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

[AgentFrankLundy]

I wanted to point out that the above underlined statement in this article is incorrect.
If you watch the video of the commitment hearing, at around 28:45,
Detective Patterson testified that TM was SM's roommate during SM's first year of law school
and states he believes this was 2008.
It can be confirmed that TM graduated from Mercer in 2009.

I have notified the Telegraph of this error, so we'll probably see a correction soon.

I thought it was important whether the Thaddeus Money roommate situation was 2004-5 or 2008-9 as well. Who can remember what was told to them six years prior? IIRC, it seems SM has lived by himself at BH all three years of law school. Did Thaddeus Money approach LE and volunteer this information or did LE in their questioning of folks that knew SM come across TM , call him up and ask him if he recalls any strange conversations with McD. I myself might have had conversations with folks about how to commit the perfect murder four or five years ago, I don't remember. If TM recalled a conversation involving not only the perfect murder but also zombie invasions, I find it odd LE chose to include this as part of a warrant for murder, relying on some guys 5 or 6 year old memory. Who's to say TM is credible anyway ? Anybody got any poop on this guy ? Sounds like he will be on the witness stand at some point.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

Buford doesn't need to find out whether chloroform was used. He knows it was not. OR, he knows that it was used and that it was disposed of prior to the search of SMD's apartment. Either way, there is no point in his asking because he doesn't have anything to learn. If chloroform WAS used in fact, then he certainly doesn't want to ask this question because a positive answer would prove the DA's point -- that the roommate's story about SMD's "plan" was exactly what happened to LG.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you here.
Buford should not know whether or not a toxicology report was performed
or whether LE has gotten those results back or what those results may show.
If he were to know for sure chloroform was not used, he would still be able to gain
some knowledge about what LE has. I doubt he could be certain it wasn't used,
especially if he's relying on SM's word about this (I wouldn't if I were him).
If chloroform was used, then he certainly does need to know if those tests were done
and if they do in fact show that this was used. Buford knows he has NO chance of getting
the warrant thrown out at this hearing. The burden of proof for probable cause is too low.
His primary goal at this hearing is to find out everything he can about the DA's case.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

I thought it was important whether the Thaddeus Money roommate situation was 2004-5 or 2008-9 as well. Who can remember what was told to them six years prior? IIRC, it seems SM has lived by himself at BH all three years of law school. Did Thaddeus Money approach LE and volunteer this information or did LE in their questioning of folks that knew SM come across TM , call him up and ask him if he recalls any strange conversations with McD. I myself might have had conversations with folks about how to commit the perfect murder four or five years ago, I don't remember. If TM recalled a conversation involving not only the perfect murder but also zombie invasions, I find it odd LE chose to include this as part of a warrant for murder, relying on some guys 5 or 6 year old memory. Who's to say TM is credible anyway ? Anybody got any poop on this guy ? Sounds like he will be on the witness stand at some point.

I'm pretty sure it would be against the rules to sleuth him and post those finding here.
But, just that quote above from the Telegraph article has enough info in it to find him - he's not hiding

 

[SmoothOperator]

Thanks SS for that meticulous transcription of an indeed area of importance that seems to have been purposefully removed.. Of course the question is why was it removed? I have a hard time believing it was removed due to it being irrelevant.. much the opposite IMO is that it is infact a highly sensitive detail..but concerning what and to what extent is still a mystery at this time..

Something we do know however that was stated in the arrest warrant is the blood/DNA on the hacksaw belonging to the victim, which was located using a masterkey found in the defendant's possession to unlock a stoarage closet where the hacksaw was found.. Along with packaging matching that exact make, model, and brand were found to have been located in the defendant's apt.. We also know that it states that the FBI's crime lab is where the results came from positively identifying the blood/DNA on the blade of the saw to have been the victim, Lauren's..

So, when the exchange begins[and that we are missing key info that has been removed from the "uncut" video of the hearing] and we know Buford is wanting to know if they have received any results from the testing that would give probable cause in the arrest warrant??

And as we know there is reluctance seemingly all around this specific issue by Patterson/Winters.. part of it being overruled, part of it being sustained.. Patterson eventually giving testimony that yes the electronic forensics has given them a positive result..Then Buford arguing is it relevant to the exact charge of murder or something other..

