable doubt for any one of us to convict Stephen McDaniels of the murder of Lauren Giddings.. It is a moot point due to the fact THAT THERE WILL ALWAYS BE REASINABLE DOUBT WITH THE EVIDENCE WE ARE PRIVY TO HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF BEFORE THIS CHARGE IS TAKEN TO TRIAL..

As for possible vs probable.. That truly varies by each personal opinion and we are all welcome to voice what those thoughts or opinions are and they are going to vary widely from one end of the spectrum to the other.. With some believing it possible if not probable that this was a premeditated murder while others feel this isn't likely even a possibility.. To each their own..

But nary, not a single one of us will have what is needed to make any true judgment.. There will ALWAYS BE COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF REASONABLE DOUBT GIVEN WHAT TINYMODICUM OF EVIDENCE WE ARE PRIVY TO AS IT CONTINUES AT THIS POINT TO PLAY OUT IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION.. which is nothing even worthy of comparison to a case being laid out in a court of law..

So you are saying this forum comments are much ado about nothing.............but that's why it's called a message board. Where people can post their comments. On the other hand..........I agree.........it all seems to be a revolving door and speculating endlessly is much ado about nothing. Other than facts given. No one is on trial yet, NO GM, not MM, not SM. ONly one is charged and the court will decide and whomever the jurors are, will have their opinions just as we have but they will have the evidence before them. WE HOPE

 

[Sandstorm]

In all fairness, if the crazy lawn mowing story were true, I don't know that it would have come to my mind in response to a question about whether I knew of anyone who wanted to hurt LG. Why would it?

It certainly would have come to mind IF McD had premeditated framing MM.
If it were true, well that is too BIG of an IF for me.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

FYI: Part 3 is up.
http://www.13wmaz.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=1103008969001

 

[bessie]

In all fairness, if the crazy lawn mowing story were true, I don't know that it would have come to my mind in response to a question about whether I knew of anyone who wanted to hurt LG. Why would it?

Why wouldn't it? Just two nights prior to LG's disappearance, allegedly, he sees the MM on her balcony talking about cutting the grass at midnight, which later he recognizes as being suspicious. Less than a week later, LG turns up dead. Someone asks him who might've killed her. At that point, he would've searched around in his head for an answer. It seems to me that fresh memory would have come to mind.

Not to mention, though he didn't know she was dead, he knew since the night before that she was missing, and he'd been questioned earlier that morning by LE. He also was aware of Lauren's statement that someone had tried to break into her apartment. He had plenty of time and reason to recall unusual events that might provide a clue to her disappearance, like a man standing on her balcony at midnight talking about cutting non-existent grass. But of course, as the story goes, the lightbulb didn't go off until after he recovered from the shock of it all.

 

[tomkat]

Ha Ha! Right, Defense Lawyer!
However, as the prosecutor I say: if McD had PLANNED to frame MM, he still would have blurted out, "The Maintenance Man did it!"

OR...........insert himself into the investigation and search............and use subtle innuendos/projections and use of "power of suggestion" to implicate someone by not seeming too anxious about diverting the eyes of the law off of yourself in order to appear desperate and guilty.

 

[SuperMom1995]

Why wouldn't it? Just two nights prior to LG's disappearance, allegedly, he sees the MM on her balcony talking about cutting the grass at midnight, which later he recognizes as being suspicious. Less than a week later, LG turns up dead. Someone asks him who might've killed her. At that point, he would've searched around in his head for an answer. It seems to me that fresh memory would have come to mind.

Not to mention, though he didn't know she was dead, he knew since the night before that she was missing, and he'd been questioned earlier that morning by LE. He also was aware of Lauren's statement that someone had tried to break into her apartment. He had plenty of time and reason to recall unusual events that might provide a clue to her disappearance, like a man standing on her balcony at midnight talking about cutting non-existent grass. But of course, as the story goes, the lightbulb didn't go off until after he recovered from the shock of it all.

yeah, it's like when it did finally go off: "the maintenance man did it....yeah, yeah...that's the ticket"

 

[Sandstorm]

No matter what I can say this with an absolute 100% certainty.. Regardless what we learn, what Glenda drops as her next little bread crumb attempting to divert the trail that leads to her son and at this present moment those bread crumbs are being attempted to lead to DD.. Will that continue to be the plan, goal, etc?? None of us know and can only wait patiently and see..

