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

[Wondergirl]

I am back on the electricity usage angle.

I realize that maybe you folks in the U.S. perhaps do not have this, so, for clarity, I am posting an example of what is (newly) available to Canadian users of hydro electricity.

In an effort to be "green" and reduce electricity consumption, it is now possible to monitor your household electricity usage on an hourly/daily/weekly basis. You can see spikes and usage that may be happening while at work, as an example. This will indicate that you are using electricity on something that could possibly be turned off, or upgraded, to save electricity (an old appliance, like a freezer, a pump that is running needlessly or during peak hours/highest rates like a pool pump etc.). Time-of-Use pricing is now in effect, with the highest rates being during peak daytime hours, which is why consumers are trying to reduce charges.

My point for bringing this into the discussion here, is to suggest that LE could have access to the hydro electricity usage for the 3 apartments plus the laundry room, and locked compartment, for the times in question.

The electricity usage on an hourly basis during the 6 days in question, may show abnormal spikes due to something as minor as a light being turned on. This may help narrow down timelines, and prove a basis for questioning the suspect in this case.

Here is an example of what LE may be able to see, by looking at the electricity usage for the 5 areas in question. The colours simply indicate the time-of-use rate for the electricity usage. The amount of kilowatts used at which time, is the important thing.

http://www.torontopowershift.com/index.cfm?pagepath=Frequently_Asked_Questions&id=7255

 

[PsychoMom]

This crime, no matter how you look at it, was not motivated by love.

Obsession and love are very different. Just based on the condition of the body and the likelihood that Lauren knew her killer, this is an example of what's called a "lust murder," especially if certain additional things done to the body aside from the dismemberment are made official public knowledge. But I appreciate and understand that not everyone believes in behavioral forensics/profiling. Certainly in the past, mistakes have been made in the field, but I believe it has improved in the past 15 years as more data has been compiled to perfect the practice.

I was going with the 'infatuation' comments. But, obsession still involves an emotional component. You don't obsess over something you don't care about. I have seen a lot of both. My explanation on the way the parents reported it is a lot different than what I think. I see it as more cold and missing any emotional connection. Ted Bundy has come up more than once on here. Do you think he had an emotional connection to all of his victims? Or were some just a means to an end? If not them, then someone else would do? He didn't spend years staring and wanting one victim only. He wanted more than one, and knowing them didn't matter.

 

[southern_comfort]

I am trying to find an article (or anything at all, really) where LG's family talks about SM being, or possibly being, infatuated with or obsessed with LG. All I can find is their impressions of him being a bit unusual and recollections of LG being kind to him and trying to pull him out of his shell.

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.

Thanks in advance for any pointers to more info.

ETA link to the Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...to-heartache/2011/08/05/gIQAj47IzI_story.html

 

[Wondergirl]

Just a thought...

If any sexual element to this crime proves true, the idea that Stephen was just playing a game of murder pretty much goes out the window. If this crime were intellectual in nature, if he just wanted to challenge himself, there would not be a sexual assault of any sort, at least not if you follow the profile.
It would likely rule out rage against the whole of the law school as the motive as well. Normally, rage at a body of people is not acted out on one person, but rather on a grand scale involving a large part of that target body of people, mass murder, iow.

BBM: Not necessarily AA.

To bring up again, the crimes of Russell Williams, he "started out" as someone who hid in the closets and jumped out at his school mates (scaring them) when he was in private school. He trangressed over the next 25 years, from picking locks and scaring people, to a lingerie thief, who broke in to his victims homes and took pictures/videos of his victims and their rooms, took trophies, and masturbated on their clothes and beds etc. He "escalated" into a rapist, who "allowed" his victims to live. Finally, he was a murderer, who attempted to "frame" his next door neighbor for both the sexual assaults and murders, by stealing his clothing and lighter from his home, and leaving his final murder victim's remains on the neighbor's hunting property.

RW was a both a sexual predator AND was playing an "intellectual game" of murder, all the while attempting to frame a neighbor.

Mind you, he definitely does not fit any profile to date, as he also commanded the largest military airbase in Canada, and piloted dignitaries such as the Prime Minister and the Queen of England.

FWIW

 

[angelanalyzes]

BBM: Not necessarily AA.

