GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 # 8

[PlainJaneDoe]

JMO: I don't read any victim-blaming into this post.

Thank you for the book recommendation, Angel.
Just ordered it - looking forward to the read.

I would further recommend any books by John Douglas, Roy Hazelwood, R. Ressler, or any of their collaborators. Katherine Ramsland, who I believe was mentored by this group, also has a fun book about Criminal Minds. (Amazon.com: The Forensic Psychology of Criminal Minds (Berkley Us) eBook: Katherine Ramsland: Kindle Store)

 

[Sandstorm]

.

As far as whether SMD is risk averse,snipped One thing I do think is that her key was a little treasure to him, especially after his mother's comments about his interest in keys etc. as a child. It would signify to him that control he secretly had over her life, her fate

Angelanalyzes,
I certainly agree with you on the key trophy.
Lauren's key gave McD a special feeling of control over her and her abode.
This was posted earlier, but I feel it is pertinent to McD and is MO.
When this case eventually goes to trial I think more than LG's key and 2 condom trophies will be revealed.
Killers like to take trophies and souvenirs from their victims. Keeping some memento -- a lock of hair, jewelry, newspaper clips of the crime -- helps prolong, even nourish, their fantasy of the crime. ..
When they finally commit a crime, it's like they have a sense of ownership. It's an accomplishment and they feel so good about what they've done that they have to keep it going…
Many of us get trophies for our accomplishments. For killers, taking souvenirs extends the fantasy into that realm….
And some killers -- the more organized or premeditated type -- sometimes even inject themselves into the police investigation to provide bogus information. They do it for different reasons. They may want to find out where the investigation is headed or look for cues that it's progressing along nicely because, naturally, they're concerned about that.
READ MORE:
http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com...les/030213.php
Why Killers Take Trophies
Reliving the Crime Extends the Fantasy
By John E. Douglas

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

(fixed link)
READ MORE:
http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/articles/030213.php
Why Killers Take Trophies
Reliving the Crime Extends the Fantasy
By John E. Douglas

Since he was into writing that fantasy novel, perhaps LE found some other writings of his.

The disorganized type of criminal -- that's the asocial type, the loners, the weird -- will keep diaries because they have trouble communicating with others so they feel much more comfortable writing out their thoughts, plans, goals or fantasies.

Like AngelAnalyzes pointed out... a mix of organized/disorganized.

 

[pearl]

Bessie,
Please remove this post if it is off topic too much.

Angel,
I have a question I want to ask you. It is not about SM but it does tie in to the previous discussion about whether or not there may have been past behaviors of SM's that could have alerted to a severe problem. Can you give me any information about the below scenario.
You meet a person. You interact with this person on a daily basis for several months. After some time has passed, you develop a gut reaction that this person will do something violent to another person at some time in the future. You are personally certain that this will happen. You do not know of any violence in this person's past or see any in his/her interactions with others. Just some hinky meter in your subconscious based on your observations that this person is distrubed in some manner makes you believe this person will be trouble in the future. And then, it does come to pass. The person does in fact kill someone or rape someone or molest a child. How could this happen?

 

[Sandstorm]

working link to John Douglas Trophy article:
http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/articles/030213.php

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

Bessie,
Please remove this post if it is off topic too much.

Angel,
I have a question I want to ask you. It is not about SM but it does tie in to the previous discussion about whether or not there may have been past behaviors of SM's that could have alerted to a severe problem. Can you give me any information about the below scenario.
You meet a person. You interact with this person on a daily basis for several months. After some time has passed, you develop a gut reaction that this person will do something violent to another person at some time in the future. You are personally certain that this will happen. You do not know of any violence in this person's past or see any in his/her interactions with others. Just some hinky meter in your subconscious based on your observations that this person is distrubed in some manner makes you believe this person will be trouble in the future. And then, it does come to pass. The person does in fact kill someone or rape someone or molest a child. How could this happen?

Hope it's ok if I chime in on this, because I think that evolutionary psychology can help to answer your question.

Human society has evolved based upon a system of reciprocity - if you provide for me and/or my offspring, thus ensuring the survival of my genes, I will extend the same to you. Usually, it is mutually beneficial to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Yes, there is some cost to you (resources, time, etc., which could put the other person's genes at a relative advantage), but usually the person reciprocates, thus benefiting you and your genes. Great! (See also The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins.)

