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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
MaconMom said:
I was thinking the same thing. I have legitimate questions pertaining to the case that they could be answering.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed following the Q&A, but I TWICE asked, in different ways, whether they had been able to locate and intervirew any of Stephen's friends (i.e. "close friends") from undergrad or law school (other than strictly classmates who only knew him in passing) and whether these "hypothetical" friends just wished not to speak to reporters, or had the search for any "close friends" indeed come up nil and void.

My burning question wasn't addressed; however, they did post a rather snarky remark I made about another poster needing to go back to school to learn about run-on sentences. That particular poster was rather rude, I thought; otherwise, I would never have mentioned or criticized the long run-on sentence.

Still, I think Amy and Joe are doing a great job with what they have to work with!
 
Either Amy or Joe did mention that they saw blue latex gloves discarded outside the apartment in the weeks following the crime. I was wondering if the blue gloves Buford mentioned could have been those latex gloves used by police.
 
~SuperSleuth~ said:
Good point. This must have slipped past me yesterday :)

Also, if DD was given a master key as part of being the resident contact, then why would he need "multiple keys"?
The fact that Patterson states he had so many keys would seem to suggest that he did not have a master, no?
I mean, after all, this place isn't huge.
A master key would give him access to all apt entry doors and the utility closet.
So, what other doors/locks would there be that the master key wouldn't open?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it have been to the prosecution's advantage for Patterson is say no, DD did not have a master key? I can't think of a reason for Patterson to dance around that question except that he did not want to admit that DD had access to the same areas that SM did.
 
3doglady said:
Wouldn't it have been to the prosecution's advantage for Patterson is say no, DD did not have a master key? I can't think of a reason for Patterson to dance around that question except that he did not want to admit that DD had access to the same areas that SM did.
Click to expand...
I think it's like Backwoods said. Patterson may not have known for sure.
Patterson did state that DD had access to the whole place.
But, apparently all he knew was that DD had a lot of keys, apparently in conjunction with his MM duties.
That's why I'm now again thinking he didn't have a master.
It sounds like he was given a key to each unit, closet, etc.
Why do this when they could have just given him a master?
 
Also... remember that what he did not say is just as important.
He didn't directly state that DD had a master key - but he never said he didn't either.
Remember, this was just a hearing, not the trial.
If he knows DD did not have a master key, then the answers he gave would not be perjury.
If this is the case, then the DA would be all too happy for Buford to play the "DD had a master key"
card in the trial - cause then they could show he didn't :)

ETA:
Of course, as to DD's access to all the apartments, it doesn't matter if he had a master or not.
BUT, it would have been more difficult for DD to plant a master to frame SM :twocents:
 
~SuperSleuth~ said:
Also... remember that what he did not say is just as important.
He didn't directly state that DD had a master key - but he never said he didn't either.
Remember, this was just a hearing, not the trial.
If he knows DD did not have a master key, then the answers he gave would not be perjury.
If this is the case, then the DA would be all too happy for Buford to play the "DD had a master key"
card in the trial - cause then they could show he didn't :)

ETA:
Of course, as to DD's access to all the apartments, it doesn't matter if he had a master or not.
BUT, it would have been more difficult for DD to plant a master to frame SM :twocents:
Click to expand...


Buford will receive discovery evidence in time to prepare for whether DD had a master key in the trial. That's not something they can keep from Buford. Buford will depose DD. That's why I couldn't understand Patterson not giving an answer, but it makes sense that if he did not know he would not want to admit that on the stand.
 
Goodness...I am just reading some of the public's comments and they can be quite testy. I wish they would have stuck to serious questions and made better use of the time.
 
If Patterson did not know whether DD had a master key, that puts Patterson's answer in a different light for me. Patterson would not want to admit that he did not know the answer because that would just give more credence to Buford's claim that LE was inept in the investigation. Saying DD had a lot of keys was a safe answer for Patterson. That doesn't mean that DD had a lot of keys for the apartments. Maybe LE took DD's keys but haven't verified what each one is for yet. Or maybe LE did not take them and Patterson did not want to admit it.
 
3doglady said:
Buford will receive discovery evidence in time to prepare for whether DD had a master key in the trial. That's not something they can keep from Buford. Buford will depose DD. That's why I couldn't understand Patterson not giving an answer, but it makes sense that if he did not know he would not want to admit that on the stand.
Click to expand...
Good point :toast:
 
3doglady said:
The dorm my son lived in had a resident contact. He wasn't really what I would call a maintenance man but kept an eye on things,let students in their room when they lost a key and reported problems. Didn't SM's mom call DD the maintenance man? Since management lived there also I assumed there wasn't an actual live in maintenance man but that is speculation on my part. Why go to the expense of having a resident contact and a maintenance man when management lives there? We also saw private company plumbers working on the apts not a maintenance man.
Click to expand...

