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

[pearl]

Does anyone honestly believes that LE and the DA are not going to fully vet TM before he goes on the witness stand?

Haven't read any further than this today so sorry if it has been mentioned.
I think LE already has checked him out and did so before the warrant was issued.

 

[tomkat]

That long fingernail issue is a strange one.. Definitely fine to be different.. My son has always said who wants to be like everyone else?.. Boring.. And I absolutely agree and personally feel quite the same.. But let me clarify there is a huge difference in being different vs. Being "creepy", to use a word that is often describing Stephen from multiple sources and from many years of knowing him.. That word is consistently associated with Stephen and IMO the reason is due to particular behaviors he has exhibited throughout the years.. They are not in a very normal, and actually very healthy category of being "different" these behaviors far overreach the boundaries of being "different" they are behaviors which unlike being different is just an individuals expressing himself, whereas the behaviors Stephen exhibited had underlying anger and Ill will toward other individuals.. They were not just unique ways of expressing himself.. He was using the long fingernails as a weapon to attempt to intimidate, to strike fear in, and even ppl who don't want to say they believe him to be capable of the murder, even they admit that he lashed out with the long nails and would actually physically scratch Others.. Not just once or twice but this was a known occurrence *that Stephen did to others..

That does not even begin to fall into the benign classification of being "different".. My entire life anyone who knows me knows that I am one to encourage difference, individuality, and having no fear or shame to be who you are.. And what Stephen McDaniel has exhibited is not anywhere in that classification IMO.. His behaviors are entirely different and separate from what is a good and healthy expression of one's self.. His are not only NOT innocent expressions of himself which only affect one's self but rather much the opposite of actually being behaviors indicative of much underlying anger, hatred; etc completely misdirected and inflicted on innocent individuals who have the misfortune of coming into contact with him.. So, too is exactly what was inflicted on Lauren.. A life's worth of anger, hatred, and pent up frustrations unleashed on her and sadly it was NOT just in the way that many describe his actions for years of using his fingernails to lash out and scratch her.. Unfortunately for Lauren by the point in time that she had the misfortune of crossing paths with this sick individual it had far escalated from long fingernails lashing out and scratching.. It had escalated to something much worse, much deeper, and much more depraved.. But no mistaking it is those same exact thought processes, feelings, and bitter anger that bubbled beneath when Stephen would lash out scratching with his nails that were literally seen and viewed as a weapon by himself..

1-scratching does not make him a murderer.
2-I dont' think we really know Stephen McDaniel.................do we???? I mean are we no different than the 2 who said he WAS capable of murder and the 2 who DID NOT THINK he capable? Which ones are we?

 

[Backwoods]

It is interesting to think if this crime had never happened, McD's youth would have been considered 'quirky.' His interest in various plots would have seemed 'eccentric.' Even his reported interest in murder and mayhem would have been seen as a great review for his career path. Learn how the criminal mind works, so as a prosecutor, you can recognize certain things. Just about everything he has said or done could be turned into a positive if this crime had not happened.

However, it did happen. Every single thing is analyzed and debated. The exact same thing that could have been considered an asset is now perceived as proof of criminal behavior. It's a little scary to think about what in our own lives could be turned into evidence against us. Starting with what would be called "an obsessive interest in violent crimes and murder" based on our posting here. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Our career choices would be scrutinized. Me, for example, studying psychology. It would turn into learning how to pick the perfect victim, or how to fake mental illness. Or a doctor, he or she would be plotting ways to torture victims in his or her care. Or a soldier, learning how to hide bodies after mutilating them. Or LE, learning how to frame a suspect for their own crimes. School volunteer, lulling others into a false sense of security putting you in direct contact with possible future victims.

Where we live. Rural areas to bury bodies. City areas for nameless victims. Suburbs for easy access to victims who trust you. Where we shop. God, help us if we ever go to a Walmart! And that is just because it is Walmart. I'm not even talking about how all criminals seem to end up there. Who we hang out with. What we do on our off days. Where we vacation. Everything taken apart and turned into something else.

Granted, that is not the case for hopefully any of us. But it could be twisted. Kind of terrifying to think of how easily something we do without a second thought could be used against us if we ever ended up at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Eh, just thinking. That can be a dangerous thing.

Excellent post!!:goodpost:

 

[3doglady]

It is interesting to think if this crime had never happened, McD's youth would have been considered 'quirky.' His interest in various plots would have seemed 'eccentric.' Even his reported interest in murder and mayhem would have been seen as a great review for his career path. Learn how the criminal mind works, so as a prosecutor, you can recognize certain things. Just about everything he has said or done could be turned into a positive if this crime had not happened.