But there are "cheaters" in the system, too - people who will gladly accept your kindness, but offer none in return. We call them "takers, not givers," "fair-weather friends," and other non-flattering names. Taken to the extreme, we call them "predators" - people who will literally destroy you because it is somehow beneficial to them. (See David Buss's excellent book, The Murderer Next Door, and A Natural History of Rape - a fascinating, controversial book by Thornhill, Palmer, & Wilson.)

Fortunately, we have also evolved tools for cheater-detection, which is where your "hinky meter" comes in. When you talk about the hinky meter going off, what you are really saying is, "I sense that this person is not trustworthy." You believe he doesn't play by the rules - that he is a cheater, in other words. I believe that this is largely based upon your ability to perceive and interpret the individual's behavior (verbal and nonverbal). A great example of this can be found in the work of Paul Ekman, which was recently glamorized in the TV show Lie to Me. This is an important skill for any social species, because we don't want to give away our resources - compromise our fitness - to someone who has no intention of "doing right by us" in return.

In this post, especially in the 1st paragraph, I have used active verbs. This is conventional, but sometimes misleading to those who aren't used to reading about evolutionary psychology. I am not say, nor do I believe, that we only do nice things for others because we want them to help us reproduce! I am saying that that is the evolutionary, biological basis for reciprocity. (And you are free to disagree with this if you wish, of course!) And I am not saying that we consciously pick up on behavioral signals that tell us whether or not to trust a person because we are consciously only interested in being around/helping those who can increase our fitness. In fact, as you know based on your own experience with intuition or hunches, a lot of this perception and processing is done very subconsciously. And it makes sense - the parts of the brain that apparently pick up on these cues are phylogenetically older than the cerebral cortex. Much of what they do never reaches close to the level of consciousness. But if these areas in the brain are compromised, serious deficits result. (See also Donald Pfaff's book, The Neuroscience of Fair Play.)

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_s...rds=the+selfish+gene&sprefix=the+selfish+gene

Amazon.com: The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind Is Designed to Kill (9781594200434): David M. Buss: Books

Amazon.com: A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (9780262201254): Randy Thornhill, Craig T. Palmer, Margo I. Wilson: Books

Amazon.com: The Neuroscience of Fair Play: Why We (Usually) Follow the Golden Rule (9781932594270): Donald W. Pfaff, Edward O. Wilson: Books

 

[Knox]

PlainJaneDoe a simple tap on the thanks button was not enough.

Very interesting, thank you for sharing.

You and Angel are certainly giving us food for thought.

 

[Sandstorm]

Hope it's ok if I chime in on this, because I think that evolutionary psychology can help to answer your question.
snipped]

Excellent post. Thank you.
And a lot to think about.
I am not familiar with your specific field of expertise but is sure sounds interesting.
I am especially intrigued by your book recommendation: The Murderer Next Door.
That particular one may be quite pertinent to this case!
In the cart!

 

[angelanalyzes]

Bessie,
Please remove this post if it is off topic too much.

Angel,
I have a question I want to ask you. It is not about SM but it does tie in to the previous discussion about whether or not there may have been past behaviors of SM's that could have alerted to a severe problem. Can you give me any information about the below scenario.
You meet a person. You interact with this person on a daily basis for several months. After some time has passed, you develop a gut reaction that this person will do something violent to another person at some time in the future. You are personally certain that this will happen. You do not know of any violence in this person's past or see any in his/her interactions with others. Just some hinky meter in your subconscious based on your observations that this person is distrubed in some manner makes you believe this person will be trouble in the future. And then, it does come to pass. The person does in fact kill someone or rape someone or molest a child. How could this happen?

