GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 # 2

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is my first time posting here, but have been following this forum for a while, particularly as it pertains to Lauren G. My friend actually set this account up for me (because I was experiencing technical difficulty) and dubbed me "Supermom1995". I feel compelled to say I am by no means a supermom, only a mom who loves her daughter and tries really hard.

All that said, does anyone know how Neighbor MCD knew the email, sent from Lauren's computer, was to someone in Atlanta? Was Atlanta a part of the email address? or mentioned in the body of the message?

The exact wording of the email hasn't been released that I know of, just what McDaniel said about it during an interview. There's no way to know for sure how McDaniel knew this,
but it's very possible that McDaniel and/or the friend that found the email knew the person that the email was addressed to and thus knew where he was from.
 
In my attempt to find out more about the 'whats and whys' of beautiful Lauren, I happened across this forensic medical study regarding 23 homicides who were dismembered by their perpetrator.

I have uploaded the 13 page document in case you are interested in this type of study:

CORPSE DISMEMBERMENT IN THE MATERIAL COLLECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC MEDICINE, CRACOW, POLAND.
By Tomasz Konopka, Marcin Strona, Filip Bolechała, Jerzy Kunz

I found the entire document informative, especially:

pages 2
3.1 Methods of dismemberment and corpse destruction

and 10 - 12:
4.1 Types of dismemberment
4.2 Circumstance of death
4.3 The place of homicide and the perpetrator
4.4 Motives of homicide and relations between the perpetrator and the victim
4.5 Serial character of murders

This is the conclusion of this study:

5. Conclusions
1. Apart from rare cases of necrophilia, the victim of dismemberment is always a victim of homicide.
2. Homicides ending with corpse dismemberment are most commonly committed by a person close to, or at least acquainted with the victim.
3. Dismemberment is nearly always performed at the site of homicide, generally in the place inhabited by the perpetrator
4. A homicide ending with corpse dismemberment is generally not planned by the perpetrator.
5. Homicides followed by dismemberment are rarely serial in character.
**************************************
See attachment for full document.
 

Attachments

  • Corpse dismemberment in the material collected by the Department of Forensic Medicine, Cracow, P.pdf
    603.9 KB · Views: 23
I think the MPD is doing a slow leak of what they know , just so we won't think they are sitting around. If he bought a lot of plastic sheeting and a chainsaw, hmmm......

I respectfully disagree that MPD is leaking case details. More likely that an employee of Wal Mart or "other" person privy to details is the source of the leaks. Every case has "someone close to the investigation", moo.

I agree with Smooth, if McD bought plastic sheeting or bags at Wal Mart recently, it's going to look bad for him. Not conclusive in itself, but brick by brick ...
 
what about members of the running group....i think its called the harrier hashers? I assume they have all been questioned? just curious...
 
what about members of the running group....i think its called the harrier hashers? I assume they have all been questioned? just curious...

I happen to have a member of my family in the HH running group who was interviewed once for over an hour by the FBI. A lot of details were provided by my family member including phone records. It was a thorough interview. Other HH were interviewed as well. I dont know the details of the interviews regarding the others, but I imagine it was about the standard question and answer as my family member.
 
I have an obvious question.. In knowing that the 2 felony burglary charges stem from an admission from McD concerning 1 stolen condom from each residence for a total of 2 residences equalling 2 condoms..

So obviously the nature of these 2 charges would normally have a reasonable bond set and most times then posted and the individual charged is able to await his trial, if he so chooses, out of jail on the posted bond..

So, could someone answer for me how the system allows for that bond to be revoked when the 2nd condom charge was made.. Obviously if this were an individual not POI-Ed In Their neighbors heinous murder then the bond would not have been revoked and the individual would have long since been out of jail on the posted bond..

How have they been able to justify 3+ weeks of keeping his bond revoked? The system doesn't allow that just because LE "thinks" McD is most likely involved in a murder to be sufficient to continue having his bond revoked for 2 minor(in comparison to murder)charges of burglary???

I could see LE attempting to to do this but would expect that the individual's counsel would have immediately stepped in to prevent this from being continued.. Right? Isn't that what his job would be to immediately do??

