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

[ThinMan]

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..

Just my intuition, but I'll wager that we'll find that BB's statement about only 3 master keys will have to be significantly revised. If the keys were as tightly controlled as she suggests, then SMD would have had to go the "bump key" route that AA suggested threads ago. In light of the direct statement by Patterson that SMD possessed a master key, one has to wonder how he acquired it.

BB at some point will worry about civil liability for not taking due care to maintain her residents' security, if indeed that wasn't one motive for her obviously incorrect statement that there were only 3 master key holders (none of whom were SMD or DD, unless the terms resident contact and property manager are interchangable, which does not seem to be the case).

 

[Backwoods]

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.

Do you think it might be possible that Patterson does not know whether DD had a master key or not?

In the early investigation, before anyone had pointed at DD, maybe they just noted that he had "multiple keys" (like you, I draw the inference that some of them were for use at the apartments), and that, as the resident contact, he was entitled to have them in his duties. Certainly they would have noted that he had them -- filed that info away -- but with nothing pointing to him as a suspect, they may not have checked to see if he had an actual master key...simply because it wouldn't seem too unusual if he did, if he had "multiple keys" for whatever access he was given at the complex. They may not would have taken every one of his multiple "complex keys" and tried it in every lock to see if it opened every lock.

Having a master key would only stand out for someone who was not expected to have one, like SM.

 

[ThinMan]

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.

I agree, BW, and also that Buford was not trying very hard to convince the magistrate that probable cause did not exist. I think he was trying to place doubt in the public mind that SMD did it. That is, he was trying to make clear that the story told by the roommate did not match the current known facts in at least one particular, meaning the entire event didn't go down exactly as SMD had said he could do it years ago.

If, as you say, he didn't know whether chloroform had been used or not, he would've been taking a huge risk with that public opinion impact to ask about the toxicology report.

 

[bessie]

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..

Whoa! What did I miss? Where was it stated DD had a master key?

And BTW, the statement about the keys was attributed to BB's brother Marty.

Marty Bush, co-owner of the Barristers Hall apartments, said he and his fellow co-owner, along with the apartment complex’s manager, are the only people who have master keys.

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2011/07/14/1630766/refrigerator-removed-from-apartment.html#ixzz1WNIgKPAn
​

I really wish reporters would learn the importance of direct quotations.

 

[PsychoMom]

I can still see it as a possibility McD, and possibly other residents over the years, were given a master key to hold just in case someone was locked out and the main contact person was not available. Also, I would love to hear their response to the rumor regarding master keys being given out accidentally to several residents as their own door key. It does not mean McD is innocent, but it sure can create reasonable doubt.

I even think it is possible LG gave him a key to water her plants or feed her dog at times. He appeared reliable and safe, so she may not have thought twice about it at the time. Again, does not make him an innocent man, but it can have some bearing on how he is perceived by a jury.

 

[Backwoods]

I agree, BW, and also that Buford was not trying very hard to convince the magistrate that probable cause did not exist. I think he was trying to place doubt in the public mind that SMD did it. That is, he was trying to make clear that the story told by the roommate did not match the current known facts in at least one particular, meaning the entire event didn't go down exactly as SMD had said he could do it years ago.

If, as you say, he didn't know whether chloroform had been used or not, he would've been taking a huge risk with that public opinion impact to ask about the toxicology report.

about the bolded: this part, I didn't say (see my post) -- I think that was an earlier poster.

 

[ThinMan]

about the bolded: this part, I didn't say (see my post) -- I think that was an earlier poster.

100% right, BW. Sorry. I apologize for the vague reference. That was said by the poster you quoted. My bad!

 

[Givsmetheshivers]

Even though they did not find Chloroform, I wonder if they have any record of McD purchasing Acetone (fingernail polish remover) and shock powder (pool chemical supply) because you can make chloroform at home. Fun project for the kids on a Saturday, huh?

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

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

(questions about finding a master key in SM's apt)

@21:26
Buford: Did you talk with the owner there at the apartment, Ms. BB, about the master key?

Patterson: I did.