To bring up again, the crimes of Russell Williams, he "started out" as someone who hid in the closets and jumped out at his school mates (scaring them) when he was in private school. He trangressed over the next 25 years, from picking locks and scaring people, to a lingerie thief, who broke in to his victims homes and took pictures/videos of his victims and their rooms, took trophies, and masturbated on their clothes and beds etc. He "escalated" into a rapist, who "allowed" his victims to live. Finally, he was a murderer, who attempted to "frame" his next door neighbor for both the sexual assaults and murders, by stealing his clothing and lighter from his home, and leaving his final murder victim's remains on the neighbor's hunting property.

RW was a both a sexual predator AND was playing an "intellectual game" of murder, all the while attempting to frame a neighbor.

Mind you, he definitely does not fit any profile to date, as he also commanded the largest military airbase in Canada, and piloted dignitaries such as the Prime Minister and the Queen of England.

FWIW

Oh, I agree completely that BOTH could be at work here, but undoubtedly with both the case of Russel Williams and Lauren's killer, his paraphilias were the driving force behind his actions. Just like, for instance, Dennis Rader. He was initially driven to commit his crimes because of aberrant sexual urges, but it did evolve into a game he was playing with the media and the police.
I think McDaniel was motivated to commit the crime mainly due to his psychosexual urges, but also enjoyed and still enjoys the game of chess involved in trying to get away with it. If he did not have any abnormal sexual urges [if it turns out to be true that Lauren's slaying involved sexual assault as well, before or after death] he would not have engaged sexually with her during the crime. In fact, getting away with murder is much easier when you don't take these extra risks with DNA and contact with the body.

 

[angelanalyzes]

I was going with the 'infatuation' comments. But, obsession still involves an emotional component. You don't obsess over something you don't care about. I have seen a lot of both. My explanation on the way the parents reported it is a lot different than what I think. I see it as more cold and missing any emotional connection. Ted Bundy has come up more than once on here. Do you think he had an emotional connection to all of his victims? Or were some just a means to an end? If not them, then someone else would do? He didn't spend years staring and wanting one victim only. He wanted more than one, and knowing them didn't matter.

I don't think Bundy had an emotional connection with his victims on an individual basis, I think he had a profound psychological/emotional connection with what they represented to him. In crimes against strangers, the lust murderer will typically project those emotions onto the stranger he objectifies to act out his fantasy. Bundy was a sexual sadist, so he could derive his pleasure from any woman of his preference so long as he could inflict pain on her and see her suffer. He sought out women he didn't know because they were easier to objectify. I don't know that Lauren's killer engaged in any sexually sadistic acts with her, it may have all taken place after death, but I feel that the motive for killing her had to do with his attraction to/fixation on her in life. When people kill acquaintances in such a way, it's usually very personal, and there will be evidence of "overkill."

 

[Lawette32]

snipped for focus.

We may never know the truth. I am keeping my options open. 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. I know that blows a lot of theories out of the water, but it could be true.

Signs that support the concept of infatuation (IMO):
-He went to a graduation party primarily hosted by her family, and from what was said in the news (can't remember what article right now) he was not invited.
-He went out to the bar after graduation upon her request, where, as the news put it "He was playing darts. Alone." For someone who was pretty antisocial and did not spend much time in the bars, he came that night likely because she asked him to.
-He told his mother about her, in such a way that raised the mother's interest as to whether there was a potential for a relationship between them.

Clearly, these aren't dispositive in any way- but put them together, and it doesn't sound like infatuation isn't out of the question.

 

[ThinMan]

snipped for focus.

We may never know the truth. I am keeping my options open. 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. I know that blows a lot of theories out of the water, but it could be true.

Signs that support the concept of infatuation (IMO):
-He went to a graduation party primarily hosted by her family, and from what was said in the news (can't remember what article right now) he was not invited.
-He went out to the bar after graduation upon her request, where, as the news put it "He was playing darts. Alone." For someone who was pretty antisocial and did not spend much time in the bars, he came that night likely because she asked him to.
-He told his mother about her, in such a way that raised the mother's interest as to whether there was a potential for a relationship between them.