But without a doubt no matter what.. What we will never be privy to the public is anything even remotely near the amount and level of importance of evidence necessary to even pretend as tho it is sufficient enough to decide guilt or innocence or anything in between those two.. There will always be reasonable doubt in place when speaking of what we will have as knowledge about the details of this crime until it is laid out in trial before a jury of his peers in a court of law..

So IMO TO suggest repeatedly that there is too much reasonable doubt for any one of us to convict Stephen McDaniels of the murder of Lauren Giddings.. It is a moot point due to the fact THAT THERE WILL ALWAYS BE REASINABLE DOUBT WITH THE EVIDENCE WE ARE PRIVY TO HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF BEFORE THIS CHARGE IS TAKEN TO TRIAL..

As for possible vs probable.. That truly varies by each personal opinion and we are all welcome to voice what those thoughts or opinions are and they are going to vary widely from one end of the spectrum to the other.. With some believing it possible if not probable that this was a premeditated murder while others feel this isn't likely even a possibility.. To each their own..

But nary, not a single one of us will have what is needed to make any true judgment.. There will ALWAYS BE COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF REASONABLE DOUBT GIVEN WHAT TINYMODICUM OF EVIDENCE WE ARE PRIVY TO AS IT CONTINUES AT THIS POINT TO PLAY OUT IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION.. which is nothing even worthy of comparison to a case being laid out in a court of law..

Well spoken. Thanks.

 

[tomkat]

It certainly would have come to mind IF McD had premeditated framing MM.
If it were true, well that is too BIG of an IF for me.

What SC said, ocurred to me as well, especially if he was NOT expecting anyone to find the body, therefore thinking he was home free and had no back up plan or premeditation

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

yeah, it's like when it did finally go off: "the maintenance man did it....yeah, yeah...that's the ticket"

:floorlaugh:
Would you believe... :great:

 

[Hyrax]

This is completely off topic, but I now have the song "Do you know the Maintenance Man?", sung to the tune of "Do You Know the Muffin Man?", stuck in my head.

Thanks a lot, McD.

 

[bessie]

This is completely off topic, but I now have the song "Do you know the Maintenance Man?", sung to the tune of "Do You Know the Muffin Man?", stuck in my head.

Thanks a lot, McD.

:floorlaugh:

 

[SouthernKate]

This is completely off topic, but I now have the song "Do you know the Maintenance Man?", sung to the tune of "Do You Know the Muffin Man?", stuck in my head.

Thanks a lot, McD.

Don't tell GM - she'll be singing it in her next interview, for sure!

 

[Knox]

Ha Ha! Right, Defense Lawyer!
However, as the prosecutor I say: if McD had PLANNED to frame MM, he still would have blurted out, "The Maintenance Man did it!"

You forgot ... In the Parlor, with a candlestick!!

Sorry, a little humor is necessary at times.

 

[angelanalyzes]

I was challenged when I said that a few weeks back, but I still believe it's a likely scenario, especially if McD planned the act. He and the downstairs tenant were neighbors, they were both students. It would be so natural for the neighbor to tell McD of his plans. He says he's moving the bulk of his belongings, will get settled in at the new place, then return the following week to pick up the loose ends and clean up so he can get back his deposit. The landlady would have no need to enter the apartment until the tenant was completely moved. If one or the othe did enter the apartment, what are the odds either would look in the freezer? There was a limbo period, so to speak, regarding the apartment, and I believe McD was fully aware of it. Not only was the refrigerator available, other tenants had moved, but it was too early for the new tenants to have arrived. A perfect time to carry out the crime.