Buford: Did she inform you that other individuals had master keys?

Patterson: Yes.

Buford: Did she inform you that DD had a master key?

Patterson: DD had... a multiple... keys.

Buford: OK. And DD, as I understand it, at that time was a rising third year law student. Going to law school this year, (?) in his second year, is that correct?

Patterson: I believe so, yes.

Buford: And as part of his rent he was allowed to work out there as a maintenance man at the apartments, right?

Patterson: From what I understand, yes.

Buford: And he had a master key.

Patterson: He had... a lot of keys.

Buford: A lot of keys. I mean, he had access to the whole place, didn't he?

Patterson: Yes.

(questions about LG's key outside her apt)

@22:57
Buford: Now let me ask you this, detective. In the laundry room - you testified that there was a closet inside the laundry room. Is that right?

Patterson: Yes.

Buford: And it was locked. right?

Patterson: Yes.

Buford: Is there a separate key, other than the master key, that goes to that laundry room that you're aware of? (correcting himself) goes to that closet in the laundry room that you're aware of?

Patterson: I'm only aware of the master key going to the... laundry room.

(questions about the hacksaw...)

IMO, he has established:
- Patterson states that according to BB, other individuals had master keys, besides the master key which was found in SM's apartment.
- Patterson believes, from what he understands, that as part of DD's rent, DD was allowed to work as a maintenance man at the apartments.
- DD had an unspecified quantity of unspecified keys - quantified as being "multiple keys" or "a lot of keys".
- DD had access to the entire complex, by unspecified means - of which his keys are implied.
- There was a closet inside the laundry room, which was locked when Patterson first accessed it.
- Patterson is not aware of any other key that opens the laundry room, other than the master key.

ETA:
Did DD have a master key? Probably.
Did the master key open the utility closet? Yes
(I believe Patterson states he opened it with SM's key later on)
Could the utility closet be opened with a key other than the master key? Most likely.
... but this isn't the point

 

[Backwoods]

Here's the macon.com article that tell us about the pending toxicology report:

link: http://www.macon.com/2011/08/12/1662957/source-mcdaniel-missed-2nd-class.html

QUOTE:
While Giddings’ cause of death hasn’t been released, her death certificate has been filed, he said.In the category where a “manner of death” must be noted, a box beside the word “homicide” is checked.
The cause of death portion reads, “pending investigation and toxicology.”

 

[Givsmetheshivers]

You know there has been some discussion about murder in conversation....but I have a question:
Do you think there would be any way to show a preoccupation with murder and disposal of a body with TM's testimony and the website posts? There seems to be a span of what 7 years that it seems to be a common topic for him.
<modsnip>

 

[PsychoMom]

Just curious. Where did my post go?

 

[bessie]

Just curious. Where did my post go?

System glitch, apparently. Can you re-post?

 

[theengineer]

Just my intuition, but I'll wager that we'll find that BB's statement about only 3 master keys will have to be significantly revised. If the keys were as tightly controlled as she suggests, then SMD would have had to go the "bump key" route that AA suggested threads ago. In light of the direct statement by Patterson that SMD possessed a master key, one has to wonder how he acquired it.

BB at some point will worry about civil liability for not taking due care to maintain her residents' security, if indeed that wasn't one motive for her obviously incorrect statement that there were only 3 master key holders (none of whom were SMD or DD, unless the terms resident contact and property manager are interchangable, which does not seem to be the case).

I think this is something that would be concerning BB. It is certainly conceivable that owners of a property would have extra keys for access. I have rental property, and I do the same. However, it is very disturbing that there were a number of master keys and other apartment keys in the possession of other residents. It definitely makes this case and its investigation a little more "muddy" IMO.:banghead:

 

[Givsmetheshivers]

Even though they did not find Chloroform, I wonder if they have any record of McD purchasing Acetone (fingernail polish remover) and shock powder (pool chemical supply) because you can make chloroform at home. Fun project for the kids on a Saturday, huh?

Ummm...apparently you can make chloroform with regular bleach and acetone.

Common products from Walmart.

We knew that DD had the Master Keys as the resident contact...but he was supposed to have them. McD was NOT.