So, is Buford asking for additional testing results than that which are clearly stated in the warrant[i.e. DNA, hacksaw, packaging].. He certainly doesn't appear to have worded it that way, as if wanting something additional to that result...IMO..

So, why then was it not stated in response to his question..yes, we received results from the crime lab that went towards probable cause in that a hacksaw was located using a key in the defendant's possession to open a locked storage closet..and on that hacksaw, which we found packaging of the identical make, model, and brand in the defendant's apt..on the blade of that Stanley hacksaw was tested and found to be positive results for blood/DNA of the victim, Lauren????????????????

Why move to a completely different piece of evidence to which they, too have already received the results of a positive nature indicating or implicating Stephen in the murder regarding electronic communications???? Which was followed with only more confusion as to what those results would be specifically indicative or implicate the defendant in which of the now 10 felony charges that he is charged with..IMO..seemed it was being said it was somehow involved with the murder charge but definitely confusion as to specifics????

I would like to hear how others who possibly have more experience than myself in the intricate workings of our court rooms, would describe or explain what exactly was taking place in that exchange..as well as any ideas on what would have been purposefully removed from the "uncut" video of the hearing.. Who and why would have made these edits??

Moving on to another area that was only briefly touched on in the hearing is the proposed notion that there are just masterkeys floating around out there and are given out NOT irregularly.. alluded to this would not have been the least bit unusual for the defendant to have "unknowingly" had in his possession.. I disagree with this as its being alluded to in that when the question is asked of Patterson are there multiple masterkeys possessed by multiple people that he states yes.. This is no new or bombshell piece of evidence or even "new" knowledge..but rather knowledge we have had since literal days from the onset of the entire discovery of the torso and investigation that immediately began on or about June 30..

Boni and Marty Bush, brother and sister co-owners of Barrister Hall apt complex. BOTH OF THEM stated very early on that there were "multiple" masterkeys" and exactly who the "multiple" people were that had in their possession a masterkey to all doors in the complex.. Those people were Boni, Marty, and the apt's property manager.. Those 3 people had masterkeys in their possession.. That IMO is why it is stated under oath and in court as fact that yes, there are multiple people who had a masterkey to the complex.. There were multiple, there were 3 people and that has been stated since literally a few days into the investigation..

One other point of discussion is the cadaver dogs and their search and positive hits for human decomp in 3 different apt units at BH.. I still have not had answered[and don't know if I will have answered til some point at trial]..and that is that "something" led to the decision of the dogs being led into a completely neutral[from all appearances] apt separate, and on a separate floor from those apts searched of the victim and the defendant.. I would like to know what technique, method, or mindset was used to have come to the decision of having the dogs search the totally separate, unrelated, and neutral, downstairs apt.. This IMO is critical as it definitely shows that there was some indication or at the very least interest in this specific 3rd apt that was searched.. Remember we know from all outward appearances literally nothing stood out of place or was indicative of the likely brutal crime that had taken place in these areas... So, what then led to the interest and then eventual decision to even have the cadaver dogs enter into this separate and seemingly totally unrelated apt in the complex..

Are the cadaver dogs able to alert to which areas need to be further searched? Meaning upon the testing beginning and their walking with the dog onto the property and to the actual complex would a dog be able to discern and therefor alert as to which way or what one to proceed entry into and then alert on the specific area{s} within each residence that thru scent they can easily discern has infact been in contact with human decomp at some point??
This is something I do not know and why I am inquiring as to what exactly are the capabilities that we are dealing with in speaking of the cadaver dogs??.. I would like to know and I think it could infact have bearing on what little we know at this point about the cadaver dog searches..or it could have zero bearing on it.. Either way IMO its something that one would benefit in knowing, period for as many cases that now involve the use of cadaver dog searches..

Thanks to anyone in advance who may be able to answer or give clarity to any of the above inquiries or details..

 

[Givsmetheshivers]

I thought it was important whether the Thaddeus Money roommate situation was 2004-5 or 2008-9 as well. Who can remember what was told to them six years prior? IIRC, it seems SM has lived by himself at BH all three years of law school. Did Thaddeus Money approach LE and volunteer this information or did LE in their questioning of folks that knew SM come across TM , call him up and ask him if he recalls any strange conversations with McD. I myself might have had conversations with folks about how to commit the perfect murder four or five years ago, I don't remember. If TM recalled a conversation involving not only the perfect murder but also zombie invasions, I find it odd LE chose to include this as part of a warrant for murder, relying on some guys 5 or 6 year old memory. Who's to say TM is credible anyway ? Anybody got any poop on this guy ? Sounds like he will be on the witness stand at some point.