I agree that McD could have likely calculated that the odds were super low that anyone would be looking in the fridge.
I am gonna go out on a limb here, and this is mostly just me thinking aloud, but what if McD also asked the tenant something like: "Hey, my <insert family member etc. here> went hunting and gave me some of the meat, I don't have room in my fridge, would it be ok if I used yours to store some of it in yours since you won't be using it?" that way, if properly wrapped and concealed, anything the tenant may have seen in the fridge if he opened it if he returned for any reason wouldn't be suspicious. If the tenant then reported to police that McD had asked to store his fridge, that could explain why they zeroed in on that fridge [but I think the fact that Lauren's remains showed signs of having been refrigerated is a more likely cause for LE sweeping the units and once they saw that for whatever reason, McD's fridge and Lauren's fridge couldn't have been the unit used, they moved onto the next logical conclusion].
Just a thought. I still think it's more likely he just felt confident no one would be in there for that period of time, I'm with you bessie.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

Looks like they finally uploaded the correct Part 3 video.
http://www.13wmaz.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=1103047321001

ETA: good grief... it doesn't take that long to split and re-encode a video

 

[angelanalyzes]

I read he had many OCD tendencies or such, lining up cans etc, but the apartment wasn't very clean.

I believe the apartment was messy due to the investigation, because in a more recent article it was stated McD was indeed quite neat. Anyone know which article that was?

 

[tomkat]

FYI: Part 3 is up.
http://www.13wmaz.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=1103008969001

WOW, sounds like more stalling by someone, Buford doesnt' seem to have any say in anything, or know what's going on except what he is told. I'm not sure I believe there was a schedule conflict, they are still waiting for damning evidence and hoping it will be in before the 26th????????????? If that's all it takes is to SAY that there is a conflict in schedules, then I suppose LE/DA or whomever are in full control of the situation and how they want it. JMO

 

[southern_comfort]

Why wouldn't it? Just two nights prior to LG's disappearance, allegedly, he sees the MM on her balcony talking about cutting the grass at midnight, which later he recognizes as being suspicious. Less than a week later, LG turns up dead. Someone asks him who might've killed her. At that point, he would've searched around in his head for an answer. It seems to me that fresh memory would have come to mind.

Not to mention, though he didn't know she was dead, he knew since the night before that she was missing, and he'd been questioned earlier that morning by LE. He also was aware of Lauren's statement that someone had tried to break into her apartment. He had plenty of time and reason to recall unusual events that might provide a clue to her disappearance, like a man standing on her balcony at midnight talking about cutting non-existent grass. But of course, as the story goes, the lightbulb didn't go off until after he recovered from the shock of it all.

All good points... but speaking for myself, I am still pretty sure that if I were standing in SM's shoes as an innocent person and the press (or anyone else) asked me if I knew whether LG had enemies or anyone who wanted to hurt her, I would not immediately connect the dots to someone who was (a) a neighbor, (b) an authority figure at my apartment complex and (c) a fellow student for a period of years being on a shared, publicly accessible balcony, even if the proffered explanation for being there were odd.

While we are on this topic... Why would SM make the story so crazy? I mean... cutting a non-existent lawn in the middle of the night? Why not just say, "I just remembered that I saw so and so on the balcony at midnight and it just occurred to me that there's really no reason for him to have been there", or even to ascribe some false but not nutty explanation (e.g., "He said he was on the balcony checking the railing because he glanced up and thought he had noticed a loose piece of railing from the ground"). I look at a few pieces of information in this case and sometimes think that, if it were premeditated, then part of the plan must have been to make it so ridiculous and bungling that people would hear it and say, "Even a complete idiot would be smarter than that, and he's a law school graduate. Nobody is that stupid. Not guilty!"

 

[Backwoods]

Why wouldn't it? Just two nights prior to LG's disappearance, allegedly, he sees the MM on her balcony talking about cutting the grass at midnight, which later he recognizes as being suspicious. Less than a week later, LG turns up dead. Someone asks him who might've killed her. At that point, he would've searched around in his head for an answer. It seems to me that fresh memory would have come to mind.

Not to mention, though he didn't know she was dead, he knew since the night before that she was missing, and he'd been questioned earlier that morning by LE. He also was aware of Lauren's statement that someone had tried to break into her apartment. He had plenty of time and reason to recall unusual events that might provide a clue to her disappearance, like a man standing on her balcony at midnight talking about cutting non-existent grass. But of course, as the story goes, the lightbulb didn't go off until after he recovered from the shock of it all.

I think, if SM were innocent, it very well might not have come immediately to mind.

Perhaps he would have thought of the MM as an innocuous sort of fellow and known of no problem between MM and Lauren. Even with the hint that "something weird" had happened on Thursday night, according to LG's email, the encounter with MM would not necessarily have jumped immediately to mind, IMO, in response to a reporter's question, "Do you know of anyone who would want to hurt her?"