The ATTY is well aware that at present time there are only the 2 burglary charges and tho yea, LE suspects his client of being involved in a murder they do not yet have any strong evidence to tie him to it and charge him with murder.. And since they do not then they must reinstate a reasonable bond immediately for what the charges at hand are..

Wouldnt that be mandatory???? For these things detailed ^above^ to have already been completed in these last 3 weeks?? I, personally do not care that McD is incarcerated and think most likely he is the perp.. But I am not the legal system, nor do my feelings and opinions have to coincide with the legal system.. But McD's rights must be followed strictly according to this legal system and if this system is not adhered to strictly then that leaves room for a defendant to wiggle out of major of importance charges such as capital murder for instance.. Later on down the line..

I just want to be sure that there are no screw ups or botching of a case early on in attempts to race to the finish line in charging the defendant with Lauren's murder.. Does that make sense?

Probably not..lol.. But I do worry because it doesn't seem to be standard procedure for 2 burglary charges to still remain incarcerated on a revoked bond.. And that is the charges at hand and am concerned that because of the separate murder case is the true motive behind still having McD incarcerated..

Why would his ATTY not have immediately come in and took the bull by the horns by stating the obvious and true reason behind his client still remaining under a revoked
Bond.. And to have demanded immediate reinstatement of a reasonable bond on the 2 charges at hand.. ???? Why would an ATTY worth his salt not have come in and demanded this??

Or am I totally just misunderstanding how the system works(and that very easily could be the case) when speaking of these particular matters at hand? I just was always under the notion that LE could not by law hold you on something they "think" you might have done? And until they had some solid evidence to indicate a direct involvement in a murder:. Then they must set a reasonable bond for the charges that are present and if posted allow the individual to be free on bond???

Can anyone better explain this to me or help me to understand what is allowable and what is not(in terms of the situations we are dealing with where McD is concerned)

Thanks in advance:)
 
I have an obvious question.. In knowing that the 2 felony burglary charges stem from an admission from McD concerning 1 stolen condom from each residence for a total of 2 residences equalling 2 condoms..

So obviously the nature of these 2 charges would normally have a reasonable bond set and most times then posted and the individual charged is able to await his trial, if he so chooses, out of jail on the posted bond..

So, could someone answer for me how the system allows for that bond to be revoked when the 2nd condom charge was made.. Obviously if this were an individual not POI-Ed In Their neighbors heinous murder then the bond would not have been revoked and the individual would have long since been out of jail on the posted bond..

How have they been able to justify 3+ weeks of keeping his bond revoked? The system doesn't allow that just because LE "thinks" McD is most likely involved in a murder to be sufficient to continue having his bond revoked for 2 minor(in comparison to murder)charges of burglary???

I could see LE attempting to to do this but would expect that the individual's counsel would have immediately stepped in to prevent this from being continued.. Right? Isn't that what his job would be to immediately do??

The ATTY is well aware that at present time there are only the 2 burglary charges and tho yea, LE suspects his client of being involved in a murder they do not yet have any strong evidence to tie him to it and charge him with murder.. And since they do not then they must reinstate a reasonable bond immediately for what the charges at hand are..

Wouldnt that be mandatory???? For these things detailed ^above^ to have already been completed in these last 3 weeks?? I, personally do not care that McD is incarcerated and think most likely he is the perp.. But I am not the legal system, nor do my feelings and opinions have to coincide with the legal system.. But McD's rights must be followed strictly according to this legal system and if this system is not adhered to strictly then that leaves room for a defendant to wiggle out of major of importance charges such as capital murder for instance.. Later on down the line..

I just want to be sure that there are no screw ups or botching of a case early on in attempts to race to the finish line in charging the defendant with Lauren's murder.. Does that make sense?

Probably not..lol.. But I do worry because it doesn't seem to be standard procedure for 2 burglary charges to still remain incarcerated on a revoked bond.. And that is the charges at hand and am concerned that because of the separate murder case is the true motive behind still having McD incarcerated..