Do we know for sure if BB and/or her brother were living there at the time of the murder? I know BB has stated that she will live in LG's apartment during this next year but I'm not sure they or she were living there then.

I have friends who lived there and I thought I'd heard someone say before that "B is on the property today" meaning that she was not all of the time. I could be wrong; does anyone know for sure?
 
All I know is this.. Whatever is known about DD it needs to be presented extremely clearly and easily understood by the jury.. What is unacceptable is for something similar to happen during testimony about DD like what we saw at the hearing(and yes I get that was NOT being presented to a jury but am basing my statement on that presentation and how that presentation was made at the hearing).. I am just saying that in order for the jury to NOT get lost in the rhetoric as they dis in the Anthony trial that the DA and it's witnesses must be on their game, tight, knowledgable, and clear speaking.. They need to present the info about DD in a very clear and to the point manner.. No hem hawing, avoiding, dancing around, etc.. If DD did not do it(and I believe he did NOT) then the DA needs to make damn certain in their knowing that the defense is using this man to lean on and point the finger of suspicion at.. Then they damn well better have the info backing up that DD is innocent of any involvement.. State clearly what that rock solid alibi is and offer every trace of evidence that backs that alibi up.. If they can heavy hit on those clear and concise, concrete facts regarding DD's innocence of this crime, then the defense can nit pick and grasp at straws that aren't there all day and long and it will not matter.. Not when the jury has been given clear and concrete evidence of his innocence with clear and concrete evidence to support his innocence.. The jury will stand firm in their minds that the individual is innocent...AS LONG AS THE DA DOES IT'S JOB IN PRESENTING ALL OF THIS TO THE JURY JUST AS I EXPLAINED ^ABOVE^!!

If they don't then that right there is already leading to REASINABLE doubt in some ppls minds.. The DA has got to worker harder and be even sharper and thinking a step ahead of the defense.. If and when they don't then IMO I do not believe they are living up to what is the ultimate of importance here.. Justice for a life taken.. It's a very serious thing and one that you can't just rest your head on the fact that you believe the defendant to be guilty.. You've gotta go ^above^ and beyond to prove it to the jury that one and only one person is guilty for the murder of Lauren Giddings and that one person is the defendant, Stephen Mark McDaniel..

Jmo, tho!!
 
I don't think they have to point to DD to clear McD. They just have to show someone else could have done it. And if they can show LE did not check into other people, DD or anyone else within reason, then it can be bad. Since LG left a key outside, anyone who knew the key was outside could be a suspect. They did not find the proverbial smoking gun on McD, so they should have checked out a lot of other people.

The dogs were not presented an opportunity to check out anyone else's apartment, including those who do not live there but searched for her that night. They could claim one of those people killed her*. It looks like the dogs hit everywhere they go, so the jury could dismiss all of that information without having a comparison with other locations where they did not hit for this case. The people who came to look for her should have been checked out thoroughly, including searches in their homes, at least with the dogs if not a full search. The people she has been in contact with right before her disappearance should have been checked out more. That would include those in the running group. A very good chance the group and their sexually charged names and the behaviors of the group will be scrutinized, even if it is objected to, the jury could hear it and wonder.

The narrowed scrutiny by LE and the lack of ruling out others fully will bite them in the butt if presented to the jury in the right way. All they have to do is point out X, Y, and Z are evidence items not found connecting McD to this crime. Evidence items A, B, and C could possibly connect him, but 10 other people had similar connections. Reasonable doubt can creep in.

I believe the CP will not be presented unless they can make a direct connection from the photos to the body. Same with the postings. A direct connection will have to be made. The former roommate will probably get to testify, but he will be seriously discredited when the full story has to be told, including his part in the conversation and how long ago the conversation happened and his memory on other events.

* Another theory which could be used in the trial to show reasonable doubt:
What if the killer were one of the other searchers? Once the killer knew people were concerned enough to start looking, he or she placed the torso in their trunk. Then put the body in the trashcan either before the others arrived to search, or after they looked everywhere and the police had been there and left the first time. Not likely, but it could be presented as a possibility. Or even if the searchers called other people, and the supposed killer couldn't come look for her, but did manage to take a road trip to dump the body close to her home before LE started looking too hard. That would throw LE off the trail of the real killer. While those are not likely scenarios, I can see them as plausible options to show reasonable doubt. Especially, since LE did not investigate those people fully. At least, not that they have revealed.
 
MaconMom said:
Either Amy or Joe did mention that they saw blue latex gloves discarded outside the apartment in the weeks following the crime. I was wondering if the blue gloves Buford mentioned could have been those latex gloves used by police.
Click to expand...

