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

[Macontime]

Not sure if anyone has referenced this site before. It gives step by step instructions on butchering the human animal as they call it. It is sickening to think about but it does explain the process and the mess caused.
Bessie. Please delete if not appropriate.

church of euthanasia

 

[Backwoods]

Not sure if anyone has referenced this site before. It gives step by step instructions on butchering the human animal as they call it. It is sickening to think about but it does explain the process and the mess caused.
Bessie. Please delete if not appropriate.

I do think someone posted that link earlier.

 

[Wondergirl]

And keep in mind he owned 3 guns but had never shot them, according to GMD. I guess he could have been bow hunting, but I kind of doubt it. He doesn't strike me as a hunter. Wonder if he even owns any hunting stuff (camo, etc)?

Actually when I first read the rumor, I thought he meant he had been hunting for LG (like in the brush or something).

BBM: If LE determines during the course of their investigation that SM did indeed shoot any number of his 3 guns, would that mean that SM lied to his mother? :waitasec:

 

[Backwoods]

At this link that we've already had for the most recent Macon Telegraph article on the case


http://www.macon.com/2011/08/12/1662957/source-mcdaniel-missed-2nd-class.html


I noticed these statements:
QUOTE:
"While Giddings’ cause of death hasn’t been released, her death certificate has been filed, he said.
In the category where a “manner of death” must be noted, a box beside the word “homicide” is checked.
The cause of death portion reads, “pending investigation and toxicology.”


I assume the toxicology thing is pretty routine, but wonder if there is reason to suspect something will turn up there?

 

[Macontime]

I am sorry but please don't look at the site just that one article i didn't look through the site until after i posted the link. Those people are sick and nuts. I apologize if any of you are offended. I should have check out the site first.

 

[Wondergirl]

Just a comment about the trashcan that rolls/has wheels:

Just because the trashcan has the ability to roll, doesn't mean you have to roll it - it could have been lifted.

Just a thought that came up.

 

[Givsmetheshivers]

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.

Not for a Schizotypal.

 

[Idreamofgenie]

If McD did this, I still have yet to see one tiny thing showing he was fawning over her. Other than people saying he was infatuated, nothing else points to it. Where do we see evidence of him wanting her? It may be true, but nothing seems to indicate it. s.

IMO the inquiry GM made concerning the possibility of romance between LG and Stephen is at the least a clue that he spoke of her often to his mom, enough that she wondered if there was a relationship blooming between them. This may not be evidence but it points to infatuation to me.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

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.

Nice deduction :thumb:
It's very possible he could have planned/tried to execute this that night.
And then, she wasn't home Friday night - correct?
Hmm...

 

[bessie]

Not sure if anyone has referenced this site before. It gives step by step instructions on butchering the human animal as they call it. It is sickening to think about but it does explain the process and the mess caused.
Bessie. Please delete if not appropriate.

I removed the link but left the name of the site in your post since it's not a banned site. If anyone wants to go look it up, that's their business. I'd recommend finding a more scientific source, though.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

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.

You could be right here as well :thumb: :thumb:
I still wonder if he didn't bury something he wanted to keep on some family owned property.

 

[Macontime]

Thanks Bessie

 

[Idreamofgenie]

At this link that we've already had for the most recent Macon Telegraph article on the case


http://www.macon.com/2011/08/12/1662957/source-mcdaniel-missed-2nd-class.html


I noticed these statements:
QUOTE:
"While Giddings’ cause of death hasn’t been released, her death certificate has been filed, he said.
In the category where a “manner of death” must be noted, a box beside the word “homicide” is checked.
The cause of death portion reads, “pending investigation and toxicology.”


I assume the toxicology thing is pretty routine, but wonder if there is reason to suspect something will turn up there?

I wondered from the get-go if he incapacitated LG with chloroform or another drug that they could find in a toxicology report from the remains. Especially after LG's mom said that Lauren "never knew what hit her."

 

[WhoaJo]

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.

PsychoMom, sometimes things occur privately, repetitively, over the years to a child and no one knows about it. It may not be what violence SM has done prior to this occurrence, if indeed he is guilty, but what violence was done to him. Or what inhumane control was forced upon him. Or what sexually repressive images were driven into his mind. Or what discipline looked like in his family. We simply cannot know about these possible indicators at this juncture.

Sometimes a child's life can be so repressive that there is no room for acting out: the consequences are simply too great. I think these children can only solve this type of conflict by creating a fantasy world in which to express their rage and exercise some control.

For some of these people, there comes a point when fantasy can no longer hold the need for control, and it spills out in inappropriate and sometimes criminal ways.

If one finally left the environment that was the root of the problem, some experimentation outside of the fantasy world might begin. Say with finding a way to go into other's homes and fondle their belongings, maybe even taking a small token as a way of remembering the power one felt standing in that home without the owner's knowledge.

Petty theft is sometimes the first indication that the person can no longer keep it all inside. If indeed SM is a burglar, beginning at least two or three years ago (that we know of), we may have already seen the behavior that would tip us off that there was more to come.

 

[PsychoMom]

Not for a Schizotypal.

Schizotypal people are not known for violence. If you add some other mental diagnosis, that diagnosis may have a propensity for violence, but not schizotypal people in general.

 

[MaconMom]

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.

One reason for the scratches could have been that he scratches himself (especially since they were on his torso which can be concealed). Some people use that as an alternative to cutting. I know because I used to do it to myself when I was a teenager, except on my wrists. Seems to be for people who are too scared to cut.

I dont know why he would have said he got it "hunting". I don't think the excuse "I scratched myself" would go over too well with the police though.

 

[Backwoods]

Nice deduction :thumb:
It's very possible he could have planned/tried to execute this that night.
And then, she wasn't home Friday night - correct?
Hmm...

I'd have to think, though, if there was a "plan" and it was to hurt LG and Thursday was an actual attempt and not a scouting mission -- wouldn't the weekend be better? More time for all the devious doings and not missing any bar prep classes.

Brings me back to: How in the world could SM or anybody think any time was a "good time" for a planned killing and dismembering at the victim's place of residence? With LG having so many friends who apparently dropped by fairly often -- they could have come by 'most any time, it seems.

Another thing about that door jam, though: Perp could have used it while inside the apt. after attacking Lauren to ward off intrusion.

 

[Darcyline]

I may be just wrong about this, but I don't get why people are saying nothing weird has emerged about his past life or childhood. I feel like there were rumors or stuff said from basically Day 1. In fact, at the very beginning the crux of a lot of arguments fell on two sides-OMG he is a total weirdo he must have done it!!!! Or, OMG just because he is a total weirdo doesn't mean he did it! I know a lot of that talk would be dismissed as "rumor" or hearsay (even though some came from people who know him, worked with him, or were classmates) but I would not say there has been absolutely no talk of him being a bit strange or off.

Does that make him guilty? No, of course not. In fact, I was one of the people being mildly defensive when people were condemning him for liking some nerd stuff. But I also think the culmination of statements we have gotten does not point to him being just a normal, average, sweet guy that everyone liked and there isn't a word that goes against that.

 

[Backwoods]

One reason for the scratches could have been that he scratches himself (especially since they were on his torso which can be concealed). Some people use that as an alternative to cutting. I know because I used to do it to myself when I was a teenager, except on my wrists. Seems to be for people who are too scared to cut.

I dont know why he would have said he got it "hunting". I don't think the excuse "I scratched myself" would go over too well with the police though.

Yes, I agree, that could have been the source. And don't think he would have too readily revealed that.

 

[PsychoMom]

PsychoMom, sometimes things occur privately, repetitively, over the years to a child and no one knows about it. It may not be what violence SM has done prior to this occurrence, if indeed he is guilty, but what violence was done to him. Or what inhumane control was forced upon him. Or what sexually repressive images were driven into his mind. Or what discipline looked like in his family. We simply cannot know about these possible indicators at this juncture.

Sometimes a child's life can be so repressive that there is no room for acting out: the consequences are simply too great. I think these children can only solve this type of conflict by creating a fantasy world in which to express their rage and exercise some control.

For some of these people, there comes a point when fantasy can no longer hold the need for control, and it spills out in inappropriate and sometimes criminal ways.

If one finally left the environment that was the root of the problem, some experimentation outside of the fantasy world might begin. Say with finding a way to go into other's homes and fondle their belongings, maybe even taking a small token as a way of remembering the power one felt standing in that home without the owner's knowledge.

Petty theft is sometimes the first indication that the person can no longer keep it all inside. If indeed SM is a burglar, beginning at least two or three years ago (that we know of), we may have already seen the behavior that would tip us off that there was more to come.

I agree extensive abuse could be a springboard for multiple things. I have not heard any information indicating he was abused in his childhood, but it may come out. However, even those abused in childhood tend to have some behaviors that start popping out. Not all, but many. It is much more prevalent to see the acting out behavior in children if the behavior is going to continue into adulthood. Some cover it well, too well. And if it does come out there was extensive abuse in his early life, it could be an indicator of some underlying issues. I would expect to see more behaviors that are deviant by adolescence though.

The condoms are such a gray area. We do not really know what the story is behind those. It does make for great press and drama, but I am worried that is the extent of the story. Until we know what the story is, we don't know if it was a random prank, or scavenger hunt from some idiotic game, or if he was a creeper stalker and took them for the thrill. It leaves a big hole in the story. I wish we did know. I guess that part will come out later, though.

The victimization theory is a good one. I hope we can find some information to support that one or clear it out.