GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 # 4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Her sister did say she mentioned an attempted break-in that scared her, but she was not afraid to be in her apartment. I can't remember the exact wording right now, but we beat that dead horse back when it was first mentioned. It was a context thing. He had just seen that email that Joe found and then heard they found a body. I can see making a big deal out of it at that moment. Her sister, on the other hand, had time to read the email in the context of already knowing she was dead and recognizing her own sister's tone in the email as not being terrified, but aggravated about the things happening.

LE DID verify she sent an email to someone she knew stating something about an attempted break-in and noting some fear. We do not know the exact wording, but you have to think about the timing of the email being read and finding out LG was murdered. That can impact the reaction.

SM may be our guy, but I am still trying to find the one thing that convinces me. I have no problem saying I think someone is guilty if I see enough dots connecting. Casey Anthony is the most recent one that comes to mind. In this case, there are a few scattered dots, but I don't think they are even on the same page.
 
Knox said:
Welcome ~SuperSleuth~ :seeya:

I agree with you. After he is told Lauren's body was found, it looks like his legs are buckling.

He also says in reply to the question does he think it may be Lauren- well if they found "it" on the property-. May not be his exact wording but he does say "it". I dunno, just little things jump out.

Funny how we can all watch the same thing and have such different conclusions.
Click to expand...

Go back to what the reporter asked him. Are you holding out hope that IT wasn't Lauren's body that they found. He answered referring to the body not to Lauren.
 
Destini said:
Another thing I noticed in this latest video, that I didn't think much about when I watched the radio station version:

SM says the friends called the boyfriend & the boyfriend hadn't heard from her. Did the boyfriend not tell her friends he had gotten that e-mail from her? In talking about the e-mail, SM just says she sent it to a friend in Atlanta, not the boyfriend in Atlanta.

Does that make sense?

In other words, if they contacted the boyfriend, wouldn't you think he said something along the lines of, "She sent me an e-mail Sat. night, but I haven't heard anything else from her"? So then why would SM just say the e-mail was sent to a "friend"?
Click to expand...

I had to listen again, but you're right. He does state they called the boyfriend and he had not heard from here. Although, he did not say this while recounting that night's events... it was a short time after this. So, hard to say when he was implying this call took place.
I find this interesting, because I believe the police report stated the officer tried to call the boyfriend but could not reach him. I may be wrong about this.
I'm having trouble finding that police report (linked to somewhere in this thread).
I can't believe I haven't saved a copy yet :)
If someone could point me to this, I'd appreciate it.
 
Backwoods said:
But Bessie, on the part I've bolded: Judging by that same yardstick -- as a recent law school graduate who worked in the DA's office, etc. -- if he did the crime, wouldn't he know it was highly dangerous to his cover to do so?

Maybe he just can't be measured by that yardstick -- innocent or guilty. Maybe he is really different, in some of the ways that have been proposed on here.
Click to expand...
If he is innocent, I would expect him to behave like an intelligent, knowledgable young lawyer. If he's guilty of a heinous crime that had just been discovered, emotion would affect his judgment. (See my reply to Destini.)
 
~SuperSleuth~ said:
I had to listen again, but you're right. He does state they called the boyfriend and he had not heard from here. Although, he did not say this while recounting that night's events... it was a short time after this. So, hard to say when he was implying this call took place.
I find this interesting, because I believe the police report stated the officer tried to call the boyfriend but could not reach him. I may be wrong about this.
I'm having trouble finding that police report (linked to somewhere in this thread).
I can't believe I haven't saved a copy yet :)
If someone could point me to this, I'd appreciate it.
Click to expand...

Ok... (and thanks again Knox)
The police report states:
"The victim also has a boyfriend _____ who lives in Atlanta. His number
is _____. The victim's friends stated that he is in California right
now, and I was unable to get an answer on his number when I called."

So, it would appear that the friends had not contacted the boyfriend at this point.
Otherwise, he probably would have stated that.... and would have no reason to call him. Would be interesting to know when/how the boyfriend was first contacted.
 
bessie said:
If he is innocent, I would expect him to behave like an intelligent, knowledgable young lawyer. If he's guilty of a heinous crime that had just been discovered, emotion would affect his judgment. (See my reply to Destini.)
Click to expand...