However, it did happen. Every single thing is analyzed and debated. The exact same thing that could have been considered an asset is now perceived as proof of criminal behavior. It's a little scary to think about what in our own lives could be turned into evidence against us. Starting with what would be called "an obsessive interest in violent crimes and murder" based on our posting here. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Our career choices would be scrutinized. Me, for example, studying psychology. It would turn into learning how to pick the perfect victim, or how to fake mental illness. Or a doctor, he or she would be plotting ways to torture victims in his or her care. Or a soldier, learning how to hide bodies after mutilating them. Or LE, learning how to frame a suspect for their own crimes. School volunteer, lulling others into a false sense of security putting you in direct contact with possible future victims.

Where we live. Rural areas to bury bodies. City areas for nameless victims. Suburbs for easy access to victims who trust you. Where we shop. God, help us if we ever go to a Walmart! And that is just because it is Walmart. I'm not even talking about how all criminals seem to end up there. Who we hang out with. What we do on our off days. Where we vacation. Everything taken apart and turned into something else.

Granted, that is not the case for hopefully any of us. But it could be twisted. Kind of terrifying to think of how easily something we do without a second thought could be used against us if we ever ended up at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Eh, just thinking. That can be a dangerous thing.

I used to be the first one on the guilty bandwagon but over the years have learned that things aren't always as they seem. I've seen people act guilty as he!! only to find out that they were innocent. I've seen crooked SA's and labs accuse innocent people. (Nifong and NC Crime Lab to name two) I've learned to look at things from both sides.
Just watched a true story on HBO. "Conviction" with Hillary Swank

 

[SmoothOperator]

1-scratching does not make him a murderer.
2-I dont' think we really know Stephen McDaniel.................do we???? I mean are we no different than the 2 who said he WAS capable of murder and the 2 who DID NOT THINK he capable? Which ones are we?

1-Nowhere was it ever mentioned that "scratching makes him a murderer".. That is not mentioned or stated in the post of which you are referencing..

2- "we" are none of the 4 you speak of.. I do not know who you are but I am a poster here at Websleuths that believes that LE has the correct man that committed the crimes that he is charged.. I believe the evidence thus far continues to point to that man and patiently await as more will come to light throughout a trial that will take place before a jury of his peers..

Hope that Helps

 

[Wondergirl]

I would like to know if LE is following through on the "methods to avoid detection" part of SM's "hypothetical plan" enough to actually discern where the rest of poor Lauren's remains are?

Hoping his "hypotheticals" might prove enlightening in some regard.

 

[pearl]

From a purely educational setting standpoint, repeatedly scratching other people should be a concern with SM. One time could be an accident, even two maybe. The third one would tell me this person has a problem. Fingernail scratches can bring staph infections, etc. This would indicate to me that the scratcher likes to hurt people. Anyone experiencing a well placed scratch knows that it hurts, sometimes badly. I am no mental health professional but have vast experience with young people. I have found that young people who repeatedly inflict physical pain on other people like doing so.

 

[PsychoMom]

From a purely educational setting standpoint, repeatedly scratching other people should be a concern with SM. One time could be an accident, even two maybe. The third one would tell me this person has a problem. Fingernail scratches can bring staph infections, etc. This would indicate to me that the scratcher likes to hurt people. Anyone experiencing a well placed scratch knows that it hurts, sometimes badly. I am no mental health professional but have vast experience with young people. I have found that young people who repeatedly inflict physical pain on other people like doing so.

Have we read that he intentionally scratched people? In that article, I felt it could go either way. Like "those dang fingernails got in the way all the time" or "he was crazy, scratching at people when he was acting goofy with them." I didn't get it was with malice from the way it was presented.

 

[al66pine]

3doglady

re early July contact by TM to LE, MPD.

From article, in Aug. 2007 for semester of being roommates---

"Money, a political science major, would finish college in Macon. McDaniel, his roommate,
was on full scholarship, a business major bound for law school.​

"One of Money’s former Mercer professors got in touch with him in early July."
(BBM)
----------------------------------------
TM may have had law classes in poli-sci program, but not necessarily a law school prof. who contacted him last month. ​

This distinction may have no value, relevance, or even truth, IDK.​

http://www.macon.com/2011/08/30/1682872/ex-roommate-saw-2-sides-of-mcdaniel.html#ixzz1WYjxRWHs​

​

 

[bessie]

It is interesting to think if this crime had never happened, McD's youth would have been considered 'quirky.' His interest in various plots would have seemed 'eccentric.' Even his reported interest in murder and mayhem would have been seen as a great review for his career path. Learn how the criminal mind works, so as a prosecutor, you can recognize certain things. Just about everything he has said or done could be turned into a positive if this crime had not happened.