Clearly, these aren't dispositive in any way- but put them together, and it doesn't sound like infatuation isn't out of the question.

The story about the graduation party at Fish 'n Pig has been debunked, I believe. I think the only time he saw LG's family during graduation week was at the bar. True, he went at LG's invitation.

Yes, Glenda's having asked SMD whether there was anything between him and LG indicates that 1) SMD talked a lot about her to Mom, or 2) that Mom (always hopeful) met LG around the apts over the past three years and asked her son about a relationship with the attractive neighbor just because Mom desired such a relationship (with some winning personality type woman) to exist.

The reason that the infatuation motive seems so convincing to us observers who did not know SMD & LG is that LG's attractiveness & desirability have been exaggerated to some degree by the press & friends out of fondness for their missing friend. Similarly, SMD's being weird and strange and a loner has also been exaggerated. I suspect that neither is as extreme in their virtue and weirdness, respectively, as one would think based on reading everything that has been written since June 30.

The story that a shy, socially maladjusted man secretly longs for a relationship with an unattainably beautiful, socially successful woman is an archetype that resonates with us because it has been the plot of many a movie and novel since Shakespeare. Does Cyrano D'Bergerac or the Phantom of the Opera ring a bell?

 

[SuperMom1995]

snipped for focus.

We may never know the truth. I am keeping my options open. 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. I know that blows a lot of theories out of the water, but it could be true.

Signs that support the concept of infatuation (IMO):
-He went to a graduation party primarily hosted by her family, and from what was said in the news (can't remember what article right now) he was not invited.
-He went out to the bar after graduation upon her request, where, as the news put it "He was playing darts. Alone." For someone who was pretty antisocial and did not spend much time in the bars, he came that night likely because she asked him to.
-He told his mother about her, in such a way that raised the mother's interest as to whether there was a potential for a relationship between them.

Clearly, these aren't dispositive in any way- but put them together, and it doesn't sound like infatuation isn't out of the question.

I agree and let's face it, Lauren was a beautiful girl, with brains and a seemingly free spirit. I am sure those qualities were attractive to a lot of guys.

 

[SuperMom1995]

I wonder if MCD missed that particular class because he was finally exhausted. All the work he had been doing - the kill, the clean up, etc. - and the adrenaline rush was over so he crashes? OR did he NOT want to miss them finding her torso, which he put there purposefully, as a continuation of this perfect crime that he was going to pull off, his acquittal being the final part of this whole game?

 

[Lawette32]

snipped for focus.

The story about the graduation party at Fish 'n Pig has been debunked, I believe. I think the only time he saw LG's family during graduation week was at the bar. True, he went at LG's invitation.

Yes, Glenda's having asked SMD whether there was anything between him and LG indicates that 1) SMD talked a lot about her to Mom, or 2) that Mom (always hopeful) met LG around the apts over the past three years and asked her son about a relationship with the attractive neighbor just because Mom desired such a relationship (with some winning personality type woman) to exist.

The reason that the infatuation motive seems so convincing to us observers who did not know SMD & LG is that LG's attractiveness & desirability have been exaggerated to some degree by the press & friends out of fondness for their missing friend. Similarly, SMD's being weird and strange and a loner has also been exaggerated. I suspect that neither is as extreme in their virtue and weirdness, respectively, as one would think based on reading everything that has been written since June 30.

The story that a shy, socially maladjusted man secretly longs for a relationship with an unattainably beautiful, socially successful woman is an archetype that resonates with us because it has been the plot of many a movie and novel since Shakespeare. Does Cyrano D'Bergerac or the Phantom of the Opera ring a bell?

I would like to see where the Fish n' Pig story was debunked.

True, I agree that both his weirdness and her desirability have been greatly exaggerated.

However-I still think there is a pretty solid nugget of truth in both of those archetypes here. I went to school with both of them, I observed the way both of them interacted with our peers- and I definitely don't think it's out of the question.

It's not because I think it makes a more dramatic story, or because I think the weird guy logically HAS to have a crush on the pretty/outgoing girl; I believe it is possible based on my observations of both of them separately. I never observed them together, so clearly I can't speak to that- but what I know of both of them, it doesn't seem like the infatuation theory would be that far-fetched.