I would expect the exact opposite. If he did it, he would have known to expect a blow at some point. His lawyer guard would be on high. If he were innocent, he would knocked to the ground, almost literally, by hearing they found the person he and the others were looking for. And they found her right under their noses. I could see all common sense going out the window until you had time to process it and deal with it. Some people do that by running their mouths, others clam up.
 
Who is this Joe guy that keeps popping up? Joe looked on the computer, Joe said he talked to the boyfriend, Joe went with them to search. Joe seems to be a lot more involved than SM in this. SM was on the outskirts, Joe was directing it.
 
PsychoMom said:
Who is this Joe guy that keeps popping up? Joe looked on the computer, Joe said he talked to the boyfriend, Joe went with them to search. Joe seems to be a lot more involved than SM in this. SM was on the outskirts, Joe was directing it.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I should post their full names here, but watch the interview video and he gives you Joe's name, and his roomate Garin. Lauren was at their house earlier the day she went missing - before she went to Zaxby's.
 
~SuperSleuth~ said:
I don't know if I should post their full names here, but watch the interview video and he gives you Joe's name, and his roomate Garin. Lauren was at their house earlier the day she went missing - before she went to Zaxby's.
Click to expand...

I would like to know more about him. IF he said he talked to the boyfriend, and he didn't, then a red flag needs to be flying over him. If he did talk to the boyfriend, but the police just wanted to confirm it, that is a little different. But it does sound like Joe was the leader of the pack. I wonder who he is, and what his background looks like.
 
PsychoMom said:
I would expect the exact opposite. If he did it, he would have known to expect a blow at some point. His lawyer guard would be on high. If he were innocent, he would knocked to the ground, almost literally, by hearing they found the person he and the others were looking for. And they found her right under their noses. I could see all common sense going out the window until you had time to process it and deal with it. Some people do that by running their mouths, others clam up.
Click to expand...
And I would expect twenty minutes to be adequate time to remember the words, "no comment", considering they were neighbors and classmates who shared a casual friendship. But let's look at it your way. He's knocked to his knees, bowled over with emotion. Yet, he's cooperative, willing to answer questions, and has the presence of mind to recall precise details. I find that unusual. The most common reaction in that situation is to shun cameras. To become angry with reporters and view them as voyeurs. It's the rare person who wants to be recorded in that state of mind. But neither of us is likely to change our opinions on this issue, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
snipped
SMOOTHOPERATOR post 360
[/QUOTE]That visceral reaction that is seen and heard would make sense given the intention was that the torso would have been long gone and hauled away with the apt complex trash that was to be picked up!!! No torso, no body, No Lauren, No murder!!!! And Lauren just is another name on another Missing Persons flyer for God knows how Many years!!!
That discovery of that torso was at minimum at 2 punch to the gut that left him breathless and rendered him speechless for moments to come.. It was the realization of this happy go lucky plan that thus far was playing out smoothly just got yanked out from under his feet before he even knew what hit him..

IMO looking back on this reaction with what most of us believe to be that the absolute intention was for that torso to have been hauled off to the dump and not discovered right there 50 feet from his and Laurens front doors.. It makes the reaction just that much more understandable IMO...[/QUOTE]

***************************************

Smoothoperator, you nailed it.

He was definitely shocked to hear that a BODY had been found.

All that McD replied was "body?"
and then, "I think I need to sit down."

My thoughts are:
If he were innocent wouldn't he have asked questions based along this line:

Where did they find a body?
Who found it?
Are they sure it is Lauren?
What happened to her?
Are they sure she is dead?
Who could have done this?
Do they know who killed her?

Those are the thoughts that come to my mind if I were told that my neighbor's body was found in the parking lot.
In the video McD makes no inquiry.
Maybe he did off camera and it was not recorded. (??)

I think he was in complete shock at the repercussions of the body being found.
Now, everything had changed.


Another thing that catches my attention is when the reporter asks
"Did she have any enemies, do you know of anyone who would want to hurt her?"
McD avoids that question and redirects the conversation: "We don't know where she is..." then he proceeds to comment with reference to her running and that maybe someone snatched her.

Another point from the video:
In part 1 and part 2 of the video McD explicitly states that

"No one has seen her since Saturday".

This interview was 5 days later. He was studying for the bar. How did he know that NO ONE had seen Lauren since Saturday?

He also makes a comment about her car that is odd to me:
When asked by the reporter Michelle Quesada if that was Lauren's car. He states that "No that car was Detective Patterson's... Lauren's car had been there for days."
Why would he think that her car had been there for days? How would he know that she had not driven her car when he was not aware?

***************************
These are very tell tale signs for me.
What do you think about these points?
Your ideas are appreciated.
 
Snipped from Sandstorm's post:
He also makes a comment about her car that is odd to me:
When asked by the reporter Michelle Quesada if that was Lauren's car. He states that "No that car was Detective Patterson's... Lauren's car had been there for days." ]
Click to expand...

Bingo Sandstorm!!! This IMO drives it right on home!!!
This neighbor who supposedly has been hunkered down studying for the bar, along with attending morning classes on campus thru Barbri MAKES AN EXTREMELY BOLD AND TELLING STATEMENT...
That Lauren's car had been there for days..

There is no way unless he had knowledge that Lauren for certain was not "able" to leave in her car would he have been able to make that statement.. For all he knew she was leaving when out for a bit while he was on campus or asleep in his apt or playing videos in his apt.. Lauren could have been leaving and returning at any of thise given times and he shouldnt have had a clue..

But yet we have him state with great certainty that "Lauren's car had been there for days!"..

He made a huge mistake in his chattering decision amd his obvious interjection into everything about Lauren's case and it's now gonna all come back and bit him in the butt..

Thanks for Pointing that out sandstorm..

And as for Joe being the ringleader.. It is SM that is painting him in this fashion.. It is SM's words that have created this and used Joes name over and over and over, firsy and last names of these guys even stating whT street they lived on..
Joe is only even being thought of due to SM's words and how he has painted something to be and IMO that's not worth even the slightest fragment of a grain of salt!! He is desperate to name amd point to and in the direction of just as many people that he possibly can .. Desperate to point in any other direction than at he, himself, Stephen McDaniel..
 
bessie said:
If he is innocent, I would expect him to behave like an intelligent, knowledgable young lawyer. If he's guilty of a heinous crime that had just been discovered, emotion would affect his judgment. (See my reply to Destini.)
Click to expand...

That makes sense, certainly; I also think what I and a few others see in the situation is the possibility that emotion might also affect his judgment and demeanor if he were innocent and found out rather bluntly that a body had been discovered that was likely to be the person he had played a part in searching for rather intensely for several hours, a person he had known for some time albeit not intimately.
 
PsychoMom said:
Who is this Joe guy that keeps popping up? Joe looked on the computer, Joe said he talked to the boyfriend, Joe went with them to search. Joe seems to be a lot more involved than SM in this. SM was on the outskirts, Joe was directing it.
Click to expand...

Good observation. To be fair, though, to Joe -- from something SM said in the interview, I believe this is probably just simply because Joe was "a friend of Lauren's" -- someone closer to her than SM, and probably very concerned.
 
Snipped from southern comfort's post
Doing my best to imagine myself as the perpetrator of this crime, I simply cannot fathom not keeping tabs on that trash bin. I cannot imagine knowing that LG's torso was sitting in that bin because of what I had done, and having no clue that the police had pulled her remains out and been on the scene for 3 or 4 hours.
Click to expand...

While what is just stated ^above^ would be the ideal situation and one in which the perp would have done given he had the opportunity..
But unfortunately for McD, tho fortunately for Lauren Stephen wasn't allowed this ideal situation and he had zero control over the situation when LE bused the particular individuals to the station and held them there while doing several hours of questioning..

It is due to that very reason that the perp could NOT have the luxury of being able to monitor the remains and ensure they weren't disturbed nor discovered and that they made their way to their final destination.. The landfill..

Upon his arrival back to the apt complex the body had been discovered and even if it had not IMO it would have been most difficult for McD to mosey on over to the trash bin to check on the status of the torso.. And done without being noticed by apt complex crawling with dets, crime units, ofcrs, and many news media with cameras rolling.. It just was nit gonna and did not work out that way that would allow for McD to have the ideal situation of monitoring the torso ensuring it's not being discovered..

As I said that's unfortunate for McD but oh so very fortunate for all others involved especially Laurens loved one's..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 128 more.
Total: 1,692 (members: 129, guests: 1,563)

Online statistics

Members online
129
Guests online
1,563
Total visitors
1,692
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,112
Messages
18,134,834
Members
231,235
Latest member
craig21876
Back
Top