Why would his ATTY not have immediately come in and took the bull by the horns by stating the obvious and true reason behind his client still remaining under a revoked
Bond.. And to have demanded immediate reinstatement of a reasonable bond on the 2 charges at hand.. ???? Why would an ATTY worth his salt not have come in and demanded this??

Or am I totally just misunderstanding how the system works(and that very easily could be the case) when speaking of these particular matters at hand? I just was always under the notion that LE could not by law hold you on something they "think" you might have done? And until they had some solid evidence to indicate a direct involvement in a murder:. Then they must set a reasonable bond for the charges that are present and if posted allow the individual to be free on bond???

Can anyone better explain this to me or help me to understand what is allowable and what is not(in terms of the situations we are dealing with where McD is concerned)

Thanks in advance:)

McD's attorney hasn't asked for him a bond- thus, the court is not just going to randomly assign him a bond on their own accord. It doesn't work that way. It appears as though McD's attorney believes he won't get a fair shake from this DA's office, so he wants to get it transferred. He cancelled the motion for bond because his position would lack continuity if he was motioning for bond all while motioning a conflict at the same time.
 
I have an obvious question.. In knowing that the 2 felony burglary charges stem from an admission from McD concerning 1 stolen condom from each residence for a total of 2 residences equalling 2 condoms..

So obviously the nature of these 2 charges would normally have a reasonable bond set and most times then posted and the individual charged is able to await his trial, if he so chooses, out of jail on the posted bond..

So, could someone answer for me how the system allows for that bond to be revoked when the 2nd condom charge was made.. Obviously if this were an individual not POI-Ed In Their neighbors heinous murder then the bond would not have been revoked and the individual would have long since been out of jail on the posted bond..

How have they been able to justify 3+ weeks of keeping his bond revoked? The system doesn't allow that just because LE "thinks" McD is most likely involved in a murder to be sufficient to continue having his bond revoked for 2 minor(in comparison to murder)charges of burglary???

I could see LE attempting to to do this but would expect that the individual's counsel would have immediately stepped in to prevent this from being continued.. Right? Isn't that what his job would be to immediately do??

The ATTY is well aware that at present time there are only the 2 burglary charges and tho yea, LE suspects his client of being involved in a murder they do not yet have any strong evidence to tie him to it and charge him with murder.. And since they do not then they must reinstate a reasonable bond immediately for what the charges at hand are..

Wouldnt that be mandatory???? For these things detailed ^above^ to have already been completed in these last 3 weeks?? I, personally do not care that McD is incarcerated and think most likely he is the perp.. But I am not the legal system, nor do my feelings and opinions have to coincide with the legal system.. But McD's rights must be followed strictly according to this legal system and if this system is not adhered to strictly then that leaves room for a defendant to wiggle out of major of importance charges such as capital murder for instance.. Later on down the line..

I just want to be sure that there are no screw ups or botching of a case early on in attempts to race to the finish line in charging the defendant with Lauren's murder.. Does that make sense?

Probably not..lol.. But I do worry because it doesn't seem to be standard procedure for 2 burglary charges to still remain incarcerated on a revoked bond.. And that is the charges at hand and am concerned that because of the separate murder case is the true motive behind still having McD incarcerated..

Why would his ATTY not have immediately come in and took the bull by the horns by stating the obvious and true reason behind his client still remaining under a revoked
Bond.. And to have demanded immediate reinstatement of a reasonable bond on the 2 charges at hand.. ???? Why would an ATTY worth his salt not have come in and demanded this??

Or am I totally just misunderstanding how the system works(and that very easily could be the case) when speaking of these particular matters at hand? I just was always under the notion that LE could not by law hold you on something they "think" you might have done? And until they had some solid evidence to indicate a direct involvement in a murder:. Then they must set a reasonable bond for the charges that are present and if posted allow the individual to be free on bond???