 

[PsychoMom]

System glitch, apparently. Can you re-post?

Dang! I was on a roll. Hope I can remember what I said. lol!

I was responding about how postings about murder plots may not be admissible because they are in a certain context in most cases. If a definite cause of death is determined and a match to a posting existed, then maybe it could be admitted.

But then, think about us on here. If our comments were pulled and presented out of context, how many of us would look bad? We have determined murder plots. Discussed various methods of killing someone. We have debated which scenario would help someone get away with murder. We have commented on the stupidity of a suspect using Plan A to commit murder when we would have gone with Plan B (one we discuss thoroughly) and been able to get away with the crime. We watch violent shows on a regular basis. How many forensic shows do most of you watch in a year? Not to mention the crime dramas. And, what do you read? Heck, just this board alone could make us look suspicious, but I grew up on Stephen King novels beginning over 30 years ago. Then all the other crime writers added to that. It could look like we all have murder on the mind all the time.

 

[pearl]

Has there been any information about how SM got a master key? I thought at one time that he could have copied one from DD's apartment if he creepy-crawled it. However, he would have had to have a master key to get into DD's apartment. So that doesn't work.

 

[Givsmetheshivers]

Dang! I was on a roll. Hope I can remember what I said. lol!

I was responding about how postings about murder plots may not be admissible because they are in a certain context in most cases. If a definite cause of death is determined and a match to a posting existed, then maybe it could be admitted.

But then, think about us on here. If our comments were pulled and presented out of context, how many of us would look bad? We have determined murder plots. Discussed various methods of killing someone. We have debated which scenario would help someone get away with murder. We have commented on the stupidity of a suspect using Plan A to commit murder when we would have gone with Plan B (one we discuss thoroughly) and been able to get away with the crime. We watch violent shows on a regular basis. How many forensic shows do most of you watch in a year? Not to mention the crime dramas. And, what do you read? Heck, just this board alone could make us look suspicious, but I grew up on Stephen King novels beginning over 30 years ago. Then all the other crime writers added to that. It could look like we all have murder on the mind all the time.

Psychomom, sit down with a good cup of coffee and read them back to back. It ain't nothin like what we are posting on here.

 

[PsychoMom]

Psychomom, sit down with a good cup of coffee and read them back to back. It ain't nothin like what we are posting on here.

I did. I was discussing the context on that part. But postings and comments about murders can look bad on anyone taken out of context. Looking at someone's interests can twist perception when only seen in a certain light. How many forensic shows have you watched in the last year? Are you watching those shows because you are plotting to kill someone and want to make sure you know what they will check for? Probably not, but it could be twisted that way. Do you watch any crime dramas that are violent? Or read any unusually intense books? Are you a Twilight fan? Which would mean you are into possibly cannibalism and drinking blood because of the vampire and werewolf scenarios.

That is what I was talking about. Because it can be so easily twisted, it can also explain why it might be excluded from the trial.

 

[Givsmetheshivers]

I did. I was discussing the context on that part. But postings and comments about murders can look bad on anyone taken out of context. Looking at someone's interests can twist perception when only seen in a certain light. How many forensic shows have you watched in the last year? Are you watching those shows because you are plotting to kill someone and want to make sure you know what they will check for? Probably not, but it could be twisted that way. Do you watch any crime dramas that are violent? Or read any unusually intense books? Are you a Twilight fan? Which would mean you are into possibly cannibalism and drinking blood because of the vampire and werewolf scenarios.

That is what I was talking about. Because it can be so easily twisted, it can also explain why it might be excluded from the trial.

We will have to agree to disagree on part of this.
I can see tossing out the fact that he liked the show Dexter as proof that he was planning on murdering someone.
IMO, it is a little bit of an obsession when most of his topics of conversation are details on how he would do certain things over and over again, but I agree they might not be able to use that as proof of premeditation.
However, the disposal of the body might be too similar if what he told TM is as eerily similar to what is mentioned on certain sites.
...and I have watched enough forensic shows to know that I cannot get away with murder...so no need to plan one.