People close to me had TM as a student and said he was a nice guy and a good student. Maybe it was one of those conversations that stuck out in TM's mind. Maybe when YOU tell someone something like that people just forget it because it is just a conversation. If you were a little off, people might have filed it away for future reference.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

Thanks SS for that meticulous transcription of an indeed area of importance that seems to have been purposefully removed.. Of course the question is why was it removed? I have a hard time believing it was removed due to it being irrelevant.. much the opposite IMO is that it is infact a highly sensitive detail..but concerning what and to what extent is still a mystery at this time..

Something we do know however that was stated in the arrest warrant is the blood/DNA on the hacksaw belonging to the victim, which was located using a masterkey found in the defendant's possession to unlock a stoarage closet where the hacksaw was found.. Along with packaging matching that exact make, model, and brand were found to have been located in the defendant's apt.. We also know that it states that the FBI's crime lab is where the results came from positively identifying the blood/DNA on the blade of the saw to have been the victim, Lauren's..

So, when the exchange begins[and that we are missing key info that has been removed from the "uncut" video of the hearing] and we know Buford is wanting to know if they have received any results from the testing that would give probable cause in the arrest warrant??

And as we know there is reluctance seemingly all around this specific issue by Patterson/Winters.. part of it being overruled, part of it being sustained.. Patterson eventually giving testimony that yes the electronic forensics has given them a positive result..Then Buford arguing is it relevant to the exact charge of murder or something other..

So, is Buford asking for additional testing results than that which are clearly stated in the warrant[i.e. DNA, hacksaw, packaging].. He certainly doesn't appear to have worded it that way, as if wanting something additional to that result...IMO..

So, why then was it not stated in response to his question..yes, we received results from the crime lab that went towards probable cause in that a hacksaw was located using a key in the defendant's possession to open a locked storage closet..and on that hacksaw, which we found packaging of the identical make, model, and brand in the defendant's apt..on the blade of that Stanley hacksaw was tested and found to be positive results for blood/DNA of the victim, Lauren????????????????

Why move to a completely different piece of evidence to which they, too have already received the results of a positive nature indicating or implicating Stephen in the murder regarding electronic communications???? Which was followed with only more confusion as to what those results would be specifically indicative or implicate the defendant in which of the now 10 felony charges that he is charged with..IMO..seemed it was being said it was somehow involved with the murder charge but definitely confusion as to specifics????

I would like to hear how others who possibly have more experience than myself in the intricate workings of our court rooms, would describe or explain what exactly was taking place in that exchange..as well as any ideas on what would have been purposefully removed from the "uncut" video of the hearing.. Who and why would have made these edits??

My suspicion is that Buford asked a question about whether something had been
received back from Quantico, and in his question he brought up a piece of evidence
that someone didn't want broadcast to the general public.
That, or it's just an honest equipment glitch.
I mean, the hearing was public. So, why try to hide something?
Unless they figured it wouldn't spread as fast???

In fact, I just remembered... :goldstar: AgentFrankLundy was at the hearing.
Found Deceased GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 2011 June 27 - #10 - Page 5 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Can you remember what these missing video clips might contain?

Moving on to another area that was only briefly touched on in the hearing is the proposed notion that there are just masterkeys floating around out there and are given out NOT irregularly.. alluded to this would not have been the least bit unusual for the defendant to have "unknowingly" had in his possession.. I disagree with this as its being alluded to in that when the question is asked of Patterson are there multiple masterkeys possessed by multiple people that he states yes.. This is no new or bombshell piece of evidence or even "new" knowledge..but rather knowledge we have had since literal days from the onset of the entire discovery of the torso and investigation that immediately began on or about June 30..

Boni and Marty Bush, brother and sister co-owners of Barrister Hall apt complex. BOTH OF THEM stated very early on that there were "multiple" masterkeys" and exactly who the "multiple" people were that had in their possession a masterkey to all doors in the complex.. Those people were Boni, Marty, and the apt's property manager.. Those 3 people had masterkeys in their possession.. That IMO is why it is stated under oath and in court as fact that yes, there are multiple people who had a masterkey to the complex.. There were multiple, there were 3 people and that has been stated since literally a few days into the investigation..