Can anyone better explain this to me or help me to understand what is allowable and what is not(in terms of the situations we are dealing with where McD is concerned)

Thanks in advance:)

not sure how to snip the above quote, but responding to the hows and whys (of which I really wonder WHY myself) but originally I believe the bond for SM had been set by a local magistrate on the first charge, however when the second charge was filed I don't think a magistrate can handle that anymore- it has to go to a higher court at that point and that is why the original bond was revoked. There was a hearing set in the higher court I thought, but then cancled due to the conflict motion filed by SM's atty. I just don't think any of this could be happening without the permission and agrement of SM. His atty is the one who has to file a bond motion and is the only one (until after 90 days have passed) that can request that... thats how I understand it, anyway... If I am wrong please correct me.
 
Technically, he is not really being "held" for the condom thefts.

Apparently, he has been technically charged with two counts of burglary, that is why he was arrested and incarcerated.

"McDaniel has been held at the Bibb County jail since his July 1 arrest."

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2011/07/13/163...iddings.html#storylink=misearch#ixzz1SaVvqKIz


He most definitely has been "held" during this legal process and the decision of his counsel to pursue other avenues of the process do not negate his previous status.

The post facto legal process simply allows for LE to continue to investigate while SM is in the process.

I do not see the need for this point of distinction other than to simply say he has been "held" since July 1, 2011 and eventually he will have another option.

This really does not negate the fact he has been held on these charges up to this point, he is not currently free to go even if his counsel has this option eventually and LE is investigating him aggressively.
 
Apparently, he has been technically charged with two counts of burglary, that is why he was arrested and incarcerated.

"McDaniel has been held at the Bibb County jail since his July 1 arrest."

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2011/07/13/163...iddings.html#storylink=misearch#ixzz1SaVvqKIz


He most definitely has been "held" during this legal process and the decision of his council to pursue other avenues of the process do not negate his previous status.

The post facto legal process simply allows for LE to continue to investigate while SM is in the process.

I do not see the need for this point of distinction other than to simply say he has been "held" since July 1, 2011 and eventually he will have another option.

This really does not negate the fact he has been held on these charges up to this point, he is not currently free to go even if his council has this option eventually and LE is investigating him aggressively.

I'm not sure why that point of distinction would not matter. He has not had a bond hearing. There was a decision made by his legal counsel to withdraw the motion for bond. His legal counsel had to have consulted with him on this decision and could not have made the decision but for McDaniel's approval. Had he went through with the initial bond hearing scheduled last week, there is some possibility (albeit very slim) that he could have bonded out on the charges.

ETA- has not had a Superior Court bond hearing.
 
I'm not sure why that point of distinction would not matter.

This distinction does little work for the point that was being made, that is to say, that LE was purposeful in this case with respect to and in relationship to arresting SM for these charges especially as germane to the larger scope of the Lauren Giddings investigation.

SM being charged and arrested has most definitely provided for an advantage to their investigation that has SM described as a "person of interest".

This point of distinction may matter in relationship to SM's legal options and possibilities with regard to these charges but his current counsels strategies and approaches still do not negate that fact that SM has been held on these charges since July 1, 2011 and that the legal process itself has been helpful to LE for said aforementioned reasons.

It seems to me that you could have said, even though SM is technically being held, his lawyer has the option to pursue remedy when able, but potential and possibility need to be actualized and in actuality, SM is still being held for these charges.
 
SuperMom1995
All that said, does anyone know how Neighbor MCD knew the email, sent from Lauren's computer, was to someone in Atlanta? Was Atlanta a part of the email address? or mentioned in the body of the message?

And below in response:

Originally Posted by clkwrks
The exact wording of the email hasn't been released that I know of, just what McDaniel said about it during an interview. There's no way to know for sure how McDaniel knew this,
but it's very possible that McDaniel and/or the friend that found the email knew the person that the email was addressed to and thus knew where he was from.

Thank you for you guys bringing up this detail again.. As the entire email including it's motive, receipient, and most of all it's all important discovery in Lauren's outbox of her email..
THESE IMO ARE ALL DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN LAUREN's MURDER AND WILL BE USED BY PROSECUTION IF AND WHEN THIS GOES TO TRIAL..

Just as SuperMom asks in her post, how does McD know that the person to whom the email was sent actually lived in Atlanta?? Was it labeled as To: lived in Atlanta??

