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

[currcat]

I've seen a few members mention this article that talks about the camping gear, but I don't recall seeing it, myself. I've been following the case since the very beginning, and while posting in the media thread, I reviewed probably a hundred articles, but it wasn't mentioned in any of them. I don't doubt you guys at all, just curious and wish we could find it.

FWIW- the only place I ever saw speculation about the walmart purchases SM made being camping gear (poncho's specifically) was on the macon.com comments section. Originally started out there as "rumor" and then later was confirmed that there were in fact some walmart purchases the LE was looking at, but to my knowledge, LE has never confirmed what those purchases actually were.

As always- JMHO

 

[angelanalyzes]

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.

Cosign. Completely.
Burglary, as in unlawful entry where it can be assumed an occupant may be inside the residence, is considered among the LE community to be an indicator of possible future violent crimes, and is often seen in the early histories of sex offenders and serial killers. Stephen had both a master key to the apartment complex and a key to Lauren's apartment, according to LE, that in itself suggests to me that he had a thing for entering apartments without permission. He was either caught with or admitted to stealing condoms from some of the apartments he entered, which could mean a few things, but at the very least means he took things from apartments he entered sans permission. And there was no reason for him to have a copy of Lauren's key, that's unsettling.

 

[GypsiesTramps&Thieves]

.

If you look closely, the attacks seem to be directed at those who are considering other options than McD being the perp. Most of us who do that are not saying he must be innocent, but we want to make sure we rule out the possibility of anyone else. The best way to rule out anyone else is to try to prove someone else did it. If you can't prove someone else did it, it eliminates the possibility of his innocence. However, it seems to set off a few people. Something none of us want to have happen.

Believe it or not, I am really pretty lovable. I like to joke and have fun in discussions. Here, I am definitely not feeling the love. But, I am not giving up. I want this crime resolved ASAP. I have a personal reason for that desire. In the meantime, I can only hope the information I have helps some people.

Snipped

Sure, you want this crime resolved ASAP. We all do but more than likely, the crime is not going to be solved or resolved here on Websleuths. That's what LE is working tirelessly to do. They are helping the state to gather evidence and present its case during the trial against SM, which will probably be about a year from now. (Just guessing) He is who has been charged with this murder and they've stated that all evidence led back to him.

So, while it's fun on this site to discuss the facts that we know, discuss or debunk rumors that we've heard, and think about possible alternatives, what's really the point in becoming combative and demanding that someone prove what they state? More than just posting a link to a media article, like you seem to want more often than not?

My point is that we are not the investigators. Let's have our fun in discussion but remember that LE have this handled, let's let them do their job to "prove" or "disprove" and "rule out the possibilities."

 

[theengineer]

I am just assuming what was probably meant or what I have been thinking: is it professional in your profession to be so argumentative on this board and then to state you are a therapist? Are you trying to influence people on this blog? Angel is a studying professional in this crime field, and she is in no way argumentative or persuading. I love reading her entries, because I know I might learn something, and I do not have to feel scared if I do not agree with her. Many of us on here do not want to be verified and are privy to information that has been rumored and now has come out as fact, but the other information we have that has not come out; we do not want to say. We do not want anything done to jeopardize this case. We all want justice for LG's family. I am not trying to sound offensive, but I hate reading all the bickering because bloggers aren't wanting to give information in this case. A true professional, friend of Laurens or Stephens and others with dignity will keep as much information close to their heart, so the courts can do their job. Again, i am not meaning to be offensive, as I probably should just learn to use the functions on this site, that can help aid with not feeling the tense energy.

The ignore function works great in the user control panel.

 

[angelanalyzes]

I will look about. When I heard SM had possibly purchased a poncho, my first thought was camping trip (for whatever reason camping and poncho seemed linked), . Maybe the article about camping was just imbedded in my subconscience. But I've not heard any more on that. So maybe in fact there is nothing more to the purchase. ??

I distinctly recall hearing that he bought "as many ponchos as they had" so I got the impression he was trying to find a clever way to buy a plastic sheeting material without actually buying something as incriminating as plastic sheeting. But at this point it's not clear if they were all found unopened or if there in fact were not multiple ponchos purchased, so I don't know. I do know that it would be easier to trace ponchos than it would be to trace plastic sheeting if it were found discarded somewhere.

 

[bessie]

Snipped

Sure, you want this crime resolved ASAP. We all do but more than likely, the crime is not going to be solved or resolved here on Websleuths. That's what LE is working tirelessly to do. They are helping the state to gather evidence and present its case during the trial against SM, which will probably be about a year from now. (Just guessing) He is who has been charged with this murder and they've stated that all evidence led back to him.

So, while it's fun on this site to discuss the facts that we know, discuss or debunk rumors that we've heard, and think about possible alternatives, what's really the point in becoming combative and demanding that someone prove what they state? More than just posting a link to a media article, like you seem to want more often than not?