Most likely what you would hypothetically be sensing about this person when you initially get that feeling of the hair on the back of your neck standing up but can't put your finger on it exactly is the cumulative effect of a multitude of cues, very subtle, about a veneer, or mask of sanity they are working with socially to conceal their darker nature from those around them. The sociopath often mimics normal social interaction, but like any masquerade, the mask can slip. After a while interacting with someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder, a perceptive person may notice these small slips subconsciously and the alarm will sound. Sometimes it could be as simple as a look in their eyes.
I have a relative, through marriage, who is around 21 years old, 4 years younger than I am. Male. I always felt something about him wasn't right, even growing up. There were no particular external episodes as we grew up that would lead me to think he was dangerous, he was pretty nerdy and clever and extremely funny and we always got along well. But every so often I would catch him with a certain stare, and after prolonged exposure to it, over the years when I would visit in Texas for the summer, I became more and more certain that he had a side to him that was very dark. By the time I was around 23, my little brother [who lives in Texas] let me know that my feeling was well founded. He told me that the relative in question [Jake is his name] not only tried to engage with him sexually when my brother was 8 and Jake was 13 but Jake had also actually molested his step-sister [who is our blood cousin] repeatedly from the time she was around 10, even going so far as to videotape her in the shower by hiding a camera in the bathroom. My brother also told me that several times, Jake had made disturbing offhanded comments about wanting to rape girls he saw walking down the street as they were in the car. My brother also found disturbing *advertiser censored* on Jake's computer, rape mostly.
My cousin's parents have done nothing about this, they should have him arrested for what he's done to their daughter. So far that we know of, he has not acted out against anyone else, but I am certain that he will, just as I felt for years before I had any inkling that he was molesting my cousin. I truly believe he will victimize women, women he doesn't know, in the future. I believe he will become a serial offender. I wonder if when that happens, the family secrets will come to light. I have considered calling the police myself, but I know that my aunt and uncle and even my cousin the victim will circle the wagons around Jake and deny everything. They have said as much to my mother.
I believe in those gut instincts, but I'm not sure how much of my sense about Jake came from the fact that ever since I was a child I was hyper-vigilant.
I also know that plenty of people have been very, very close to prolific serial killers without ever being able to imagine they were capable of that kind of violence. It all depends on how under control they are as individuals. In Stephen's case, I'm not sure anyone would have felt he was an actual danger, he has an exceedingly disarming appearance and probably just came off as odd and awkward for the most part IMO. But there may be someone in his life who sensed something more menacing, perhaps lurking in a look in his eyes they'd catch every so often...
Time will tell.

 

[angelanalyzes]

Hope it's ok if I chime in on this, because I think that evolutionary psychology can help to answer your question.

Human society has evolved based upon a system of reciprocity - if you provide for me and/or my offspring, thus ensuring the survival of my genes, I will extend the same to you. Usually, it is mutually beneficial to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Yes, there is some cost to you (resources, time, etc., which could put the other person's genes at a relative advantage), but usually the person reciprocates, thus benefiting you and your genes. Great! (See also The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins.)

But there are "cheaters" in the system, too - people who will gladly accept your kindness, but offer none in return. We call them "takers, not givers," "fair-weather friends," and other non-flattering names. Taken to the extreme, we call them "predators" - people who will literally destroy you because it is somehow beneficial to them. (See David Buss's excellent book, The Murderer Next Door, and A Natural History of Rape - a fascinating, controversial book by Thornhill, Palmer, & Wilson.)

Fortunately, we have also evolved tools for cheater-detection, which is where your "hinky meter" comes in. When you talk about the hinky meter going off, what you are really saying is, "I sense that this person is not trustworthy." You believe he doesn't play by the rules - that he is a cheater, in other words. I believe that this is largely based upon your ability to perceive and interpret the individual's behavior (verbal and nonverbal). A great example of this can be found in the work of Paul Ekman, which was recently glamorized in the TV show Lie to Me. This is an important skill for any social species, because we don't want to give away our resources - compromise our fitness - to someone who has no intention of "doing right by us" in return.

In this post, especially in the 1st paragraph, I have used active verbs. This is conventional, but sometimes misleading to those who aren't used to reading about evolutionary psychology. I am not say, nor do I believe, that we only do nice things for others because we want them to help us reproduce! I am saying that that is the evolutionary, biological basis for reciprocity. (And you are free to disagree with this if you wish, of course!) And I am not saying that we consciously pick up on behavioral signals that tell us whether or not to trust a person because we are consciously only interested in being around/helping those who can increase our fitness. In fact, as you know based on your own experience with intuition or hunches, a lot of this perception and processing is done very subconsciously. And it makes sense - the parts of the brain that apparently pick up on these cues are phylogenetically older than the cerebral cortex. Much of what they do never reaches close to the level of consciousness. But if these areas in the brain are compromised, serious deficits result. (See also Donald Pfaff's book, The Neuroscience of Fair Play.)