I think most likely No, it did not have the recipient in the To: box as residing in Atlanta.. I think this is a great question that I certainly hope that investigator's were prepared as a question to McD in their interview processes that they had in the very beginning.. As it would have been very revealing IMO *to see exactly not only what he chose to answer but his demeanor more importantly would have been a clear indicator of nervous, possible grasping, and failure to be able to think quick on his toes(so to speak).. In my finding McD to be at best somewhat socially awkward(in NO way meaning a
Complete introvert or recluse loner)but rather exactly what I said socially awkward.. Not someone quick witted with verbal skills able to match wits with another(all jmo, tho).. I think it's not unheard of for me to believe that he was or would be awkward in a situation that would require quick, on one's toes type reactions or responses.. Therefor I truly believe a whole lot, an entire treasure trove of info could have been gleaned in those first hours of interviews with McD.. Especially if LE were equipped and well prepared with a sharp, quick thinking investigator to lead those interviews..

Back to the email and it's recipient being from or residing in Atlanta.. I know clkwrks stated the possibility of it being someone known to McD therefor from prior knowledge he would have known the recipient of the email lived in Atlanta.. While I would never rule that out a possibility.. I would not personally automatically assume that prior knowledge either..
One detail possibly indicative of just the opposite(as in McD Not being familiar with or knowing prior the email's recipient)was something he says during his on cam interview..

While McD makes certain to lay out in a great deal of detail the contents of the email and how this email was found.. Removing himself as the individual who directed the groups attn onto Lauren's laptop and suggestion to look thru her email for any possible clues(while no one is saying for certain either way of whose idea it was to open Lauren's laptop email acct and read thru emails.. Personally one of my top theories has this being done by McD as introducing the email as a possible way to find clues of where might Lauren be).. In the on cam interview McD states that it was someone other than himself that suggested viewing the email acct.. He completely omits, skips over, etc any other emails sent or received that night.. Zero mention but rather makes a direct beeline to THE EMAIL OF GREAT IMPORTANCE.. to which he goes into extreme intricate detail about..with overwhelming influence on a direct quote of "MACON HOODLUMS" and Lauren's absolute fear of being in her apt due to their having attempted a break in just 48 hours earlier(from time of email).. When asked to whom the email was sent.. McD cannot and does not recall the guys name... Doesn't even remember to who the email was sent.. Just can't think of it.. But instead barrels on into other important detail about the day and time it was sent and of course reiterating once again Lauren's fear of staying in her own apt due to the "MACON HOODLUMS" having attempted to break in.. He whines into the camera about why didn't Lauren come to me???
.." I could've helped somehow.. I could've given her my little handgun that I have for "defense".. *I was just right next door and heard some stuff but it was mostly just people walking by.."

He glosses over,skips by, or barrels thru to those details of importance to McD(IMO).. Clearly he does not know the person to who the email was sent.. IMO it's not someone he has prior knowledge of.. I believe that if it were infact a true person who did actually live in Atlanta that just as McD had zero problem numerous different times throughout his on cam interview literally rattling off complete names(first and last)of people involved in and around Lauren and is searching for Lauren.. Go back and listen.. With no effort whatsoever on multiple occasions throughout the interview McD clearly and accurately rattles off these names, multiple names, first and last names.. But the recipient is not recalled.. Cannot remember.. And totally forgotten what the guys name even was.. BUT KNOWS HE LIVES IN ATLANTA!!*

Let me ask a question.. Do you not believe that the moment that the email was found in Laurens outbox as having been sent on Saturday, 25th at 10:30pm and ESPECIALLY when the content of the email was read that clearly stated in clear cut words that Lauren was in fear in her own apt.. Stating that there had actually even been an attempted break in 2 days prior to Lauren's having been seen last.. Would you not agree that immediately upon reading this email that this group of friends(along with eventually LE when they received this evidence) would HAVE IMMEDIATELY CALLED THIS FRIEND, the email recipient, IN ATLANTA?????

