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

[PlainJaneDoe]

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

Lol seems appropriate though...like I said earlier, I really don't see any way that this situation ends well for SM. I really, really don't.

 

[bessie]

I guess I am just a little alarmed at the thought that the murder charges are partly based on a statement an old roommate gave LE about what SM said.

It just clicked in my pea brain today, when I read that article, that the murder charges are partly based on TM's statements.

However, we don't know the context of what SM said. It is just one part of the puzzle.

I don't see a cause for alarm. We don't know the context or the content of the witness's statements. We've heard enough to know there are other who could testify about McD's penchant for violent fantasy, yet only TM's statements were used to establish probable cause. That would tell us there is something in the content that stands out from the rest. It's quite possible TM related details to LE that match unique, undisclosed details of Lauren's murder. At any rate, it was strong enough that when combined with the other items presented in the warrant, the judge ruled the case be bound over.

 

[Backwoods]

This is a 100% honest question. Where did I say he laughed at him? The closest I could find was saying something about him being jovial at meeting his roommate. Is that what you were talking about? If so, it was his reaction was jovial (per TM's report of laughing about it for so long), not that he laughed at him. He thought it was funny.

I have to agree with 3doglady about the way it came off in the article. It did sound like ridicule. It is one of those things that might come back and bite him at the trial. It can show him being more hostile towards McD from the very moment he met him, which can show a reason for him to show up and stir things up. Granted, I hope that isn't what his motivation is, but that article can be colored to look that way.

This is a good example of why it might be good to hear different folks' ideas of how the defense might approach this witness' testimony, no matter which side of the fence you are on. When I read the article, I plunged right in without paying too much attention to the laughing-for-30-minutes thing --didn't cross my mind the defense might use this to show a long-standing attitude of hostility or ridicule -- but now that it's been pointed out, I think it's true, the defense might do that.

 

[Backwoods]

I have to believe that we do not know the "details of methods to avoid detection which are similar to the facts and circumstances surrounding the killing of Lauren Giddings" At least I think there are some specifics known only to LE and TM, not in the paper yet that led LE to McD and made them include as part of their warrant.

I don't think we know that either (to the extent that LE and TM do), but I bet we could make some pretty good guesses. I also feel that it is the "methods to avoid detection" that will be the focus from TM's testimony, and not so much the "how to commit the murder" aspect. I finally got to watch the full hearing and it seems to me from Patterson's remarks that it is in the "methods to avoid detection" area that they are feeling they have the strongest match-up.

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

@ PlainJaneDoe:
I know I have seen the "Guilty, but Insane," which means you are guilty of the crime even though you have been judged insane. And I have seen the "Not Competent to Stand Trial." Not sure of the exact names of those, but you get the idea. A lot of people think once you are judged insane, you get to go free. Not true. If you are judged to be incompetent, you are sent to a state mental facility until the judge determines you can either stand trial or are not a risk.

I know of people who have spent 5 or more years in a mental facility for trespassing and making threats to harm someone. Not actually harming someone, but threatening to - and they had no weapons. The judge refused to release them. If he had been convicted, he might have gotten 2 years, max, for what he did. Since the judge determined he was not competent, he had to stay in the mental hospital indefinitely. He has not been released, as far as I know, but that particular hospital has closed and the patients were all transferred to another facility.

Many of the patients in the state facility are the 'Guilty, but Insane' crew. They are in the state hospital until stable (if ever) and then transferred to the prison to serve their term. It is not an escape clause. And can lead to longer sentences in the end.

Isn't this what happened with Jared Lee Loghner? He was found incompetent to stand trial, and now his lawyers are fighting forced meds and whatnot?

Is it true that the actions taken when a person is judged incompetent or NG/insanity vary by state? Even the terminology varies, was my understanding, or maybe it was that the terminology has changed over time?

Sorry if this is too OT.

 

[Backwoods]

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​

Something I've been wondering about since the article came out: Did the professor contact TM just to let him know about and discuss with him generally Lauren's murder, as one might do with another who had connections to Mercer? Or did he already know that TM had had the disturbing "murder" conversations with Stephen? Or just wondered if a former roommate could give some interesting insights?