I am assuming because the PI had the keypad entry to the laundry room, that there is a witness or video of him recovering these blue gloves, that we have recently heard about.

Otherwise, how would we even truly know where they were recovered from? :waitasec:
 
Anyone know about BH apt door locks?

If not a dead bolt, perhaps SMcD used ye olde crime show credit-card- technique open DD’s apt door, then borrowed & copied master key???

OR

??? DD sometimes left his own apt door unlocked, thus inadvertently allowing SMcD to borrow & copy DD’s master key??? (sorry, if already on list)
 
SmoothOperator said:
MOO.. but my personal thoughts are that Glenda has spoken about him smiling and even laughing with the family visits and his little siblings telling jokes and such.. She talked as tho everyone involved in the half hour visitations were making the best of it..

Stark in contrast to this let me blankly stare at an imaginary dot on a wall and never not even once for a millisecond take my eyes off of it.. Just keep staring...
Click to expand...
This crossed my mind today, so I went back and listened to Buford's interview.
He states that SM has been "very articulate" and "very conversant" with him. :waitasec:
 
From Destini:
Did LE take the cadaver dogs to BB or her brother's residences (wasn't he a co-owner)?
Click to expand...

This has been bugging me off and on for a while, and for some reason I just never asked it. Can anyone help? I'm sure that I just missed it...

Here is an idea about how someone could know if their door was locked on or around a specific day 3 years ago. I might be able to remember this if there was a period of time that I habitually did lock my door, then for some reason gave that up (or vice versa).

For example, say that I lived with a roommate, and we were pretty diligent about locking our doors even though it was just out of an abundance of caution (meaning that we did it out of habit or something even though we never had serious concerns about intruders). However, the lock starts sticking for some unknown reason, we call the maintenance or whomever a couple times and they fix it but then it gets sticky again. (Based on a real pain-in-the-butt lock on one of the doors to a previous lab.) We are tired of the inconvenience and we don't really have serious concerns about intruders, so we just give up locking at some point. (Note, I would not personally do this - I would have the lock replaced - but I bet that not everyone would.)

Or say that my roommate and I are living together, not really worried about intruders and therefore not very consistent about locking up. Maybe we lock the doors when we are both in "for the night" or when we leave the house for class in the a.m. even though we are not on exactly the same schedule. But on Mondays-Wed-Fri I get out of class at 2 and come home to run before I study, so just while I'm out running I leave the door unlocked so that I don't have to carry the key with me. (This is kind of common practice among med students at my school, anyway.) But we start hearing stories about other apartments in our general area being burglarized, and at some point decide that it is not worth the risk to leave the place unlocked and unattended even if it is only for an hour.

You can be the judge on how realistic those particular situations or the ideas in general may be. :) Just some thoughts that occurred to me, because sometimes I do wonder, "How the heck would I know?!" when I hear detectives' questions (in real life or on tv, lol).
 
Thanks for bringing this up, SS.. It is these things that make me believe that this is intentional "institutional like staring" and not due to a break from reality, stepping into some black abyss of insanity!.. These are nothing more than my opinions based upon the observations I have personally made combined with statements made by those who have regular contact with him.. And my personal opinion is that he is acting.. You do not go from one minute being articulate in conversing regularly with your counsel as well as with your multiple family members, mom, dad, several of the sibling, grandpa, and those are just the very few that we know for certain.. And nothing have changed even a tiny bit in his surroundings, treatment, etc.. But yet suddenly and drastically he has gone into this "act" of being psychologically "sick", not well, not stable..

IMO he is no less or no more psychologically sick and unstable as he was June 25, June 30, July 4, August 4, etc, etc, etc.. You pick in any date of his recent past and he is no less or no more psychologically sick, damaged, or unstable as he was on that date, this date, or any of them in between..

He may indeed be psychologically sick and/or unstable but he was that way long before his great acting skills kicked in and started to attempt to manipulate the situation at hand.. That situation being the brutal and heinous murder and dismemberment of his neighbor and classmate, Lauren.. That situation IMO that he, Stephen McDaniel is solely responsible for committing.. And what is being seen at this point and will continue to be seen will be only more desperately attempted manipulations from a man who truly believed his intellect was somehow keener, better, and could actually outsmart LE.. The more the realization comes to him that he has miserably failed and only continues to fail.. The more desperate these attempts will become!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 180 more.
Total: 2,609 (members: 181, guests: 2,428)

Online statistics

Members online
181
Guests online
2,428
Total visitors
2,609
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,744
Messages
18,099,092
Members
230,919
Latest member
jackojohnnie
Back
Top