WOULD NOT THOSE HAVE BEEN THEIR VERY FIRST INSTINCT?? especially as they all looked to one another and found that no one else knew of this fear or attempted break in... Wouldn't they have wanted to immediately have called this guy to learn what else Lauren possibly had told him.. Did she elaborate further when he called her worried and concerned after having received he email???.. Or if when he received the email and then called to check(and would he not have called his friend to check in on her after receiving an email stating her fear and the already attempted break in? IMO 100%OF COURSE HE WOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY CALLED LAUREN).. so these friends searching for her certainly would want to know
If this guy had been able to get in touch with Lauren to check in after he received the alarming email!!! And if by the time he had received the email and attempted contacting her that he was unable to have ever reached Lauren to Check on her.. Would he not have pursued it further??? Yes, u know he would.. And I'm not saying immediately just run with it automatically expecting her to gave been murdered by these "MACON HOODLUMS" that had already attempted a break in.. But that he would have further pursued it in attempting to contact other friends or family of Lauren's just to verify that she was ok..*

IMO IF THIS MALE, EMAIL RECIPIENT THAT RESIDES IN ATLANTA DID TRULY EXIST THEN IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE BALL ROLLING TO DISCOVERING LAUREN WAS MISSING
WOULD HAVE BEGUN MUCH SOONER THAN IT DID.. just through the natural progression that would have occurred by this guy having simply reached out to check in on his gal pal, Lauren who had emailed him some pretty alarming details about her current living arrangment, alone.. Not in a frenzied panic!!! Nothing of the sort.. Just rather the natural progression that would have unfolded in his contacting his friend... Jmo, tho!!

IMO there is no email recipient!!!! This was all known very soon into this case(I'd say within mins of the friends having been made aware of this email's existence and in reading it's contents) and NO ONE KNOWING NOR ABLE TO LOCATE ANY CONTACT INFO WHATSOEVER BY ANYONE OF THE NAME OF THE EMAIL RECIPIENT!!!!! I think that atleast one of these friends had come to that conclusion soon thereafter having read the email.. These friends KNEW their friend, Lauren!!!! Lauren was a No Nonsense type girl, no shrinking violet by any means whatsoever, but rather extremely assertive and voiced easily concerns or issues as they might arise.. These friends KNEW THAT!!!! THEY KNEW THAT IF WHAT THAT EMAIL SAID WERE ACCURATE AND TRUE THAT LAUREN FIRST OF ALL WOULD NOT HAVE PLAYED AROUND, or played coy about LE.. But rather that she wouldn't have hesitated to report an attempted break in to her home.. She believed in the law and it's system how it worked.. She wouldn't have hesitated to immediately involve LE!!! But most important I THINK THESE FRIENDS KNEW THAT IF THOSE DETAILS WERE TRUE AND HAD OCCURRED THAT LAUREN WOULD HAVE, AT MINIMUM TOLD AT THE VERY LEAST ONE OF THESE CLOSE FRIENDS WITH WHOM SHE TRUSTED AND LIVED WITH LITERAL MILES OF.. they know that their friend would have done one or both of these two things at the very bare minimum.. That it did not add up, make sense, or even begin to be accurate that this friend, Lauren would have never have uttered word one of this fear or the attempted break in to not even one of these close knit friends who lived in the same community.. And instead in one single email she listed these details and fears and sent them to a male who supposedly lived in Atlanta that no one had ever even heard of or met and who did not after he having received the alarming email, he never even so much as called to check in on her or see was she ok???!!!

IMO these friends saw ALL OF THESE THINGS(and much more that we haven't a clue of).. And I think we will learn in the end that these friends were immediately honed in on these type details of which they could not make any sense of..

To sum it all up regarding the EMAIL... one of my top theories involving McD as the sole perpetrator of this crime theorizes that he, after-the-fact decided and prepared this email, as well as the email's recipient..(after-the-fact meaning after he had either already murdered Lauren or at the very least had her subdued).. I think it was an after thought to better help to distance himself from this crime by creating a "pre"-existing Element to the murder... Somewhat of an on-going crime already in it's process..by creating this attempted break in less than 48 hours prior to her being murdered and with who better than to identify her perpetrator than the very victim herself, Lauren.. By authoring an email as Lauren he has her id the perp as the "MACON HOODLUMS"..in using that term attempting to add further credence that Lauren was so familiar with these criminals behaviors that she even had a name for them, "MACON HOODLUMS".. he has Lauren not only Identify her perp, insinuate her familiarity with this criminal behavior with a labeled name, and establishes that Lauren was indeed fearful of there being further attempts or actual break ins and it was a concern that she had..the email *establishing that there was fear Preceding*Her murder...

Again all of these elements furthering distance and focus away from her next door neighbor and classmate, Stephen..
With this particular theory I believe those were his after-the-fact attempts at recreating a completely different crime and it's motive.. I believe that the emails purpose was to be discovered EXACTLY HOW IT WAS DISCOVERED!!! this info, these attempts of redirecting focus and blame were to not be opened and read, therefor discovered by a male friend in Atlanta.. McD knew there was no such person, therefor the
Info would never be received, read, and discovered in that manner.. But rather this info to deflect, redirect focus and blame, as well as recreate the actual motive and crime were to be discovered exactly as they were.. Found and read in Lauren's personal email outbox.. Time and dated stamped for June 25, Saturday, 10:30pm.. This was the exact manner in which McD successfully planned and executed that plan to reveal these all important details that were necessary to do the job that McD designed them to do(as detailed ^above^)

Once the friends were privy to these important "facts" of what were their friends very last words.. McD knew the email had served it's very specific and unique purpose and thus set in motion for investigators to then learn these all important last words of Lauren's as well..

I think McD was so damn elated how perfectly thus far how things were playing out.. Perfectly and exactly according to plan.. That when the opportunity showed itself for his to be interviewed by a reporter and on cam, no less..that just as we all witnessed McD extremely chatty, almost giddy like a kid, in telling and relaying what'd occurred thus far.. And finding it an added bonus to now have the opportunity to get those all important details of Lauren's last words in the email.. He now in extreme detail laid out to us, the public those details meant to deflect, redirect, etc away from anything McD..

Think about it... If McD did NOT At length and with great detail lay out to us, the public the contents of that email.. If he had NOT... we would never have known peep one of this email and it's contents.. McD hand delivered, on a silver platter the information that he felt would 110+% misdirect EVERYONE's focus away from him and onto the "MACON HOODLUMS"...

Sorry so long.. Just some of my thoughts and theories on this email containing "Lauren's" last words..

Of course as is always jmo, tho!!
 
The email was verified by the police. They reported an email was sent with that basic information. LG stated someone tried to break into her apartment 2 days prior and she was scared. The difference is the tone of that email. We don't know what the wording was.

Was it:
"I am so scared. Macon hoodlums tried breaking into my apartment 2 days ago and I am absolutely freaked out."

Or was it:
"I am so glad I am moving out of this place. I can't believe how bad this area is getting. I am actually scared sometimes. Those Macon hoodlums stole my GPS out of my car right in front of the apartments, and 2 days ago, they tried to break in my apartment. I am ready to move somewhere safer."

Those 2 emails provide the same basic information, but the tone and the responses you would get are totally different. Until (and IF) they release the text of the email sent, we won't know how it was worded and why the response wasn't immediate.
 
This is my first time posting here, but have been following this forum for a while, particularly as it pertains to Lauren G. My friend actually set this account up for me (because I was experiencing technical difficulty) and dubbed me "Supermom1995". I feel compelled to say I am by no means a supermom, only a mom who loves her daughter and tries really hard.

All that said, does anyone know how Neighbor MCD knew the email, sent from Lauren's computer, was to someone in Atlanta? Was Atlanta a part of the email address? or mentioned in the body of the message?

Great 1st post, SuperMom, THAT is a great question!

It seems to me, that SM has added quite a few extra, unnecessary, qualifying bits of information when he has spoken, which makes me wonder why.
 
It is distressing to me that there has been no word what so ever regarding any of the evidence that was sent to Quantico. Not one word, other than the blurb stating that "communication with the FBI and other leads" is what sent the LE back for the second search on the 12th. It just gives me a bad feeling that what they do have, doesn't really tell them much, and doesn't tell them enough to file murder charges on anyone. I hope I am wrong.
 