 

[PsychoMom]

Isn't this what happened with Jared Lee Loghner? He was found incompetent to stand trial, and now his lawyers are fighting forced meds and whatnot?

Is it true that the actions taken when a person is judged incompetent or NG/insanity vary by state? Even the terminology varies, was my understanding, or maybe it was that the terminology has changed over time?

Sorry if this is too OT.

Things do vary by state, even what things are called. I am in Georgia, so that is where I know the information I have. I used to think being found incompetent was a Get Out of Jail Free card. I was surprised to find out it isn't. That is one wild population though. Dangerous for those working with them.

 

[3doglady]

"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.

I agree with you which is why I want to scrutinize the accused AND the evidence. I want to know that the killer pays for this horrendous crime. I want the jury to have an easy job sentencing the correct person. My hope is that LE reads here and other social media sites to learn what doubts a jury may have. Those posted doubts may help the SA to see where the holes in his case are. Those posts may ensure that all the dots are connected in a trial. If I sit back and say "Yep he did it", then I'm of no value to the legal system. The DT used social media to their advantage in the Anthony trial. Hopefully the SA will do the same in this case.

God help me if anyone I know is ever found dead in a swamp. After the searches I did in the Anthony case they would put me under the jail, if that's considered evidence.

 

[bessie]

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.

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.

 

[southern_comfort]

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.

Nor should it be interpreted to mean that we are illogical or attention seekers! I've been indirectly called both of those things today.

 

[bessie]

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.

I totally agree with you, Backwoods. In fact, my very first thought after reading the article was, "let's hope he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet." It's a valid consideration. I've never said anything to the contrary.

 

[Sandstorm]

Poor TM. People can't just be good people doing a good deed. Even he can't be innocent until proven guilty....and he hasn't been charged with anything.

Exactly.

 

[Sandstorm]

What's up with the condescending tone of the thread today?

Geesh. :ignore::bigfight:

FrUsTRaTIoN

 

[bessie]

Nor should it be interpreted to mean that we are illogical or attention seekers! I've been indirectly called both of those things today.

No, it definitely should not. I'm not sure I know which post you're referencing, or whether that was the intent, but I'm certain it seemed that way to you. That's a shame and it shouldn't happen here. If we'd all give a little more thought to how we express our many varied opinions we'd find that amicable debate is possible.

 

[ThinMan]

Something I've been wondering about since the article came out: Did the professor contact TM just to let him know about and discuss with him generally Lauren's murder, as one might do with another who had connections to Mercer? Or did he already know that TM had had the disturbing "murder" conversations with Stephen? Or just wondered if a former roommate could give some interesting insights?

As I understand Mercer, the law school is physically and socially separate from the college campus and its students. The professor who called TM MUST have been a college prof, because TM never attended Mercer Law School and its professors would not have ever met him.

Except for the relative few students who go to Mercer for both college and law school, college students usually don't even meet law students like LG.

So, I'm guessing it was a college prof who called TM to ask him about his former roommate who just got arrested for murder. The prof MIGHT have known about the murder/zombie conversations, but I didn't get TM being "disturbed" about the conversations until told about the LG murder.

It WOULD be interesting to know who the prof was and what he knew and why he called TM . . . .

 

[3doglady]

I'm still not clear on when they were roommates. Patterson said they roomed together the first yr of law school in 2008, but TM did not go to law school.

 

[ThinMan]

I'm still not clear on when they were roommates. Patterson said they roomed together the first yr of law school in 2008, but TM did not go to law school.

Patterson simply got it wrong. Notice on the video that he's counting on his fingers when he says something like "it must've been 2008." I think we're clear now that TM & SMD were roommates during SMD's last year of college, that would've been 2007-2008. SMD then was in law school 08-09, 09-10, and 10-11, graduating with LG in May, 2011.

 

[Knox]

Nor should it be interpreted to mean that we are illogical or attention seekers! I've been indirectly called both of those things today.

I was indirectly told I was like an ostrich, but I didn't complain. And I think it was PM that stated Money was being made to seem God like or some other such reference, now that is illogical to suggest.