I'd have to watch it again, but I'm pretty sure Patterson never actually stated that DD had a master key.
When he was asked, his answer was "he had multiple keys", but he never said "yes".
When asked if DD had access to something, he said yes.
But I think he purposefully avoided stating he actually had a master key.

One other point of discussion is the cadaver dogs and their search and positive hits for human decomp in 3 different apt units at BH.. I still have not had answered[and don't know if I will have answered til some point at trial]..and that is that "something" led to the decision of the dogs being led into a completely neutral[from all appearances] apt separate, and on a separate floor from those apts searched of the victim and the defendant.. I would like to know what technique, method, or mindset was used to have come to the decision of having the dogs search the totally separate, unrelated, and neutral, downstairs apt.. This IMO is critical as it definitely shows that there was some indication or at the very least interest in this specific 3rd apt that was searched.. Remember we know from all outward appearances literally nothing stood out of place or was indicative of the likely brutal crime that had taken place in these areas... So, what then led to the interest and then eventual decision to even have the cadaver dogs enter into this separate and seemingly totally unrelated apt in the complex..

Are the cadaver dogs able to alert to which areas need to be further searched? Meaning upon the testing beginning and their walking with the dog onto the property and to the actual complex would a dog be able to discern and therefor alert as to which way or what one to proceed entry into and then alert on the specific area{s} within each residence that thru scent they can easily discern has infact been in contact with human decomp at some point??
This is something I do not know and why I am inquiring as to what exactly are the capabilities that we are dealing with in speaking of the cadaver dogs??.. I would like to know and I think it could infact have bearing on what little we know at this point about the cadaver dog searches..or it could have zero bearing on it.. Either way IMO its something that one would benefit in knowing, period for as many cases that now involve the use of cadaver dog searches..

Thanks to anyone in advance who may be able to answer or give clarity to any of the above inquiries or details..

I believe I remember Patterson stating that the dogs had hit outside SM's apt/door,
which was one reason given for searching his apt.
So, maybe they hit outside the door of Apt #1.
Because, I also remember him stating that although the dogs were not taken into
any other apts, but they were taken around the complex to all the apts.

 

[SmoothOperator]

I do NOT believe that DD has ever had a masterkey.. There is nothing that would indicate that he would.. He was nevere a property mgr..nor even a maintenance man..he was nothing but a resident contact.. So he would not be included in the 3 ppl that the owners state have masterkeys.. property manager Is someone else..someone to my knowledge that we havent even heard the name of.. but thats strictly going by the owners themselves statements.. But DD and property mgr are NOT THE SAME PERSON..IMO..

Another thing that only further corroborates that DD is NOT the property mgr is the fact that Stephen stated that he'd asked the "property mgr" to participate as a juror in the mock trial, but that the property mgr would not be able to due to his construction job hours in the evening.. So, are we really to believe a second year law student, DD is a fulltime law student, a resident contact, an entire apt complex property mgr, as well as works a construction job.. I hardly believe thats even a remote possibility..not even speaking of the fact that the rules would not allow for another law student to be a "juror" in the mock trial..DD being a law student wouldn't have even been able to be considered as a possible "juror"..someone said..well.. he couldve played another role in Stephen's mock trial..but that is not what Stephen stated.. Stephen stated the only two roles that he needed filled were for "2 jurors".. All of that just further corroborating that DD at no time ever possessed masterkeys to BH apts..

 

[Wondergirl]

Was SM's former roommate TM alarmed by SM's prior conversations about committing the perfect murder?

Did TM ever inform anyone else or express concern about SM's ideas?

 

[PsychoMom]

Have to say, this is pretty clear.

The detective said landlord Boni Bush told him several people, including resident David Doore, had access to a master key. People in the complex also knew that Giddings kept a key outside her apartment, she said.

http://decatur.11alive.com/news/news/79020-decatur-murder-charges-move-forward-agnes-scott-alums-death

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

Was SM's former roommate TM alarmed by SM's prior conversations about committing the perfect murder?

Did TM ever inform anyone else or express concern about SM's ideas?