 

[angelanalyzes]

The story about the graduation party at Fish 'n Pig has been debunked, I believe. I think the only time he saw LG's family during graduation week was at the bar. True, he went at LG's invitation.

Yes, Glenda's having asked SMD whether there was anything between him and LG indicates that 1) SMD talked a lot about her to Mom, or 2) that Mom (always hopeful) met LG around the apts over the past three years and asked her son about a relationship with the attractive neighbor just because Mom desired such a relationship (with some winning personality type woman) to exist.

The reason that the infatuation motive seems so convincing to us observers who did not know SMD & LG is that LG's attractiveness & desirability have been exaggerated to some degree by the press & friends out of fondness for their missing friend. Similarly, SMD's being weird and strange and a loner has also been exaggerated. I suspect that neither is as extreme in their virtue and weirdness, respectively, as one would think based on reading everything that has been written since June 30.

The story that a shy, socially maladjusted man secretly longs for a relationship with an unattainably beautiful, socially successful woman is an archetype that resonates with us because it has been the plot of many a movie and novel since Shakespeare. Does Cyrano D'Bergerac or the Phantom of the Opera ring a bell?

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.

 

[Knox]

I don't think Bundy had an emotional connection with his victims on an individual basis, I think he had a profound psychological/emotional connection with what they represented to him. In crimes against strangers, the lust murderer will typically project those emotions onto the stranger he objectifies to act out his fantasy. Bundy was a sexual sadist, so he could derive his pleasure from any woman of his preference so long as he could inflict pain on her and see her suffer. He sought out women he didn't know because they were easier to objectify. I don't know that Lauren's killer engaged in any sexually sadistic acts with her, it may have all taken place after death, but I feel that the motive for killing her had to do with his attraction to/fixation on her in life. When people kill acquaintances in such a way, it's usually very personal, and there will be evidence of "overkill."

You are going to be a success in your field Angel!

I'm still up in the air on motive, because I can see it happening a couple of different ways.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

Just catching up here...

:floorlaugh:
I can't believe how many of you are missing the obvious here...
It's a rolling trash can.
He could simply roll it into Apt #1, load the torso from the fridge, and roll it back out.

My little off-the-cuff post generated quite a few responses.
As I was catching up, there were a lot of posts discussing the decision to use
the rolling trash bin, as opposed to the nearby larger dumpster - and about
being possibly seen/caught, how far away it was, etc...
All the while, in nearly every post the words "rolling trash can/bin" were being typed,
yet it appeared most comments were speaking of it as if it were stationary,
with no consideration that it had wheels. I was, obviously, quite amused by this.

In retrospect, I probably should have chosen better words for this post.
I hope it didn't come off as arrogance or me "poking fun" at anyone.

I believe a consensus was reached that it's most likely that he simply carried it
to this trash bin, without moving it. There were several different reasons given
for this belief, and I must say that I too agree this was most likely the case.

eace:

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

Do we know he still has them 2 years later? Or did he just tell police he took them 2 years ago?

I don't recall seeing anything that tells us he still had them, other than speculation on this board (though I haven't visited the condom issue in quite a while).

Good question. I hadn't thought about this possibility.
I guess I always assumed they found them, which led them to question him about them.
They may have been questioning him about the master key, asking just how long he'd
been snooping around, if he'd stolen anything, etc... This may have been a voluntary
"peace offering" in his response.
I sure would love to see the tapes of that interrogation.
Who knows, maybe one day

 

[Givsmetheshivers]

I am curious. Since you claim to know all these people involved in the case so closely, first of all, have you been accepted as an expert in that area here? I know there is a process to becoming an expert. If so, great! We can pick your brain thoroughly about what the family thinks and what they have seen or heard. And second of all, what behavioral examples have they given to support the infatuation theory? Not just feelings, but true actions that back up that belief.

Wow.
I love that everyone has a different take on all of these situations. I feel challenged when I read this board because everyone has a unique interpretation of media reports. My mind will change moment to moment based on different interpretations that people point out.

Being validated as an expert doesn't mean your opinion is fact. It just means a forum member might give more weight to your opinion or not. Also, I am in the medical field, married to someone in the medical field whose parents were in the medical field and I can safely say that I have met my share of medical "experts." As I am sure you are well aware there are MD's that I would trust with my life and then there are ones that I wouldn't let touch my dog.

