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

[Knox]

I agree. We all have a right to post our thoughts in a respectful way. Negative posts have been made both ways. Just look at what has been posted on this one page. I have been accused of being Glenda M and told that my opinions were false because I questioned the evidence.

Yeppers, so now let's get back to discussing the case

 

[SmoothOperator]

I agree. We all have a right to post our thoughts in a respectful way. Negative posts have been made both ways. Just look at what has been posted on this one page. I have been accused of being Glenda M and told that my opinions were false because I questioned the evidence.

Well ATLEAST you were spared having to have yourself referred to and even a picture to illustrate that you were one, big, ol', ugly, beast of a bird looking creature (some may call it an ostrich) with her head buried up into the sand to boot!!!

Lol..Lolol..:floorlaugh:...lol..lol hehehhehehehe!!!:floorlaugh:
* just a little humor for the way too worked up room.. I promise I wasn't offended by anybig ol' bird references..lol:floorlaugh:

 

[bessie]

I was indirectly told I was like an ostrich, but I didn't complain.
respectfully snipped

I think all the personal references to each other just need to stop.

:floorlaugh: I'm sorry, Knox, that hit my funny bone.

I totally agree. Now that we've all had a chance to voice our grievances, can we please get back to discussing the case?

 

[Knox]

Still, Money said, other people have also heard McDaniel mention perfect-murder scenarios.

“Stephen would get really excited when he told his version,” Money said. “So excited that sometimes we’d have to shut him down in the middle of it. Like, ‘Dude, you’re freaking us out too much.’ ”

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2011/08/30/1682872/ex-roommate-saw-2-sides-of-mcdaniel.html#ixzz1WZaRJ6bv​

It will interesting to see if other people start popping up in the media to say they also heard McD talk about his plan.

I do think Money needs to lay low now, until after the trial.

 

[3doglady]

What's your take on Patterson's reaction when Buford asked if he had DNA evidence from the FBI to support the murder charge. The first time I watched it I thought he hesitated to answer because he did not want to admit that there is no evidence. The second time I watched, I got the impression that he may know something(not DNA) that he did not want to divulge. I need to watch that part again to see exactly how Buford phrased the question.

 

[PsychoMom]

I know exactly what you meant, but I felt it necessary to illustrate a point. When we choose to speculate from one angle or another, our statements should not be interpreted to mean we are incapable of viewing the picture from all sides.

To be perfectly fair, the post was not about anything other than how our actions could be perceived if we were ever in a situation where we found ourselves accused of a crime. It was absolutely not anything to do about anyone being incapable of anything. I think you might need to re-read the post you are talking about. I really was not responding to anybody in particular. It was a pure observation about the nature of the beast when it comes to being involved in the legal system. By discussing the speculation angle part, it wasn't there other than how our own actions might be looked at by the public.

If you can point out where I said anything about people being incapable of viewing the picture from all sides in that one particular post (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7080855&postcount=514), I will see if I can come up with different wording for that part.

 

[bessie]

It will interesting to see if other people start popping up in the media to say they also heard McD talk about his plan.

I do think Money needs to lay low now, until after the trial.

The article was good because it confirmed the timeline for us. SuperSleuth had pointed out a discrepancy, and I was glad to see it clarified and to gain a little more insight into the nature of the testimony and its source. I'm confident LE has performed its own scrutiny of the witness, and I have a good feeling about his credibility. But I do have reservations about the exposure, and agree TM should decline further interviews for the time being.

 

[Knox]

What's your take on Patterson's reaction when Buford asked if he had DNA evidence from the FBI to support the murder charge. The first time I watched it I thought he hesitated to answer because he did not want to admit that there is no evidence. The second time I watched, I got the impression that he may know something(not DNA) that he did not want to divulge. I need to watch that part again to see exactly how Buford phrased the question.

Can you post the time on the video this is at?

ETA; The video I have ends at 35:43, I think the question is posed after that. On another note, who is Patterson looking at when he glances to the left, lol. Is he getting play signals from Winters?

 

[bessie]

To be perfectly fair, the post was not about anything other than how our actions could be perceived if we were ever in a situation where we found ourselves accused of a crime. It was absolutely not anything to do about anyone being incapable of anything. I think you might need to re-read the post you are talking about. I really was not responding to anybody in particular. It was a pure observation about the nature of the beast when it comes to being involved in the legal system. By discussing the speculation angle part, it wasn't there other than how our own actions might be looked at by the public.

If you can point out where I said anything about people being incapable of viewing the picture from all sides in that one particular post (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7080855&postcount=514), I will see if I can come up with different wording for that part.

You didn't. I deliberately worded my post to show how easily our words can be misconstrued, and to show how bad it feels to be on the receiving end.

There's been a lot of mud slung around this thread today. Maybe it was a good thing to clear the air. I hope so. But now we really need to move on. No one should feel afraid to post here no matter what their opinion. But we do need to think before we post and put ourselves in others' shoes to consider how our words will be perceived.

 

[3doglady]

Can you post the time on the video this is at?

ETA; The video I have ends at 35:43, I think the question is posed after that. On another note, who is Patterson looking at when he glances to the left, lol. Is he getting play signals from Winters?

This is the entire video http://videos.macon.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=108495641&item_index=1&all=1&sort=NULL

Sorry I can't tell you the time. It will not allow me to fast forward. I think Patterson is looking at Winters too. When Buford asks if the FBI found SM's DNA on the hacksaw Patterson gets nervous and starts wiggling his fingers, takes a long time to say " Not that I'm aware of". I can't tell if he's reluctant to admit there was no forensic evidence or if he's debating with himself how to answer. Buford's next question was if he had received a written report to which he quickly answered no. Seems like the FBI would have had plenty of time to send a report which makes me wonder if they are stalling for a reason.