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_s...rds=the+selfish+gene&sprefix=the+selfish+gene

Amazon.com: The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind Is Designed to Kill (9781594200434): David M. Buss: Books

Amazon.com: A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (9780262201254): Randy Thornhill, Craig T. Palmer, Margo I. Wilson: Books

Amazon.com: The Neuroscience of Fair Play: Why We (Usually) Follow the Golden Rule (9781932594270): Donald W. Pfaff, Edward O. Wilson: Books

So well put! Evolutionary psychology as a means of understanding both the psychopath and the way we interact with and defend against them is an absolutely fascinating idea! :rocker:

 

[pearl]

I have read on Websleuths for many years, posted only a handful of times before Lauren's case. I have thought for many years that there are some really intelligent posters on this site. I haven't kept up with most cases to really be a follower of one before this one. I am positive that Lauren's forum does have posters who given the opportunity could help unravel this mystery. Be they verified posters or not. The topic of my question up thread is the fact that this feeling has happened to me several times in my profession. Enough times to know that something was in play here. I have six former people I have worked with who are now in prison for first degree murder, more who are in prison or either dead due to some other violent crime. It was no surprise to me each time it happened. I knew I was not alone in having these reactions because other coworkers often sensed something off about these people too. We just did not know how to describe it other than just a gut reaction. It can probably never be proven as a scientific absolute but it does happen.
Thank you to PlainJaneDoe and AngelAnalyzes
And thanks to Psychomom

 

[Idreamofgenie]

Given that they found the keys and hacksaw packaging in his apartment,
I tend to think the risk involved here was not a concern to him.

This got me thinking... what about her Mercer ID?
I would think this would make an excellent keepsake.
I assume it would have her picture on it.
And better than a driver's license or just some picture or piece of jewlery,
since it directly relates to the school and their shared time there as students, etc.
He could frame it along side his own.

And, for all we know, LE may have found this ID in his apt too.
If so, SM would know this - but it's possible he hasn't said anything to Buford about it,
and may have some excuse planned for this or say it must have been planted by MM.
It's interesting that the police report specifically mentioned this as the only thing they could not locate.
SM was there... could it be he was the one to ask about this when they were inspecting her apt?

As I remember from the interview (entire) with SMcD, he states that when he and others went into her apartment after she went missing, he states that her ID, keys, etc are there.

 

[Mustang Sally]

PsychoMom,
Thank you for this very insightful article.
This article substantiates Angel's theory that LG's was a 'lust murder'.
article quote:
"Dismembering a victim illustrates an extreme notion of abhorrence towards the victim, psychologically dismissing their existence and disregarding them as being of any value whatsoever (Holmes & Holmes, 2002). The perpetrator that elects to dismember their victim desires to eliminate their existence, refusing to acknowledge them on a conscious level; furthermore, taking their body apart is perceived to be gratifying sexually and psyischologically necessary... "(Holmes & Holmes, 2002).

"A perpetrator who kills and selects to dismember their victim is driven by the lust and power that they have over the victim..."

I just started reading about Lauren...Skimmed the first thread and some in the middle..then moved on to this thread....The above info reminds me of Gary Michael Hilton..He dismembered and removed the head of Meredith Hope Emerson on Blood Mountain North of Atlanta, in Jan. 1, 2008. He left her torso in one location and the head in another. He kept her alive for 4 days and she never did give him her pin number. He confessed and took LE to the location in exchange of having the Death Penalty taken off the table. Before that he killed my friend Cheryl Hodges Dunlap. He took her on Dec. 1, 2007. He left her torso in the Appalachicola National Forest to be found Dec. 15th. He burned her head and hands in a fire pit. They only found small bone fragments from them. There was talk that he or his dog ate parts of her. {{Ugh ..so gross..}} I know that hunters hang deer upside down..remove the head, drain the blood and disembowel. Some of them eat brains and grits. {{Double UGH..sorry to be graphic}} There is a thread on him in Crimes and Trials...He went to trial in Florida in Feb. 2011...He was given the Death Penalty. He is also being looked at for the deaths of John and Irene Bryant in North Carolina. They wer killed in Oct/Nov. 2007.



Angel's post:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Found Deceased GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 27 June 2011 #8

Dear God Please Bless the Family and Friends of Lauren Giddings!

 

[PsychoMom]

Hope it's ok if I chime in on this, because I think that evolutionary psychology can help to answer your question.
~snip

Great info!

I have my own interpretation. Think of women's intuition. Basically, that is our "hinky meter." You get that feeling deep in your gut something is wrong. Men may have some of that themselves, but women do tend to have it more. It goes back to survival. Men are physically better at defending themselves in most cases, based on size and physical strength. If they end up in a dangerous situation, they are better able to defend themselves. Women tend to be smaller and have less strength. While many women could defend themselves if needed, they are more likely to have physical harm or even death from a conflict. Therefore, the women's intuition, or 'hinky meter,' kicks in sooner.

We have a more innate ability to pick up on cues and signals which warn us of impending danger in a situation or a person. We need it to protect ourselves more. In some ways, it lines up with the evolutionary theory. We are trying to protect ourselves and our fitness to survive.

I bet many of you could point out examples of times you have had that happen, especially, the women on here. I know I have had times where I dodged some serious harm because I listened to my intuition.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

As I remember from the interview (entire) with SMcD, he states that when he and others went into her apartment after she went missing, he states that her ID, keys, etc are there.

He was most likely referring to her driver's license.
The incident report clearly states the Mercer ID was missing.
http://download.gannett.edgesuite.net/wmaz/docs/giddingsreport1.pdf

 

[GypsiesTramps&Thieves]

Anyone know why there was a MPD patrol car parked in front of BH at around midnight last night? I thought they'd stopped doing regular patrols there several weeks back.

 

[bessie]

Hope it's ok if I chime in on this, because I think that evolutionary psychology can help to answer your question.

:seeya: I'm so glad you did, PJD. Thank you.

 

[bessie]

What I would love to have seen is an unsub/offender profile developed before Stephen was ever named a POI or suspect [it tends to taint the objectivity of the profile in the eyes of some people] done by someone like Roy Hazelwood in terms of what kind of person he'd expect to commit the Lauren Giddings murder. From what I know as a student, I do expect that given the circumstances of the crime, a few things would have been included in that profile IMO:

-Unmarried male, solitary
-Above average to high IQ
-Highly familiar and comfortable with the property
-Known to the victim

A much more detailed profile could be developed with information from the autopsy and other facts of the case not made public.

To your list I would add:
-- prone to fantasies/daydreamer
-- compulsive masturbation

Besides the autopsy report, I'd be very interested in a detailed description of the crime scene.

(Sometimes you know what you know, but you can't remember how you know.)

Adding references:
(Note: this speaks of serial killers)

Although some of the listed behaviors are quite disturbing, including cruelty to children and animals, convulsions, and self-mutilation, the three indicators reported with highest frequency are daydreaming, compulsive masturbation, and isolation.

*This table was modified from: Ressler RK, Burgess AW, and Douglas JE. Sexual Homicide Pattern & Motives , (pg. 29); Lexington Books.

See the table at the link
The Serial Killer as a Child

[FONT=Verdana, Arial][SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial][SIZE=-1]First of all, there is no such thing as the person who at age 35 suddenly changes from being perfectly normal and erupts into totally disruptive, murderous behavior. The behaviors that are precursors to murder have been present and developing in that person's life for a very long time, since childhood...[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial][SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial][SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial][SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial][SIZE=-1]From ages of 8 to 12, all the negative tendencies present in their early childhoods were exacerbated and reinforced...

[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial][SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial][SIZE=-1]Potential murderes became solidified in their loneliness first during the age period of 8 to 12; such isolation is considered the single most important aspect of their psychological makeup. His preadolescent sexual activity, rather than being connected to other human beings, starts as autoerotic[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]...

[FONT=Verdana, Arial][SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial][SIZE=-1]Adolescence was dominated by increasing isolation and "acting out" behavior, with lots of daydreaming, compulsive masturbation, lying, bed-wetting, and nightmares as concomitants of the isolation[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial][SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial][SIZE=-1]For more information, see Whoever Fights Monsters by Robert K. Ressler and Tom Shachtman. [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial][SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial][SIZE=-1]
Much more at the link
Criminal Profiling Research
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Givsmetheshivers]

Interesting quote from Sheriff Modena that the prisoners in the infirmary are "extra watched because they are so vulnerable or because they are mean as the devil."

(from article posted just upstream - Knox, you beat me to it, was just about to link it).

Wonder which one McD is? I'm guessing both, at times.

My hubby, who you don't know from Adam's housecat, has said that this may never go to trial because McD will kill himself if he gets the chance.

 

[Knox]

Anyone know why there was a MPD patrol car parked in front of BH at around midnight last night? I thought they'd stopped doing regular patrols there several weeks back.

Maybe just filling out a report? If you hear anything, please let us know