"This crime" did not just happen, it was committed. A brutal murderer stole the life of a young woman with a good heart and a promising future in a horrific manner. Those close to her, friends and family, were robbed of her friendship and compassion, and all the beautiful gifts she shared with them. Further, the rest of their lives will be haunted by nightmares of how she might have suffered. To those of us who are offended by the injustice committed against Lauren and her family, scrutiny of her accused offender seems warranted.

 

[pearl]

Have we read that he intentionally scratched people? In that article, I felt it could go either way. Like "those dang fingernails got in the way all the time" or "he was crazy, scratching at people when he was acting goofy with them." I didn't get it was with malice from the way it was presented.

My interpretation is that he did it intentionally. The people interviewed said he would scratch people. Makes me think he did it intentionally because they probably would not remember it well enough to tell it years later if it was done accidentally. This tells me that it was noticeable.

Did he do it to people who could have pounded him into the ground or to people he felt were weaker than him? My money goes to scratching those who were not likely to retaliate physically.

 

[al66pine]

Possible Meanings Username SoL reportedly used on multiple websites

As others suggested, a tie-in w. his membership in local chapter:
Sons of Liberty

SoL use was concurrent w. L/S, perhaps even pre-L/S app., & if he likes word play:
Standard of Law
Scope of Liability (one of the op******.org posters asked about username SoL
and said he himself used SoL as abbrevtn for Scope of Liability)



A private joke, posting I-can-get-away-with-it theory, with this username.
Statute of Limitations (some states have no Stat. of Limtn. on murder)
Statement of Liability (prophetically but unintentionally ironic, if judge allows st. to put SMcD’s op******.org website posts into evidence.)

His fantasy / WoW / video-internet-gaming hobbies:
Samurai of Legend (to go w. his chain mail?)

Survivalist, not necessarily a zombie-invasion tie-in (what I know of ZI's = 0 or .google1%)
Survive Outdoors Longer, a product pack from Adventure Medical.

Plain old acronym:
Short on Luck
Sooner or Later

Nothing at all?

Another post which may lack any relevance or meaning to solving crime now,
but perhaps of some value later.


If others have more suggestions for username tie-ins and w/like them added, I will.

 

[bessie]

Possible Meanings Username SoL reportedly used on multiple websites

As others suggested, a tie-in w. his membership in local chapter:
Sons of Liberty

SoL use was concurrent w. L/S, perhaps even pre-L/S app., & if he likes word play:
Standard of Law
Scope of Liability (one of the op******.org posters asked about username SoL
and said he himself used SoL as abbrevtn for Scope of Liability)



A private joke, posting I-can-get-away-with-it theory, with this username.
Statute of Limitations (some states have no Stat. of Limtn. on murder)
Statement of Liability (prophetically but unintentionally ironic, if judge allows st. to put SMcD’s op******.org website posts into evidence.)

His fantasy / WoW / video-internet-gaming hobbies:
Samurai of Legend (to go w. his chain mail?)

Survivalist, not necessarily a zombie-invasion tie-in (what I know of ZI's = 0 or .google1%)
Survive Outdoors Longer, a product pack from Adventure Medical.

Plain old acronym:
Short on Luck
Sooner or Later

Nothing at all?

Another post which may lack any relevance or meaning to solving crime now,
but perhaps of some value later.


If others have more suggestions for username tie-ins and w/like them added, I will.

He posted the meaning behind his user name. I believe you can find that post downstairs.

 

[pearl]

Possible Meanings Username SoL reportedly used on multiple websites

cut for brevity



If others have more suggestions for username tie-ins and w/like them added, I will.

I my neck of the woods, Sol means s++t out of luck

 

[SmoothOperator]

I, too have thought on the portion of the warrant that states that Stephen had spoken or boasted about how he could commit the perfect murder and that much of the details of Laurens murder fit with those statements made..