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

 

[SmoothOperator]

It is the evidence as a whole.. It is what brick of evidence by brick of evidence what is built.. A brick here and a single brick there nowhere near the vicinity of the other brick and maybe other small bricks of evidence found but none connect in any significant way, none of them are cohesive in what they brick by brick together build.. When this happens, is seen in a case well.. The evidence is not there to be build against that individual, whoever they may be.. It is when those bricks of evidence are found and cohesively fit with other bricks of evidence already in place and they all together begin to build and form into something significant.. The same analogy with a puzzle and the pieces of the puzzle continuing one by one as each new piece of evidence, piece of the puzzle fit into place the clearer the puzzle as a whole becomes..

It is ridiculous IMO to suggest that any of us who are truly innocent people, not engaging in criminal activity in their lifestyles AT ALL..(and I say at all because those who are choosing to live their lives in a risky lifestyle and around risky, illegal behaviors like drug use and activities.. Well those are not living such innocent lives.. They are at risk for being involved in an element of criminal activity by choosing to put themselves in risky lifestyle where one is much more prone to have involvement in criminal activity directly and indirectly)..

But for those of us who are truly living a normal, non criminal, non risky lifestyle.. It's IMO ludicrous to state that our innocent ways of life could somehow leave us ending up on deathrow like Stephen may soon find himself.. This is not realistic IMO.. As I stated it is not one single brick here or there that doesn't further lead to many more building blocks of brick stacking and forming into a solid structure.. So too similarly would be if we had a loved one murdered and our lives began to be looked at under the microscope.. If we were living innocent lives in no way living or participating in any way in the criminal or illegal elements then so too would our innocent actions and behaviors prove to lead anywhere or build brick by brick into a solid*Structure.. It wouldn't!!!!

Questionable googling around would be seen just for what it was.. Were you googling around due to following a case?? That is easily seen and discerned.. Were you googling particular disturbing aspects of murder, mutilation, disposal? Were you googling those because you visit and follow crime websites where this is discussed? That would easily be discerned.. Were you searching out some questions you had about child *advertiser censored* because of a recent case in the media? It's easy to discern whether you were or whether you are interested in child *advertiser censored* for your own viewing pleasure..

About a year ago a woman was mysteriously killed, a wife and mother of two highschool boys.. They thought it to be the husband but they really couldn't put any of the bricks of evidence together to form any type of significant structure.. And there was even found to be a slight criminal element there in his illegal betting and gambling.. There was tons of Internet *advertiser censored*, but so, too are there in many homes across America where there are 2 teenage males and an adult male that are sharing the internet.. But still nothing that could be built into anything of a structure, not even a cohesive foundation for that structure could be built from the building bricks here, a couple small bricks over there and a few stray bricks scattered around.. Nothing cohesive and nothing to build upon.. Thus moving the investigation scope further outward.. This is how an investigation works.. This is what the reality of a situation is when there is someone in our lives that becomes a victim of a violent crime, murder.. Our lives GO under the microscope and if you are living a risky lifestyle you better be prepared for that to be brought to the light of day, if you've got an Internet *advertiser censored* issue or addiction you better be prepared for it to be brought to the light of day.. Will those issues get you in trouble? Possibly, if they are illegal.. Will they cause you embarrassment? Absolutely.. Will they falsely paint you to be the murderer/perp even if your not? No, no, no!!!! This just isn't reality.. All of our habits, regular activities, and personal doings of our everyday lives will be seen for what they are.. If they are risky and somehow illegal that will be just as easy discerned as those whose activities and habits are not illegal but rather just something that some frown upon(example-*advertiser censored* habit) tho it may indeed be embarrassing, IT WILL NOT HOWEVER IN ANY WAY MAKE YOU THE PRIME SUSPECT CHARGED WITH MURDER!!

That's the truth of how it works in reality..

 

[3doglady]

I was indirectly told I was like an ostrich, but I didn't complain. And I think it was PM that stated Money was being made to seem God like or some other such reference, now that is illogical to suggest.

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

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.