Thanks for the updates, everyone.

I am not reading any of the comments section at Macon at all, but, I have some comments regarding the recent "updates".

-If the Macon article is true, plastic was the "material" that LG's torso was wrapped in. That reduces the probability that the "soft" items in the bags from SM's 2nd apt. search, were taken because of fibers matched by the FBI from the torso wrap.

So, if "correspondence with the FBI and other leads" were the reason for the 2nd search of SM's apartment, and LE took "soft" items in the bags, then, I wonder where the indication for that came from? Wouldn't that possibly mean a different type of evidence that pointed to something that possibly originated from SM's apartment?

-The "plastic" wrap that her torso was in could very well be linked back to it's place of origin. Possibly even to the preceding bag (if that's what it was), that it was ripped from.

-I wonder if LG's stomach contents indicated her meal from the fast food place?(sorry). Surely that would narrow things down for TOD etc.

-I wonder if the wording and mannerisms in the email sent to her boyfriend were similar to her style of writing. Certain nuances might prove indicative, though not definitive, of who sent the letter. Also, her login style on the computer, and what she browsed and did on the computer (if anything) prior to sending that message, might prove important. The forensic computer experts will determine that, I am sure.
 
Hi Everyone! I have been following this story very closely and have found all the posts on WS to be very informative. I have been very interested in this story for two main reasons, (1) I am originally from Macon, my grandparents, aunts, cousins, etc. still live there, and (2) Just like Lauren, I am a May 2011 law school grad (texas school, not mercer) and am studying for the TX bar exam. I can't imagine if this happened to one of my law school classmates, especially if one of my fellow classmates was accused of such a horrific crime. I'm going to Macon next week after the bar exam, and I am anxious to know whether there is a serial killer on the loose! I will say that, while I'm not personally familiar with the Bibb county DA's office, I know from my legal clerkship experience here in TX that it is definitely not unusual for the DA's office to "hold their hand," especially when the suspect is in custody. Why show your hand before you have to? Thank you WS for studying distraction! :) I pray that justice is done.
 
Thanks for the updates, everyone.

I am not reading any of the comments section at Macon at all, but, I have some comments regarding the recent "updates".

-If the Macon article is true, plastic was the "material" that LG's torso was wrapped in. That reduces the probability that the "soft" items in the bags from SM's 2nd apt. search, were taken because of fibers matched by the FBI from the torso wrap.

So, if "correspondence with the FBI and other leads" were the reason for the 2nd search of SM's apartment, and LE took "soft" items in the bags, then, I wonder where the indication for that came from? Wouldn't that possibly mean a different type of evidence that pointed to something that possibly originated from SM's apartment?
-The "plastic" wrap that her torso was in could very well be linked back to it's place of origin. Possibly even to the preceding bag (if that's what it was), that it was ripped from.

-I wonder if LG's stomach contents indicated her meal from the fast food place?(sorry). Surely that would narrow things down for TOD etc.

-I wonder if the wording and mannerisms in the email sent to her boyfriend were similar to her style of writing. Certain nuances might prove indicative, though not definitive, of who sent the letter. Also, her login style on the computer, and what she browsed and did on the computer (if anything) prior to sending that message, might prove important. The forensic computer experts will determine that, I am sure.

BBM

Even if LS was wrapped in plastic that doesnt exclude the possibility that fibers from any sort of fabric were found on her torso. That would explain the "soft items" in the bag LE took from the apt; material to match against found fibers.
 
Macon police Maj. Charles Stone likened the status of the probe to a poker hand.
“We’re waiting for that last card,” Stone told The Telegraph on Friday. “That last card is either gonna give us a full house or we’re gonna end up moving on to other things.”

Police had hoped that some word on the 74 pieces of evidence they have sent to FBI forensics experts in Quantico, Va., would come in Friday (July 8th).
It is now July 20th. I believe we are on to the moving on to other things stage
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
168
Guests online
3,170
Total visitors
3,338

Forum statistics

Threads
604,614
Messages
18,174,560
Members
232,759
Latest member
angelicbexy
Back
Top