If Angelanalyzes can go to Macon and get random people talking to her about it, then cudos to her. That is a talent that cannot be "verified as an expert" by Websleuths. AA is passionate. None of her statements have been laced with haughty authority. She will discuss something out and I appreciate it.

 

[Darcyline]

I really appreciate angelanalyzes posts-she has been dead correct time and time again even if I don't agree with everything she may say. She is also very clear when things are her opinion or interpretation and not just stating things as concrete fact.
It is amazing that we have so many intelligent people here discussing the case in general-it really does open up multiple viewpoints all of which are valuable. I feel like some here should be working for LE!

 

[pearl]

I respect that, myself. It helps to know your opinion is coming from your interpretation of what you see portrayed in the media. It sounded as if you were having direct conversations with them and reporting back what they were telling you. The two are very different views.

As a therapist, and as a mother, I can tell you, I would much rather know someone loved my child so much that they couldn't bear to see them leave than to think some evil fell out of the sky totally unprovoked and uninvolved and tortured my child. It is something I believe most parents would say if they were dealing with a tragic horrifying death of a child. Even if the crime itself is evil in all aspects, you like to think something inside the monster had a moment of caring, and you can ascribe those feelings to the monster because it makes the crime a little more palatable.

That is why I wanted to see historical evidence of behaviors which supported the belief. It creates two distinct monsters. One is emotionally motivated. One is emotionally void. It gives a path to follow. In this case, I am not seeing the evidence of emotions being attached. That is a much scarier monster to me. One devoid of human caring and compassion.

Let me preface this post by saying it is my opinion only. I did not know Lauren, do not know any of her family members or friends, do not know anyone in Macon LE, Macon legal community, or anyone at Mercer. I don't think Lauren's parents will care how her murderer is ultimately labeled or if he/she had a caring moment as he/she killed Lauren. To them, Lauren is dead by the hand of another person. She is dead if the motive was emotional or intellectual or a combination of both. I have never experienced the death of a child so I can't say with certainty that they will not care one way or another. It is surely unbearable to them. The only solace they will ever, in my opinion, know has been given to them as her mother relayed in this article

Lauren Didn't Really Know What Hit Her

 

[WhoaJo]

Thanks, I took forever to write it because I was afraid I was sticking my neck out pretty far, so I'm glad someone [and Whoajo] found it interesting

Thanks, angelanalyzes -

Actually, Angel, I did ask another question, but I think you may have declined to answer out of respect for the guidelines of this site. Or you may have simply been focused on answering the first question I asked with such depth and concision.

I asked what the background of someone who would commit such an aberrant crime might look like.

Since your answer to that question might have reflected upon the family of the suspect, I'm guessing that you were exercising discretion. That doesn't mean I'm not dying to hear it! LOL!

 

[angelanalyzes]

:heart:Thanks guys, for the nice things you all said.
I am not an expert by any means, I'm just a student, but I live for the study of behavioral forensics, I'm completely obsessed. For some reason, and I think it's mainly because Lauren was at such a wonderful point in her life and it was just devastating to see her cut down at a time when she was probably so excited and happy about her future, this case really grabbed my attention and I "had a hunch" about the nature of the crime from the beginning. It's just my personal opinion, and for a while I wanted to be wrong about Stephen, I really felt for him, but my instincts told me he was the one who took Lauren away, and the case unfolded as it has unfolded. I never mean to come off as a self-styled expert of any sort, I apologize if I've ever given that impression, I'm honestly just totally consumed with this case and it's cases like these that are the entire reason I even get out of bed in the morning and make the hour long commute to my university.
I love this forum because so many intelligent, clever people come together and work up really valid, insightful theories and lines of inquiry, it's really amazing to behold. Websleuths is like a think-tank for criminal investigation, I wouldn't be surprised if detectives working on cold cases really come here to get fresh ideas on angles to investigate. And everyone cares about the victims, it's not a vulgar gathering of rubberneckers, it's a collection of people who genuinely care and realize the gravity of the subject matter.
:heart: :heart: :heart: