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

[Knox]

Hadn't looked at the photo's of McD's family moving items out of his apartment. Is that a weight bench in the photo linked below?

http://www.macon.com/2011/07/23/1641891_a1641466/mcdaniel-appears-in-court-family.html

 

[angelanalyzes]

Those are the exact things I have been looking for in McD's past, and I can't seem to find them. The hints about "scratching with his long nails" has never been clarified as intentional deep scratches, or accidental scratching that happens with long nails when they reach for something at the same time or something like that. It was a piece of a comment, so we do not know the context.

But, other than that one little bit of a comment, we do not hear about this past history with him. No history of extreme behavioral problems in school. No hints at a juvenile record. No stories of him torturing the neighborhood pets. Nothing. While it looks like things are leaning his way, there is nothing in his background indicating this type of violence brewing. It is strange. I keep searching for this information. This is a pretty big leap for a first violent offense.

I have felt this same frustration with many, many cases. It's not always easy to find this kind of thing out unless the parents start talking. We'd never have known about Dahmer's history of dissecting animals and impaling their bodies on sticks, for instance, unless he had admitted guilt like a man and his parents came forward with this information for the purpose of helping make sense of his monstrous acts. In other cases, it wasn't until the killer admitted guilt that he'd begin discussing his childhood with psychologists and journalists. Oftentimes it is only those closest to the accused who know their deep dark secrets, and those people tend not to speak up until they know it poses no risk to the subject for them to reveal these things. If Stephen is found guilty, we may get some insight into his past at the sentencing phase, but I doubt he will admit defeat on his first go round at trial, my guess is he'd rather appeal ad infinitum. However, the prosecution may dig up some things from his past that are on record, or accounts from teachers and peers who agree to talk, in order to paint a picture of a disturbed young man who has had issues since childhood to better aid the jury in comprehending that he could be capable of such a crime. At this stage it's probably too early to expect a lot of background information--I know there are many cases that I have tried to research for school of people found guilty, even people who confessed to crimes, where you can search high and low and find no media reports of their background and problems during childhood.
And sometimes we never get the answers we're looking for, that's why I think the work the FBI has done compiling information on known violent criminals, specifically sex offenders and serial murderers, is so paramount. The interviews they conduct to collect data patterns is, so far, the best information we have to go off of regarding not only how to predict this kind of violence but also how to avoid stereotyping offenders. As important as the "triad" of bedwetting, firestarting, and animal cruelty is in terms of predicting violence and sociopathy, there are exceptions.

There is a generational factor to these patterns, in many ways we are still operating on the model provided by infamous murderers whose heyday was a decade or two before more recent murderers were even born, and I really believe societal factors impact the development of these impulses, in part. As societal factors shift from generation to generation, certain patterns of behavior become less relevant. Just off the top of my head a couple examples come to mind: when Jeffrey Dahmer was growing up, there were no video games with violence at the level of Grand Theft Auto, etc., so how do we know that if he had access to virtual outlets such as ultraviolent video games he would have still vented his urges on neighborhood pets? What effect does the widespread availability of the internet have on the value of predictive indicators of violence in children derived from data collected at a time when children did not have the same recreational options that they do today with the use of computers and the internet? I believe these things may have a significant impact on how we predict violence and antisocial tendencies based on external indicators like social and recreational habits.

 

[PDUBBY]

Also, in response to Pearl's question about whether Glenda McD's statements would be admissible in court or not because they were hearsay - they will likely be admissible. They tend to prove motive and could also be evidence of prior inconsistencies if McD changes his story.

I disagree. They could subpoena GM and ask her questions that would lead her to repeat those statements but the statements themselves couldn't be evidence at trial because they are hearsay and I don't think there is an exception to allow them. If she lied on the stand, they might be used to cross-examine her with her prior inconsistent statements.

Interestingly, the statements are at least double hearsay. They are out of court statements by GM about out of court statements by McD. McD's statements might be used -as an exception to the hearsay rule- (an admission by the defendant) but they'd have to get GM to repeat them again in court.

(The statements may even be triple hearsay if they were statements made by GM about statements made by McD about statements made by the police).

 

[angelanalyzes]

If he had a lot of other little mementos around from his adopted siblings, that might take some of your chill off, possibly? And we just don't know.

Yeah, to be fair to Stephen, a lot of photos I've seen indicate that he was loving and close to those children.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

Still catching up but did know off the top of my head an article where the family says, "he could've had some psycho love affair with and couldn't stand that she was
Leaving(moving away).. Don't have link handy but should be very easy to google it.. It was stated by her mom in the Washington Post article that was 5 pages in length, including a 10 photo slideshow..

(this post is in reference of southern comforts request for articles or statements made by Lauren's family about possible reasons for why he murdered her..)

ETA: the statement made by mom also ended with her saying, " if this were the reason then he most likely murdered the one person who had been the kindest to him."paraphrased but extremely similar to actual statement made by mom, Karen Giddings..

Md. family’s journey into heartache
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...to-heartache/2011/08/05/gIQAj47IzI_story.html

“She tried to encourage him, to get him out of his comfort zone,” Karen says. The two were never friends yet always friendly. Coming and going on the balcony stairs, they chatted often, and Lauren would urge him to smile, to loosen up and have some fun. “Because he never went out,” Karen says, recounting what Lauren had told her about the student next door. “His windows were always drawn.”
One of Lauren’s sisters, Kaitlyn Giddings Wheeler, recalls: “If anyone would joke around about him, say something about him being dangerous, then Lauren would nicely tell them, ‘Well, if he’s dangerous, I’ll be the only one who’s safe.’ Because they did get along, and she was very nice to him. She really did trust him.”

“Some of us have speculated that if he’s the one who did it, it was because she was the only one who was really nice to him,” Karen says. “Maybe he had some psycho love affair with her, and she was getting ready to leave, and he couldn’t let her go.”

 

[Backwoods]

Sorry for the change of subject, but Col Mustard brought this up in the last thread, and I meant to respond:

Originally Posted by Colonel Mustard

"Local RUMOR, but from reliable rumor sources, says that he told the police he'd been hunting and that's where the scratches came from. Not stating this as fact though. FWIW"

Just in case the rumor has legs, I looked up the GA 2011 hunting season calendar. Turns out there is no legal hunting during the month of June in GA. I'm not saying that would prevent a law school graduate studying for the BAR from doing so in his copious free time.

Of course it not being hunting season doesn't mean a thing, but it does leave questions in the mind. Also, if the rumor's true and he's a hunter, he more than likely has first-hand experience that would aid in dismembering a corpse.

Here's the link, but it seems to come up with some redundancies. Hope it's live. If not, you guys should be able to pick out enough info to reconstruct the address:

http://www.dobbins.afrc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110105-049.pdf

not positive, but I think there a few critters on which there is open season all year round in Ga. -- thinking wild hogs may be one of them

 

[Backwoods]

Backwoods, a search with permission is just that. McD could have been present during the search, but didn't have to be. McD would have the authority to give permission to search part of his apartment or all of it, with or without him present. It is the one giving the permission that defines the scope of the permissive search.

Thanks, Pig, been wondering about this for awhile and just kept forgetting to inquire.

 

[Backwoods]

Hadn't looked at the photo's of McD's family moving items out of his apartment. Is that a weight bench in the photo linked below?

http://www.macon.com/2011/07/23/1641891_a1641466/mcdaniel-appears-in-court-family.html

I remember that one of the articles mentioned a weight bench in the print portion -- maybe this one you linked.

ETA: No, it's this one: http://www.macon.com/2011/07/24/1641841/mcdaniels-family-moves-his-belongings.html#ixzz1T4FdjvrR

 

[PsychoMom]

not positive, but I think there a few critters on which there is open season all year round in Ga. -- thinking wild hogs may be one of them

This is true. And my husband travels to that area to do his hog hunting. I think it is an excuse to hang out with his buddies for a weekend because they never seem to get one. lol!

 

[Backwoods]

This is true. And my husband travels to that area to do his hog hunting. I think it is an excuse to hang out with his buddies for a weekend because they never seem to get one. lol!

They're wily creatures (the hogs, I mean, not the buddies)

 

[PsychoMom]

Many people seem to think behaviors in his past would not be known until later. If he was the kid in school that got in trouble all the time, or the kid who sprinkled broken glass in someone's food because they crossed him, or the kid who curled up in a fetal position and cried for hours when rejected by the homecoming queen, someone would have come forward with that. Look at all the sick stories people are creating from their imaginations about him here! You don't think the people who really knew him in middle school or high school wouldn't be jumping out there blasting away with the horror stories about him? Mommy and Daddy may not tell, but people in the community have no problem doing that. That is why I am hesitant to believe they are out there.

We can't create the truth to fit what we want to be true. Either it is or it isn't. I am surprised we aren't hearing more about his past behaviors. Only minor stories of dressing strange and acting like a fool. Sounds like most adolescents out there. Someone who wears clothing that is out there, and copies stupid sounds from movies and television shows, or even grows longer than normal nails for a male isn't automatically a killer. A lot of very normal people have done those things.

I did ask about an interest in vampires and werewolves. No one has uncovered that portion either. I was considering it could have been an explanation for the body. It could explain blood, or even cannibalism if that is the case. However, again, we can find nothing to support those things in his past either. Again, you know someone from his past would be all over that fact. Telling everyone who would listen. That is the nature of the beast when it comes to people from your past school days. Always share the bad stuff. You know people like that, don't you?

When I ask for people to clarify something, it is because they have claimed to "know" something, and allude to it being an insider knowledge. If they have true insider knowledge (verified the sources are definitely insiders, not internet connections with no proof they are who they claim to be), then the information is fantastic. But, if it comes from shady sources, or even worse, no sources, and it is being presented as something from someone involved closely with LE or the family, then you have to be suspect of the info. While some may pan out over time, it is a big risk to trust all of it.

I ask, because if it is truly insider info, then AWESOME! We have an IN. We can glean solid info from this person. But, we have to be discerning if it isn't someone definitely inside this case. So, supporting proof is a good thing. It helps build the case. You have to know the jury will want to make sure the stories have support or they will toss it out. If we can find that support early, we are ahead of the game.

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

I've said this before, but I'll elaborate.
I don't look at Stephen and Lauren and immediately think "oh, he must have been so in love with her, just look at her!''
I know many "weird" and "nerdy" guys who are actually put off by girls like Lauren who have that blonde, all American thing going on. I don't buy into the stereotypes promoted on shows like Beauty and the Geek.
That has nothing to do with it for me. I am friends with plenty of guys who at a glance would seem similar to Stephen, I find it insulting and obtuse for people to automatically assume that deep down all these guys want is a cute popular blonde girl with little to nothing in common with them.

:goodpost: :tyou::rocker:

 

[Lawette32]

If you know McD personally, can you give some examples of what in his behavior indicated the infatuation with LG is plausible? You are mentioning your observation of him, even though you have not seen them together. I would like to hear it from someone with direct knowledge of his behavior. If he is the killer, it still makes a difference. If he was infatuated with LG, it makes him one kind of killer. If he wasn't, it makes him another kind of killer. While it may not help LG, it may prevent another death down the road. We could learn from this case and possibly intervene earlier if another person is heading down the same tragic path as McD may have taken.

Thank you for helping me out on this.

I will preface this with saying I did not "know" him.. But I knew of him and I did see him every day. It's a very small school and we're all housed in one building- so it's not uncommon to come across near about everyone every day. But from what I saw, he seemed like the type that wanted to be up in the groups of chattering students.. but yet he never really was. I saw him once in the cafeteria area, sitting off to the side of a group of people having a conversation. He looked like he wanted to interject, but didn't really know how to do so. I think bashful would be a good word for it. That incident stands out in my mind as showing that he kind of wanted to be social with people, but found it difficult. It's hard to explain it except to me, he always looked like he felt like he was on the outside. That is why I think he would have admiration for a very social girl like LG. BTW- had to typethis up really quick on my phone so god knows how jumbled this is...sorry to everyone in advance. I just didn't want to leave it hanging!

 

[PsychoMom]

] I will preface this with saying I did not "know" him.. But I knew of him and I did see him every day. It's a very small school and we're all housed in one building- so it's not uncommon to come across near about everyone every day. But from what I saw, he seemed like the type that wanted to be up in the groups of chattering students.. but yet he never really was. I saw him once in the cafeteria area, sitting off to the side of a group of people having a conversation. He looked like he wanted to interject, but didn't really know how to do so. I think bashful would be a good word for it. That incident stands out in my mind as showing that he kind of wanted to be social with people, but found it difficult. It's hard to explain it except to me, he always looked like he felt like he was on the outside. That is why I think he would have admiration for a very social girl like LG. BTW- had to typethis up really quick on my phone so god knows how jumbled this is...sorry to everyone in advance. I just didn't want to leave it hanging!

Thanks for the info. I do appreciate your information. I can see him being outside the clique. I don't know if that would lean towards infatuation. Admiration is totally different thing. It isn't as dark as infatuation. I am not seeing that as a springboard for the leap to murder. I guess that is why I have to consider the victim wasn't the prize, the crime was. If someone else had been convenient for him to use as his victim, he could have. That takes the crime from being one of passion to being one of calculation. Again, this is only if McD is the perp.

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

]As I was rereading the Washington Post just now, rather than indicating an unusual interest in LG on the part of SM, it gave the opposite impression. It sounded like LG had possibly made SM her "project", so to speak, and that SM resisted her.

Been lurking a lot as I'm outa my field on this case, but this sentence struck me as very interesting. When someone has made me his or her project, it was not a pleasant situation. I felt really looked down upon and condescended to even though this particular individual had been my friend and had many good qualities...even though people outside the situation thought that the person was nothing but lovely to me, and couldn't understand how I could feel anything but gratitude.

Does anyone think that this kind of situation could be a factor in this case?

Edited to add: if anything it made me feel more disenfranchised.

 

[Lawette32]

Thanks for the info. I do appreciate your information. I can see him being outside the clique. I don't know if that would lean towards infatuation. Admiration is totally different thing. It isn't as dark as infatuation. I am not seeing that as a springboard for the leap to murder. I guess that is why I have to consider the victim wasn't the prize, the crime was. If someone else had been convenient for him to use as his victim, he could have. That takes the crime from being one of passion to being one of calculation. Again, this is only if McD is the perp.

I'll elaborate a little more later when I'm at a computer. I do think it will be difficult to find too many direct examples of him expressing his infatuation. As skittish as he seemed, I doubt he was really expressive in public about it, if that was the case.

 

[angelanalyzes]

Many people seem to think behaviors in his past would not be known until later. If he was the kid in school that got in trouble all the time, or the kid who sprinkled broken glass in someone's food because they crossed him, or the kid who curled up in a fetal position and cried for hours when rejected by the homecoming queen, someone would have come forward with that. Look at all the sick stories people are creating from their imaginations about him here! You don't think the people who really knew him in middle school or high school wouldn't be jumping out there blasting away with the horror stories about him? Mommy and Daddy may not tell, but people in the community have no problem doing that. That is why I am hesitant to believe they are out there.

[snipped for specific content]

The thing is, maybe his behaviors weren't so outrageous or public that there are a bunch of people from school who will readily recall it and talk to the press about it. If he committed the crime, that does not mean he absolutely must have been outrageously violent as a kid. There are no stories about Eugene Coral Watts having attacked anyone as a child, yet he, in the eyes of many in the LE community, is the most prolific serial killer in the US.
John Wayne Gacy had no widely reported history of violent behavior as a kid.
They both had trauma to the brain though, Watts through meningitis that nearly killed him and Gacy through a head injury. I wonder if Stephen ever had trauma to the brain?
On Ted Bundy's childhood:

"As a youth, Ted was terribly shy, self-doubting and uncomfortable in social situations. He was often teased and made the butt of pranks by bullies in his junior high school. Michaud analyzed Ted's behavior and decided that he was “not like other children, he looked and acted like them, but he was haunted by something else: a fear, a doubt -- sometimes only a vague uneasiness-— that inhabited his mind with the subtlety of a cat. He felt it for years, but he didn’t recognize it for what it was until much later.” Regardless of the humiliating experiences he sometimes suffered from being different, he was able to maintain a high grade-point average that would continue throughout high school and later into college."
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/bundy/2.html

^^^
Written long after Bundy was first charged with murder.
Not widely perceived as a monster or even a danger as a child, but he was picked on. Sometimes you find that the accounts of childhood only report subtle things that plenty of people go through as kids who do not grow up to be killers. Even torturing animals seems to be sickeningly common among children, particularly male children :/
I believe certain things will come out in time. The warning signs aren't always so obvious, is all I'm trying to say.

 

[PsychoMom]

I agree they may not be overly obvious, but something should come out. Even if he was bullied extensively, it would have come out by now. None of that is. Not a drop. That is pretty strange if it were the case. That doesn't mean he is innocent. But it doesn't mean he is guilty, either.

I think it is a good idea to consider where and how the deviance could have developed if he is the perpetrator. We do have to expand on what we know to some degree and imagine what it could or couldn't mean, but we have to have something to build on. If we don't, then what does it mean if he wasn't a basket case, and he wasn't obsessed with her, and he really was only polite to her but otherwise didn't think about her? That makes a whole different story.

We have no history or indication that he was any of the bad things people are ascribing to him. So, why would a basically boring guy who is not interested in the woman next door all that much and never had anything he did that was really bad in his life suddenly decide to kill and dismember a neighbor?

Thinking there was no rhyme or reason to him doing this is even scarier. Or it could mean they need to look elsewhere. It is a quandary.

 

[Backwoods]

I have a question -- probably mostly for those of you who feel, say, 75 percent convinced that SM is the perp, but anybody, feel free to comment.

Do you think that SM tried to break into Lauren's apartment on Thursday (or enter with a key)?

When I put on what someone the other day termed "guilty glasses", I think perhaps so. Then I wonder, at what time day/night was it?

I figure, if SM did not know that Lauren had a door jam, he might have been foiled by it. (For those who like to analyze the infamous interview in terms of possible signs of guilt: He does put some stress on the door jam being there, not in use, when the searching friends entered the apt.) That's why I asked the other day if anybody knew if it was the purely mechanical type or if it was the type that also had an audible alarm built in. I freely admit I first started thinking about that aspect of it while considering the MM story, because of the "loud noise" SM has apparently said he heard. (Still could transfer it to that line of thinking, but don't really feel comfortable going too far with that publicly at this point, as I agree MM may be totally innocent and if not try to trust that LE will follow on with any leads)

I figure that, in the event that SM, not knowing about any door jam, tried to enter the apartment Thurs. while Lauren was home with the door jam in place, then either (1) he thought she might be sleeping or otherwise unguarded, (2) if her car was in its usual spot, thought she had left the premises with someone else in their car or had gone out running, etc., and his plan, if any, was to lie in wait -- or, if there was no "plan" to hurt LG, to snoop, etc.

I figure, if he did this, with a plan to harm LG in mind and thinking she was home, and got rebuffed by the door jam, any "plan" might then have changed to entering the apt. while she was not there and lying in wait.

 

[Backwoods]

About the scratches on SM:
When I first heard/read rumors, before any confirmation, I heard plain "scratches". Later it became "fingernail scratches" -- not an illogical conclusion, really, under the often-assumed circumstances, but it did make me really curious about the nature of the scratches, location, how extensive, how well-healed, etc. Some of this has been touched on here in the threads.

I do think there are lots of ways an innocent SM could have gotten just "scratches". I'm always scratched and bruised up and half the time I have no idea of how it happened.

If SM is guilty, I've wondered if he might have gotten scratched up going into some tangled, wild place to dispose of some of the other remains.

I know this is something we can't really know much more about right now -- just what those scratches were like. Mostly just "thinking out loud" here.