This would depend on the individual and other behaviors.
At that time, TM may not have felt that SM was actually capable of committing the crime he was theorizing about.
Plenty of people theorize about how to get away with murder or other crimes.
I've done it. It's just an exercise in intellect. I would never act out those theories.
(I think I've said that 3 or 4 times now... may have to make it my signature :crazy
It's only when someone who speaks of these things becomes more and more graphic
and obsessed with the idea, and displays other disturbing behavior that you would
start to become concerned about it. And even then, most people wouldn't want to
think that someone would actually do it - especially if it's someone close to you.
From what I've seen so far looking through his OpChan posts, I don't know that he was
displaying enough disturbing behavior (at least outwardly) at that time to cause immediate concern.
In fact, he may not have right to the end. I'm definitely seeing an escalation in his writing
in the years before the murder. But, not having known him (and not many really did during
that time), he still may have kept this hidden within well enough.
Unfortunately, as someone else pointed out a few weeks ago, it's very possible that
LG was the only one to really see this. And her very nature, and the fact that she would
be gone soon, kept her from acting upon her own intuition.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

Have to say, this is pretty clear.

The detective said landlord Boni Bush told him several people, including resident David Doore, had access to a master key. People in the complex also knew that Giddings kept a key outside her apartment, she said.

http://decatur.11alive.com/news/new...-charges-move-forward-agnes-scott-alums-death

These are the reporters words, not Detective Patterson's.
Watch the hearing, at 21:15, and I think you'll see that he does not state that DD had a master key.
He is asked this twice and both times he answers "he had multiple keys".
He purposefully avoids directly answering this question in the affirmative.

McDaniel Commitment Hearing Uncut
http://videos.macon.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=108495641&item_index=1&all=1&sort=NULL

ETA: don't make me transcribe it :viking:

Correction:
He was asked twice whether DD had a master key.
His first response was that DD had "multiple keys"
His second response was that DD had "a lot of keys"
(see full transcription)

 

[PsychoMom]

These are the reporters words, not Detective Patterson's.
Watch the hearing, at 21:15, and I think you'll see that he does not state that DD had a master key.
He is asked this twice and both times he answers "he had multiple keys".
He purposefully avoids directly answering this question in the affirmative.


ETA: don't make me transcribe it :viking:

I wouldn't want to either. I am trying to locate one online, though. I have seen the statement in multiple articles. I have to wonder if it was stated somewhere and then cut.


Another link: http://www.newscentralga.com/news/local/DAs-Office-Gets-to-Proceed-with-Murder-Charge-Against-McDaniel-128470773.html

Attorney Floyd Buford brought up several points concerning the master key to the complex and mentioned that a few people were aware of the spare key Giddings kept outside her apartment. He also got Patterson to confirm that several people could have been in possession of a master key including a student maintenance contact, David Dorer, who is now a third year law student at Mercer.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

I wouldn't want to either. I am trying to locate one online, though. I have seen the statement in multiple articles. I have to wonder if it was stated somewhere and then cut.

Attorney Floyd Buford brought up several points concerning the master key to the complex and mentioned that a few people were aware of the spare key Giddings kept outside her apartment. He also got Patterson to confirm that several people could have been in possession of a master key including a student maintenance contact, David Dorer, who is now a third year law student at Mercer.

Another link: http://www.newscentralga.com/news/local/DAs-Office-Gets-to-Proceed-with-Murder-Charge-Against-McDaniel-128470773.html

I can see now that this is going to be left to the interpretation of the viewer/listener/reader.
All I can say is that if Buford wanted a direct answer to this question, then he should have asked for one. :twocents:

ETA:
Furthermore... Buford then proceeds to ask if any other key opens the storage closet, other than the master key.
Patterson answers that he is only aware of the master key.
Therefore, IMO, the question is still open as to whether or not DD had a master key OR access to the storage closet.
Again... if Buford wanted a definitive answer to these questions, then he should have asked for them.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

Coming Monday: Q&A with the Reporters covering the Lauren Giddings homicide
http://www.macon.com/2011/08/28/1681582/coming-monday-qa-with-the-reporters.html

I guess this is going to become a regular event

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

Hey all, Just logged in to catch up because we had lost power (thanks, Irene) and getting Internet on my iPhone without wifi was miserably slow. I hope that no one here has been treated too badly by the hurricane/tropical storm & that you all are safe!