When I watched it the last time I realized that LG's boyfriend is in the video. This must be horrible for him. Are the two men sitting in the box next to the windows spectators? I've never seen that type sitting area in a courtroom before.

 

[Backwoods]

Are we certain that by now LE has been able to obtain a legally usable sample of SM's DNA for any comparisons?

I asked about this a while back, how that would happen, and bessie posted some very good references ... but do we know that it has happened?

 

[Backwoods]

This is the entire video http://videos.macon.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=108495641&item_index=1&all=1&sort=NULL

Sorry I can't tell you the time. It will not allow me to fast forward. I think Patterson is looking at Winters too. When Buford asks if the FBI found SM's DNA on the hacksaw Patterson gets nervous and starts wiggling his fingers, takes a long time to say no. I can't tell if he's reluctant to admit there was no forensic evidence or if he's debating with himself how to answer. Buford's next question was if he had received a written report to which he quickly answered no. Seems like the FBI would have had plenty of time to send a report which makes me wonder if they are stalling for a reason.

When I watched it the last time I realized that LG's boyfriend is in the video. This must be horrible for him. Are the two men sitting in the box next to the windows spectators? I've never seen that type sitting area in a courtroom before.

about the bolded: Do you mean, for example, like waiting until the commitment hearing was past?

 

[3doglady]

about the bolded: Do you mean, for example, like waiting until the commitment hearing was past?

Yes, during the Anthony trial, the FBI held some written reports as long as possible so the DT would have less time to prepare. Usually the law requires that the DT get discovery by a certain time but I've seen several cases where the FBI refused to release written reports.

I'm editing Patterson's answer in my earlier post. He didn't say no, he said "Not that I'm aware of"

 

[Backwoods]

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.

about what I bolded: One thing that's never been very clear to me from the reports of these scratching incidents is just how old he was when they happened. Those interviewed seem to be people who had known him (to whatever extent they did) for a fairly long period of time (went to school with him) -- wondering from what age they remember the behavior and whether it continued over time.

 

[Backwoods]

Yes, during the Anthony trial, the FBI held some written reports as long as possible so the DT would have less time to prepare. Usually the law requires that the DT get discovery by a certain time but I've seen several cases where the FBI refused to release written reports.

I'm editing Patterson's answer in my earlier post. He didn't say no, he said "Not that I'm aware of"

Thanks. I didn't follow the Anthony trial (beyond occasionally hearing an MSM report), so that info is helpful. Does sound like something of that sort is a possibility here...

 

[SouthernKate]

I've mentioned before my concern about Detective Patterson's capabilities to answer questions (especially in trial) in a way that would benefit the prosecution. With TM's story, we now have another blunder - TM was McD's college undergrad roomate, not law school. I am really worrying that Buford's questioning of him at trial (if and when we get there) is going to leave him looking like he did at the commitment hearing - awkward and somewhat clueless.

I will reiterate that I am very glad TM came forward and he seems very credible. However, for benefit at trial, he need not do many more interviews or reveal specifics (which he has NOT done yet) or else he could potentially lose credibility.

I was going to jump in earlier this afternoon, but the negative and argumentative tone kept me away. Hope we're all back on track.

Oh, and I definitely think that they have more witnesses other than TM that have heard similar stories from McD. If he talked about it that much, I'm sure there are plenty of other students who could offer up info.

 

[SouthernKate]

This is the entire video http://videos.macon.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=108495641&item_index=1&all=1&sort=NULL

Sorry I can't tell you the time. It will not allow me to fast forward. I think Patterson is looking at Winters too. When Buford asks if the FBI found SM's DNA on the hacksaw Patterson gets nervous and starts wiggling his fingers, takes a long time to say " Not that I'm aware of". I can't tell if he's reluctant to admit there was no forensic evidence or if he's debating with himself how to answer. Buford's next question was if he had received a written report to which he quickly answered no. Seems like the FBI would have had plenty of time to send a report which makes me wonder if they are stalling for a reason.

When I watched it the last time I realized that LG's boyfriend is in the video. This must be horrible for him. Are the two men sitting in the box next to the windows spectators? I've never seen that type sitting area in a courtroom before.

I didn't realize it was him until I clicked through 13WMAZ's photo gallery from the hearing (it was linked here - I'll see if I can find it) and they had him labeled. Then I went back and watched the video knowing it was him - so, so sad. Can't imagine what he must be going through, the pain must be unbearable. That's why justice needs to be done - her loved ones need closure. I hope it will be done - and swiftly.

 

[SouthernKate]

Any thoughts as to why the McD's have become quiet? I have my own theories, but just wondering about others.

Are they finally listening to Buford? He had tried to silence Mrs. McD in that earlier hearing where she wanted to speak. Perhaps they are finally listening to the legal advice?

 

[ehmadpotter]

Any thoughts as to why the McD's have become quiet? I have my own theories, but just wondering about others.

Are they finally listening to Buford? He had tried to silence Mrs. McD in that earlier hearing where she wanted to speak. Perhaps they are finally listening to the legal advice?

In addition to maybe finally heeding the advice of Buford, perhaps they are finally begining to question their adamant, staunch 100% belief in poor wittle Stephen's innocence?

 

[AgentFrankLundy]

In addition to maybe finally heeding the advice of Buford, perhaps they are finally begining to question their adamant, staunch 100% belief in poor wittle Stephen's innocence?

I think both may be true . I sure hope the first one is , and the second , I believe it is finally sinking in that the son they knew had a dark passenger that they never met , until now. I do feel sorry for them , and everything they have gone through with their daughter and now with SM. They really did deserve better .