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

[Backwoods]

See, this is where "facts" become subjective to me.

Do we believe only the facts from LE? From the attorney/district attorney? From the mother? From other family members? From friends?

Do we believe it's a fact only if we see a video of the person saying it?

And finally, do we believe exactly what's reported by the media, which is where most of this originates?

Where do you draw the line with "facts"? I guess it's a personal thing.

I agree. We'd definitely need some guidelines...and an editor ... and still wouldn't be easy.

 

[WhoaJo]

IF more disturbing elements of this crime prove to have taken place...

I believe control is the central issue at play here.
To consume or engage sexually with the remains of your victim demonstrates an urge to fully control that person, likely resulting from a feeling of personal powerlessness. Let's imagine for a moment that Stephen was fixated on Lauren for a long time, living next to her, working along side her in the FedSoc at Mercer, but never truly able to engage with her on a personal or romantic level. Most likely he never voiced his feelings for her to her directly, but perhaps spoke frequently about her to his mother. He felt she was unattainable, she'd never return his feelings, he'd never HAVE her in life. Perhaps her life force itself was overwhelming to him, because deep down in his psyche, Stephen could be extremely controlling. No consenting partner, especially not an independent and driven young woman such as Lauren, would be suitable for him as he would require the utmost submission and autonomous control over another individual. This is often the case with killers who engage in these post-mortem acts of cannibalism and necrophilia. Only once their victim is dead can they truly actualize their fantasy.
For some killers, the act of defiling their victim's body is an extension of the sadistic acts and degradation they inflicted on their victims pre and peri-mortem, as in the case of Ted Bundy. For others, such as Jeffrey Dahmer, it is the main event. I imagine McDaniel falls into the latter category. He "attained" Lauren in killing her, and cemented his sense of ownership over her entire being [in his mind] by deconstructing her person-hood, literally and figuratively, after death. This is typical of lust murder, as the killer seeks to remove the humanity of his victim through mutilation and disfigurement. The dismemberment itself indicates rage, resentment, but more interestingly it indicates that the killer was threatened, intimidated by the victim. To strip the victim of her identity is to neutralize the threat and exercise ultimate control. It's very personal. When such acts are committed in stranger homicides, such as in the case of Jack The Ripper for instance, the victim is representative of something personally threatening to the killer. In this case, Lauren herself was somehow a threat to Stephen's psyche. IMO, the threat stemmed from the power he perceived her to have in life. If he was obsessed with her, in his mind she held an unacceptable amount of power over him, and in killing her and then destroying her body, he re-asserts his own control. He is aroused by that satisfaction derived from absolute control over someone formerly so out of reach, he can now do as he pleases.
Finally, if cannibalism indeed took place, it would be the penultimate act of control and possession of his victim.
IF it went down like that, I imagine he was high off his actions for several days. The extensive cleaning and obstruction was another way for him to get off on the control he continued to exert over his victim's fate. His downfall was ultimately that he was too greedy with her remains, too indulgent of his urges, to do what needed to be done. He literally waited until the last possible moment to discard the last bit, despite the overwhelming risk involved. Hopefully that means he did a poor job of cleaning up the evidence he left on her body, especially if he originally planned to dispose of them in such a way that they would never, ever be recovered prior to decomposition. If the bleach rumor turns out to be true, that was probably his hurried attempt at making sure he rid the body of evidence, and it probably wasn't as thorough a job as he would have liked. His nerves went into overdrive when he saw cops looking for her Wednesday, so he inserted himself into the search and investigation promptly to control, to whatever extent he could, the flow of information and get access to the facts on the ground. I wouldn't be surprised if those involved in the search, cops and civilians, could tell us in retrospect little things he tried to do to direct the search effort away from key areas.
Getting on camera to discuss Lauren's whereabouts was terribly revealing, and terribly bold. I'm sure he derived some satisfaction from that as well, still holding out the belief that he'd never be found out, linked forever to her memory however due to that interview. Imagine how satisfied he'd have been if he'd never been a POI and his face in that interview would come to represent that fateful day in Lauren's legacy...what a fast one he'd have pulled.
JMO

Thank you, Angel, for this thorough and thoughtful response. Great post.

When I read McD's emailed hypo and the responses of his fellows, I thought a seed of loathing was planted at that time that may have resulted in his destruction of Lauren, as a symbolic action toward all of them. They really gave him a spanking.

Then I realized that his need for control was what was important to take from that glimpse into him. Through his thinly-veiled deception, he tried to entrap them. A controller all the way.

His taking of Lauren is just another manifestation of his need to control; and his actions fit much more closely with a lust murder, as you have pointed out, than a revenge slaying.

Thanks for keeping me thinking.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

See, this is where "facts" become subjective to me.

Do we believe only the facts from LE? From the attorney/district attorney? From the mother? From other family members? From friends?

Do we believe it's a fact only if we see a video of the person saying it?

And finally, do we believe exactly what's reported by the media, which is where most of this originates?

Where do you draw the line with "facts"? I guess it's a personal thing.

Yes, this is where a rating system would be needed to "grade" each fact.
As you can imagine, this can become quite complex quickly

 

[Destini]

I agree. We'd definitely need some guidelines...and an editor ... and still wouldn't be easy.

I guess it's all semantics, but calling it "facts" just doesn't sit well with me. As far as I'm concerned, it's mostly just "allegations" at this point, other than the fact poor Lauren's torso was found in the garbage can.

I guess I'm a very skeptical person. When I read that someone said something, to me it's a fact that they said it but it's not a fact that it's true necessarily. Probably comes from too many years working in the legal field.

I guess I should just shut up. Sorry for the rant.

 

[SmoothOperator]

re·cov·ered memory (r -k v rd). n. A memory that has been restored from the unconscious to the conscious mind..
description given to the apparent resurrection of the memory of events that had been forgotten or suppressed..
medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com


You are welcome to word it any way you would like to.. I see Colonel Mustard has already corrected the mistaken rebut of this "recovered memory" infact being confirmed immediately by Buford that McDaniel, his client had shared this information with his attorney who in turn informed the DA of this "real killer"..

So just as I had posted it is indeed known for certain.. IMO the very words recovered memory could not be more appropriate for what has been claimed to have been the exact process of how this memory(it is clearly claimed to be a "memory") came to fruition.. His mother stating that it wasn't until after the shock of his friend, Lauren's murder had worn off that he recalled the memory(AKA "recovered".. "remembered") of his having come face to face with the Mm.. Blah.. Blah.. Blah and so it Goes according to those..

Yes, sadly even I have to admit that as far fetched and farcical as it certainly IMO appears to be.. It is however factual that this claim is being made by Stephen McDaniel..

 

[tomkat]

regarding what I bolded above: What we settled on when this was discussed before was that a poorly constructed sentence in the article left the impression that she might have -- but that what really was meant was that, while throwing something else in that trash bin on the day before the remains were found there, she didn't smell anything unusual (thus indicating the torso was not in the bin yet). If you go back and look at the article, think you'll see what I mean. I don't have the link right at hand, though

I do know, thanks, that was confusing, as are many of the articles as written.

http://georgiaslate.com/blog/macon-news/hacksaw-linked-to-mcdaniel-in-giddings-case-warrant-says

Bush said she can remember throwing something in the trash can June 29,
(which was)
(the day before Lauren Giddings’ torso was discovered, bundled in plastic, in the roll-away bin beside apartment No. 1.)

(AND)Bush said she didn’t smell any foul odors.

 

[PsychoMom]

Yes, this is where a rating system would be needed to "grade" each fact.
As you can imagine, this can become quite complex quickly

Especially, when so many people want to take a bit of information and twist into a fact when it isn't verified anywhere. Let's start with McD being infatuated with LG, for example. We have absolultely zilch supporting that, but it seems to be a fact now. We really don't know if he was in love with her, hated her, barely noticed her, considered her his best friend, or thought of her as a colleague and cohort in the law school. But the new 'fact' is he was obsessed and infatuated by her. It may be true, but where is any iota of supporting evidence towards that history? His mom making a comment about her? Then, DANG, I must have been infatuated with a million guys my mom pointed out to me when I was young! She was always telling me who I should like or should date. I was never interested in a one of those guys.

 

[Destini]

On the other hand, why dump the torso OUT Of a large trash bag into the trash bin, why not just discard the whole bag with body in it into the can. Was he recycling the bag? I would not guess he would use something of value to haul the torso in. That WOULD look suspicious if seen, dumping something that big out of another bag into trash.......

Makes me wonder if BB DID throw it in the bin on the 29th, what brought that up in the article?

Of course, she would not have known what it was unless it was half wrapped or wouldn't have investigated if it didnt' have too much weight. If no fluids in it then would it have been lighter than the avg 50 lb or so torso? And by how much?

What would be the purpose of the bleaching of torso? Odor? Bug elimination? Dehydration? blood bleaching?

I'm thinking an attempt to eliminate any foreign DNA.

 

[Backwoods]

re·cov·ered memory (r -k v rd). n. A memory that has been restored from the unconscious to the conscious mind..
description given to the apparent resurrection of the memory of events that had been forgotten or suppressed..
medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com


You are welcome to word it any way you would like to.. I see Colonel Mustard has already corrected the mistaken rebut of this "recovered memory" infact being confirmed immediately by Buford that McDaniel, his client had shared this information with his attorney who in turn informed the DA of this "real killer"..

So just as I had posted it is indeed known for certain.. IMO the very words recovered memory could not be more appropriate for what has been claimed to have been the exact process of how this memory(it is clearly claimed to be a "memory") came to fruition.. His mother stating that it wasn't until after the shock of his friend, Lauren's murder had worn off that he recalled the memory(AKA "recovered".. "remembered") of his having come face to face with the Mm.. Blah.. Blah.. Blah and so it Goes according to those..

Yes, sadly even I have to admit that as far fetched and farcical as it certainly IMO appears to be.. It is however factual that this claim is being made by Stephen McDaniel..

point is: Many here would say it is not a memory at all, recovered or otherwise, but a lie
so, therefore, better something like "SM has said that he remembers ..."

 

[Destini]

Here is a link I found to a report about Lauren's funeral that had a quote from her family I didn't remember seeing before, maybe another "different" thing or two also.

link: http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011/08/06/funeral-planned-for-md-woman-found-slain-in-georgia/

This CBS Baltimore site has some other coverage of the case as well, if you do a search there, but most is brief, with nothing really new to us.

Thanks for that. I thought it was interesting that the 58-year-old former professor, David Whitmire, who has stated he was a friend of SM's & ate burgers with him (and also the one who pointed out SM was not in class the day her body was found), would consider Lauren as his best friend.

“In the ceremony, three people started their remembrance of Lauren as ‘she was my best friend,’” said David Whitmire, Lauren Giddings’ classmate at law school. “I’m thinking, she was my best friend too.”

 

[PsychoMom]

Speaking of McD putting the torso in the trash. If he had stored the torso in Apt 1, why not just leave it there. It would have been found, but it would have led away from him. Wouldn't that have been a pretty simple way to deal with it? It would have made that person's life a mess, or it could have been pretty easy to pin on the MM because he would have a reason to go in and out of empty apartments (if it was empty that week).

 

[Backwoods]

Especially, when so many people want to take a bit of information and twist into a fact when it isn't verified anywhere. Let's start with McD being infatuated with LG, for example. We have absolultely zilch supporting that, but it seems to be a fact now. We really don't know if he was in love with her, hated her, barely noticed her, considered her his best friend, or thought of her as a colleague and cohort in the law school. But the new 'fact' is he was obsessed and infatuated by her. It may be true, but where is any iota of supporting evidence towards that history? His mom making a comment about her? Then, DANG, I must have been infatuated with a million guys my mom pointed out to me when I was young! She was always telling me who I should like or should date. I was never interested in a one of those guys.

And -- stop me if I'm wrong here, PsychoMom-- but I believe you're saying, OK if we hypothesize and theorize around such things, but don't just state them as outright, indisputable truth ...? And definitely something like that wouldn't make it onto the fact list, even if "proved true" -- what would make it onto the fact list would be the events, etc., that proved it true...

 

[Backwoods]

Speaking of McD putting the torso in the trash. If he had stored the torso in Apt 1, why not just leave it there. It would have been found, but it would have led away from him. Wouldn't that have been a pretty simple way to deal with it? It would have made that person's life a mess, or it could have been pretty easy to pin on the MM because he would have a reason to go in and out of empty apartments (if it was empty that week).

Guess maybe perp weighed something like that against the idea of having no torso turn up and LG remain a missing person and made the choice (though it didn't work out that way)

 

[Starry Night]

Is there a transcript of the entire interview of McD and the reporter? I watched that interview about 3 times last night and I noticed something he said about what he did after the friends of Lauren's left after searching for her.
What I heard was , in describing his activities about when they left, he couldn't sleep or something and then he said he was up til early?? and THEN he said something like 'I GOT HOME' or 'I CAME HOME and I collapsed.'
I wrote this very poorly but my point is that he made it sound as if he WASN'T home until early whatever. Hope I am making sense.

 

[PsychoMom]

And -- stop me if I'm wrong here, PsychoMom-- but I believe you're saying, OK if we hypothesize and theorize around such things, but don't just state them as outright, indisputable truth ...? And definitely something like that wouldn't make it onto the fact list, even if "proved true" -- what would make it onto the fact list would be the events, etc., that proved it true...

Absolutely! That is one of the things I keep seeing. An idea suddenly becomes a new truth. And there is no basis for it. The only way to make a valid argument is to have the truth behind you. If you hypothesize A theory if X, Y, and Z happened. The B theory would involve if only X happened. And C theory might have J, K, and L happening. As long as you are aware that without facts being supported, other options are just as valid as yours is.

 

[Destini]

Speaking of McD putting the torso in the trash. If he had stored the torso in Apt 1, why not just leave it there. It would have been found, but it would have led away from him. Wouldn't that have been a pretty simple way to deal with it? It would have made that person's life a mess, or it could have been pretty easy to pin on the MM because he would have a reason to go in and out of empty apartments (if it was empty that week).

I guess he was hoping she'd be gone with the trash & would just be considered a missing person. By the time weeks/months rolled around & someone started investigating this as a possible murder, he was hoping all the forensics would be gone, too. (If it was him)

 

[bessie]

See, this is where "facts" become subjective to me.

Do we believe only the facts from LE? From the attorney/district attorney? From the mother? From other family members? From friends?

Do we believe it's a fact only if we see a video of the person saying it?

And finally, do we believe exactly what's reported by the media, which is where most of this originates?

Where do you draw the line with "facts"? I guess it's a personal thing.

Newer members might not be aware of this, but WS has a generally accepted standard for facts. They include:

• Official law enforcement statements, i.e., press releases, news conferences
• Statements found in sworn court documents
• Interviews recorded and published by the mainstream media. In print articles, that would mean direct quotes (statements enclosed by quotation marks).
• Information from academically accepted reference material, like scholarly articles and professional manuals
• Vital records

I think I'm forgetting something, but you get the picture. Is everything in the list the absolute, unmitigated truth? Not necessarily, but they suffice as fact for purposes of discussion here.

Statements made in interviews are not necessarily facts, however, and they are the cause of most of the arguments I've seen at WS. Ex: Jane Doe tells a reporter on camera that she's pretty sure the horse is purple. Is it a fact?

Fact: Jane Doe said she thinks the horse is purple
Fact: Jane Doe thinks the horse is purple.
Non-fact: The horse is purple.

Unless...Jane Doe is an outside, objective, third party, professional equestrian.

 

[Backwoods]

Is there a transcript of the entire interview of McD and the reporter? I watched that interview about 3 times last night and I noticed something he said about what he did after the friends of Lauren's left after searching for her.
What I heard was , in describing his activities about when they left, he couldn't sleep or something and then he said he was up til early?? and THEN he said something like 'I GOT HOME' or 'I CAME HOME and I collapsed.'
I wrote this very poorly but my point is that he made it sound as if he WASN'T home until early whatever. Hope I am making sense.

here's the link to the transcript of the interview that Destini posted on these threads:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6887487&highlight=transcript#post6887487

There's also a news station 13wmaz version of the interview that includes some of the same interview and then a bit more at the end (where that station continued to interview after Fox24 stopped, I believe). The transcript linked above is to the longest of the interview videos and is the one that contains what you are talking about, I think

 

[SmoothOperator]

Continued list of things that are known for certain

25.) Lauren was set to be moved from BH apts in Macon to Atlanta by Thursday, June 30(sadly the very day that her torso was found near a ground floor apt in a trashbin)

26.) something that we now know that was not originally known is that the last communication ever sent from Lauren's laptop on June 25 @10:30pm was infact sent to her boyfriend, DV's email address.

27.) in speaking of bf, DV he was questioned very early on and not found to be a POI as he was actually in California at the time that Lauren went missing(June 25)

28.) another newly found fact is more of what Lauren was
Doing on that last day that she was seen.. We now know that she actually had gone to a local country club who he bf was a member of and was able to use his name to relax and enjoy that Saturday outside laying out and swimming in the pool there.. This is where Lauren was heading home from when she stopped for the 6:30 drive thru meal from Zaxby's(last known sighting) just a few blocks from her BH apt..

I guess it's all semantics, but calling it "facts" just doesn't sit well with me. *As far as I'm concerned, it's mostly just "allegations" at this point, other than the fact poor Lauren's torso was found in the garbage can.
*
I guess I'm a very skeptical person. *When I read that someone said something, to me it's a fact that they said it but it's not a fact that it's true necessarily. *Probably comes from too many years working in the legal field.
*
I guess I should just shut up. *Sorry for the rant.

You don't owe anyone an apology IMO and ya certainly shouldn't shut up.. Everybody has their opinions or views on the "facts", "allegations", etc and skeptical is how you are viewing the case or elements of the case then that's your right::. Definitely nothing to apologize for IMO..

 

[Starry Night]

Thanks Backwoods. I just watched the entire interview again and I GUESS he meant because they had all searched after midnight etc, that that was the reason he was up into early hours.

Thanks a lot for posting the transcript. I will be sure to read it.