I had thought on this long before TM came to our knowledge in this past week.. I had thought about what context would best make sense or be most appropriate for it to be used as a comparison of the known Circumstances and details of Lauren's murder including concealing and/or disposing of the evidence including the body.. And before TM came to be known we had the OpChan postings that some brought into question were these possible what LE was referring to in the warrant of having to compare to the actual events of the murder and cover up.. Several talked about the weakness there would likely be in that if it were the posts.. I agreed with the posts being very weak and that they would, if in any way similar to what we read, not be in their original correct context.. Therefor being a major problem IMO..

At that point I then thought of what were the alternatives besides the posts.. And of course one of those obvious alternatives would be the word of another/other individual(s) to whom Stephen, himself had a very detailed conversation in which he laid all of these details out.. In thinking on this I began to think about the individual to which Stephen shared the details and what would be the context of the conversation for Stephen to feel it appropriate to detail these methods for a "perfect murder".. I must say I , too originally felt as tho that may not make too solid of a piece of evidence having basically one persons word vs. Stephen's word obviously denying such(or one would think he'd deny but actually who knows he blurted out his admitting he bought Stanley hacksaw.. So he may well admit these details as well).. And IMO he might just ought to admit it anyway because now how the situation actually took place and came about IMO is going to play out in court to be extremely solid as well as extremely damning!! Why? Its because of a few things.. One, being I believe just as pearl stated upthread that LE has already thoroughly vetted TM and I believe this was done prior to that arrest warrant ever even being brought before a judge to officially issue the warrant for murder, charging Stephen.. I believe that if there were questionable acts in TM's past that would call into question the validity of his testimony they would not, nor did they have to use to seek the murder warrant.. Their choosing to do so IMO says that TM's character is of that which will stand up in a court of law up against a defense Attys cross examination..

And not only do I believe that TM was vetted thereby further validating his testimony I also believe that Stephen's having been so very obsessed with this particular issue and just as TM states he told it excitedly and tirelessly to the point of people having to interrupt and say they'd heard enough!! This not only due the repetitive nature in which Stephen told this.. It not only better solidifies the details in TM's mind, making them easier to recall and much more detail remembered than say if he'd only heard the plan just a time or two.. It all brings into the equation that there are more than just TM that would have heard this perfect murder plan.. Which we all know the unity in numbers is always a positive in a situation such as this..

So, you take into account all of these ^above^ described details *and combine with them the actual account given to LE by TM so very early into the investigation(meaning prior to leaked or publicized evidence) and that account being half as accurate of what I believe it to be, and IMO it is not only rock solid in it's validity and accuracy but also extremely explosive in nature speaking of downright damning of Stephen's weak denial of any involvement in the murder!!

If you think about this "perfect murder plan" and it's obvious depraved and extreme nature(and that's just from what publicly is known about the nature of this murder).. So in being told a hypo murder plan with that level of depravity I'd say even hearing it one time it would be something likely to stick with you in your mind(FCS just the dismemberment alone IMO).. But we now know there was not just one, single occasion that Stephen laid out the details excitedly to his "perfect murder plan".. We now know it was stated and told in great detail with exuberant excitement(which IMO would be only further disturbing to witness an individual stating a detailed murder plan with if not almost glee and giddiness, then at the very least excitement.. That too only further cementing it in one's mind).. And told numerous times, to numerous people.. Details of an extreme depravity told on numerous occasions IMO is something that very few would EVER forget.. Much less just 3 yrs later the man that excitedly told his perfect murder plan repeatedly was now charged in the homicide of his classmate and neighbor!!!.. I'd say that any individual even having heard Stephens excitedly told detailed murder plot even one, single, solitary time would upon hearing of that man charged with homicide 3 yrs later those extreme details would come flooding into one's mind IMMEDIATELY!!!!!

And TM's having had to hear it numerous occasions, is there really doubt that he had trouble remembering his roommates excitedly told detailed plan of the perfect murder?????
Would you??(rhetorical question obviously)

Him telling LE the details of his ex roommates well known plan I'm certain was a little jawdropping for the officers and investigators that first heard TM's acct.. My feeling and opinion is that for LE to put this in the murder warrant it not only means they have well and thoroughly vetted TM, but more importantly that major and significant details match step for step with TM's exact account of his ex roomie's perfect murder plan.. As I said he came forward early as soon as he learned of his ex roomie being even a POI in his classmate/neighbor's murder.. Add to that TM is no where even in the vicinity of Macon.. Not even in the state of Georgia does he even reside anymore.. He is in a different state that has not and certainly did not early on have any media attn at that level.. Imo helping to Just further validate that the details to which he gave investigators were only derived from one, individual source... Stephen McDaniel, IMO the killer himself is where TM's detailed plan told to authorities was derived..*

It's those detailed plans step for step that IMO many will identically match and be consistent with what has been discovered throughout the investigation into Lauren's murder..

It's because of all of these things I just described ^above^ I feel that TM's testimony against Stephen will NOT ONLY be one of the strongest, most solid .. but one of the most damning pieces of evidence that we'll see at trial as well..

To clarify.. Tho as strong and solid as I believe this to be IMO we still have yet to see what is some of the key forensic evidence that will directly tie Stephen to Lauren's murder.. IMO we will not see those key pieces of evidence until the appropriate time of it being brought before a jury of his peers in a court of law..

 

[Backwoods]

PsychoMom - this is what I am talking about - Looking at the trees and not the forest.

Thad Money is a law abiding citizen.
Thad Money has not been charged with murder and dismemberment, 2 counts of burglary, or 7 counts of child pornagraphy aka pedophilia .
Thad Money has stepped up to the plate to give assistance to LE on the case so that the Giddings may get some justice.

http://www.edwardjones.com/en_US/fa/index.html&CIRN=520004

I think what PsychoMom is saying is that if there are any trees in the forest that don't fit it with the "native flora", the defense will be sure to try to point them out...so, what could they be?

 

[PsychoMom]

"This crime" did not just happen, it was committed. A brutal murderer stole the life of a young woman with a good heart and a promising future in a horrific manner. Those close to her, friends and family, were robbed of her friendship and compassion, and all the beautiful gifts she shared with them. Further, the rest of their lives will be haunted by nightmares of how she might have suffered. To those of us who are offended by the injustice committed against Lauren and her family, scrutiny of her accused offender seems warranted.

Wow. Really. Wow. I never said anything about anyone in that. I agree this crime happened. And I agree scrutiny is warranted. I was looking at how something that would be meaningless could suddenly have major importance. I am really surprised this was taken as something personal. It was an observation on how things can matter depending on the situation.

I am talking hypothetically. If we were charged with a crime, how would our actions be perceived. I am not saying he is innocent. Not at all. Though, if, by some chance, McD did not commit this crime, then will it change how his behaviors are perceived? Just food for thought. I thought I was pretty clear that it was just a thought process about things. How something simple could be turned into a precursor to future violence in the right situation.

 

[Backwoods]

BBM: This has me a little confused, and I do wonder if it is the reporting, or an interpretation of the warrant?

I take it just to mean that Money's story (and any similar ones that come out, if they do) are part of the corraboration for the part of the warrant that reads: "Accused has previously commented that he could commit murder and provided details of methods to avoid detection which are similar to the facts and circumstances surrounding the killing of Lauren Giddings."

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

My interpretation is that he did it intentionally. The people interviewed said he would scratch people. Makes me think he did it intentionally because they probably would not remember it well enough to tell it years later if it was done accidentally. This tells me that it was noticeable.

Did he do it to people who could have pounded him into the ground or to people he felt were weaker than him? My money goes to scratching those who were not likely to retaliate physically.

Not likely to retaliate but would give a satisfying reaction (pay attention, squeal, say "Ow!" or whatever). I am picturing how some little boys (I guess girls can do this to) pinch the arms or pull pigtails or poke other kids. Sigh...it was often my pigtails. They do it cuz they get attention and the satisfaction of some kind of reaction...guess some people never outgrow it. :twocents: Difference (besides obviously the age) is, some little girls (not me) are flattered by the attention of the cute little boy tugging her hair. I can't really see anyone having any kind of remotely positive reaction to being scratched by a grown man.

 

[Backwoods]

I don't think they lack common sense. I was responding to their disbelief that I might challenge him as being perfect. We don't know if he is perfect. That is my concern. If they want to worship him, I guess they can.

As for the comments, I didn't really take too much stock in them until I dug and dug and dug. I found something connecting him personally to the screen name being used. And I never said his comments were bad, just that he didn't need to comment. That includes the article they wrote. If he is part of the case, then he needs to not be discussing all of that stuff.

I would truly like for you to show me where I said anything bad about TM.

I've already stated that, barring any unforeseen developments, I found TM likely to be a very valuable witness for the prosecution, particularly if others can be rounded up to support what he says about SM talking to practically anyone who will listen about "the perfect murder."

But it is natural for him to be under scrutiny, from MANY sources, now that he has been indentified as being a possibly very important prosecution witness. I don't see how PsychoMom's wanting to discuss this topic in any way disrespects TM or other posters' opinions or intelligence.