 

[bessie]

Hey all, Just logged in to catch up because we had lost power (thanks, Irene) and getting Internet on my iPhone without wifi was miserably slow. I hope that no one here has been treated too badly by the hurricane/tropical storm & that you all are safe!

Good to hear from you, Jane! I'm glad all is well with you, and hope the same for all of our members. I'm at a Saints party and somewhat incommunicado, myself. lol

 

[ThinMan]

These are the reporters words, not Detective Patterson's.
Watch the hearing, at 21:15, and I think you'll see that he does not state that DD had a master key.
He is asked this twice and both times he answers "he had multiple keys".
He purposefully avoids directly answering this question in the affirmative.


ETA: don't make me transcribe it :viking:

Having seen the uncut vid of the hearing, this is one of those several times when Patterson seems (to me, JMO) to be speaking half-truths. It's clear that he does not want to outright say "DD had a master key." But, nonetheless, from the tone of his voice, the inflection, the body language and the point at which the statement comes in Buford's repeated attempts at getting answers from Patterson, I think it is telling that all those reporters understood Patterson's statement to be an affirmative answer: that is, they understood it to mean "yes, he had the master key and lots of other BH keys." Patterson's answer seems to be a submission to Buford's question. I understood the answer to convey the same information that the reporters understood it to state.

"Equivocal" is a word that describes this and a few other answers from Patterson. I agree that Buford should have pressed further for an unequivocal answer, but perhaps the likelihood is that he will not need it in a trial in which DD may be called as a witness to tell exactly what keys were in his possession. BB the owner may be a witness as well. Because those witnesses can be called, I'm not sure it's crucial that Buford pin down Patterson on this question. Perhaps that's why he let it slide.

 

[ThinMan]

Coming Monday: Q&A with the Reporters covering the Lauren Giddings homicide
http://www.macon.com/2011/08/28/1681582/coming-monday-qa-with-the-reporters.html

I guess this is going to become a regular event

If it's like the last one, I'd call them regular non-events!

 

[SmoothOperator]

Gee, thanks for the info PsychoMom.. Must say I am pretty blown away by this.. I really was under the impression that DD did not have a masterkey!!

This is what I mean by this BB was unbelievably chatty with the media..even to the point where many were flat out saying, "Shut up!"..and then finally when she is the holder of very relevant and important information regarding DD...all of a sudden you never hear a peep from her again..Instead left piecing together her words of there only ever being 3 people with masterkey[herself, brother, and property manager{which there'd been 2 of in 3 yrs I believe}]...and then her words about DD and that he was a "resident contact"..therefor leading one to believe seeing as how she was sure that only those chosen few had a masterkey, and then that DD was resident contact.atleast for me I was leaning toward that meaning he was NOT one of the chosen few with the almighty masterkey...

Well..well..well.. my assumption was wrong and I admit it..I am quite surprised but it does however make more sense to me now why Stephen would use DD specifically to point a finger at..due to his actually having the access..which until now was not known and therefor in my mind always questioned what else could it have been that led to him choosing specifically DD at which to point the suspecting finger.. So in that aspect it does make that a little clearer..

 

[Backwoods]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you here.
Buford should not know whether or not a toxicology report was performed
or whether LE has gotten those results back or what those results may show.
If he were to know for sure chloroform was not used, he would still be able to gain
some knowledge about what LE has. I doubt he could be certain it wasn't used,
especially if he's relying on SM's word about this (I wouldn't if I were him).
If chloroform was used, then he certainly does need to know if those tests were done
and if they do in fact show that this was used. Buford knows he has NO chance of getting
the warrant thrown out at this hearing. The burden of proof for probable cause is too low.
His primary goal at this hearing is to find out everything he can about the DA's case.

I believe we had a link to an article a few weeks back that indicated LE was still waiting for a toxicology report (statement was in connection with Lauren's cause of death on the death certificate being noted as "pending investigation"). I'll try to find that link and edit it in here later. So Buford might have known toxicology was performed -- but I agree, think he probably would not have known whether the results were back yet or what they were.

ETA: Here's the link to the macon.com article that mentions toxicology: http://www.macon.com/2011/08/12/1662957/source-mcdaniel-missed-2nd-class.html