My point is that we are not the investigators. Let's have our fun in discussion but remember that LE have this handled, let's let them do their job to "prove" or "disprove" and "rule out the possibilities."

Thank you! You've saved me some typing.

The name of the site is Websleuths -- Crime Sleuthing Community. Members come here to discuss crime and hash out their theories. For most of us, there is an element of enjoyment in the challenge of trying to unlock the mysteries. We work within the confines of limited knowledge and the rules and guidelines set forth by the owners. We are well aware that we don't know all of the facts. It is understood. to repeatedly point that out, post after post, is rude and disruptive.

All views are welcome here. No one should be attacked for their opinions. If you have a theory, post it. A counter to your theory is not an attack. If you do have a legitimate complaint, use the Alert feature. That's been repeated several times in these threads. You can also send a pm to a mod. There are five or six assigned to this forum, and their names are listed at the bottom of the forum page.

Sleuthing other members is not allowed, and that includes insisting that they reveal the source of their opinions. If you state a rumor, however, as an insider, you open yourself up to question. That is one reason why rumors are discouraged. It is also the reason for the verification process. But no one is required to become verified, and no member has the right to insist that you do.

The threads have been a mess the last few days, but it's going to stop. This warning falls at random and is meant for everyone.

 

[ThinMan]

You're absolutely right, SK. This is one reason it's so important to provide links with our posts. And members shouldn't be shy about demanding links from other posters. It's perfectly all right as long as we ask politely.

Especially for Lawette32 ~

In answer to your query, I have searched WS threads and failed to find mention that the early story about SMD attending a Giddings family party at Fish 'n Pig had been disproved. I cannot recall where I read that, but it was along the time that the "playing darts by himself at a downtown bar on Friday nite before commencement" story emerged. Thanks, Lawette32, for the correction, and apologies for my statement as if it were a fact that the Fish 'n Pig story was just rumor.

On the other hand, does the story that he did attend the Fish 'n Pig party uninvited have substantiation in print? or just in Macon.com comments?

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

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

Also to clarify: By my posts about this, I absolutely did not intend any victim blaming! Heck, I don't even know if SM was resentful at all. Then there is the separate question, "Was that emotion warranted?" As I wrote previously, that phrase about making him a project just struck a chord in me, apparently a really strong one because I could feel myself getting emotional as I was writing about my experiences (!), and I wondered if that could've been a factor. Maybe this wasn't clear, but I meant it in the same way as someone might look at one Ted Bundy's victims and wonder, "Did the fact that she had straight dark hair parted down the middle have anything to do with it?" (OK bad example because we know that yes this did have something to do with it for Bundy, but I hope you see my point...even though it had something to do with why these victims were preferred, it's not as if they "got what they deserved" because of how they did their hair.)

 

[southern_comfort]

I've seen a few members mention this article that talks about the camping gear, but I don't recall seeing it, myself. I've been following the case since the very beginning, and while posting in the media thread, I reviewed probably a hundred articles, but it wasn't mentioned in any of them. I don't doubt you guys at all, just curious and wish we could find it.

FWIW, I remember the article too. It's one of those instances where my mind took a partial snapshot and I can actually see some of the printed words. The article said that LE had looked into some purchases by SM, but that they had found the articles intact in his apartment and that he claimed he had purchased them for camping. I didn't get any impression that it was the same camping trip LG was planning. This was before mention of the mid-July scrutinizing of specifically Wal-Mart receipts. It did not mention a store.

Normally having those mental snapshot words makes it easy for me to locate something via search engine, but this particular article is not coming up. I am positive it was there, though.

 

[ThinMan]

FWIW, I remember the article too. It's one of those instances where my mind took a partial snapshot and I can actually see some of the printed words. The article said that LE had looked into some purchases by SM, but that they had found the articles intact in his apartment and that he claimed he had purchased them for camping. I didn't get any impression that it was the same camping trip LG was planning. This was before mention of the mid-July scrutinizing of specifically Wal-Mart receipts. It did not mention a store.

Normally having those mental snapshot words makes it easy for me to locate something via search engine, but this particular article is not coming up. I am positive it was there, though.

FWIW, I have exactly the same memory as Southern Comfort but can't cite the source either.

 

[southern_comfort]

Especially for Lawette32 ~

In answer to your query, I have searched WS threads and failed to find mention that the early story about SMD attending a Giddings family party at Fish 'n Pig had been disproved. I cannot recall where I read that, but it was along the time that the "playing darts by himself at a downtown bar on Friday nite before commencement" story emerged. Thanks, Lawette32, for the correction, and apologies for my statement as if it were a fact that the Fish 'n Pig story was just rumor.

On the other hand, does the story that he did attend the Fish 'n Pig party uninvited have substantiation in print? or just in Macon.com comments?

You might be remembering this WS post.

It seems to be just the poster's opinion, though.

 

[GypsiesTramps&Thieves]

You might be remembering this WS post.

It seems to be just the poster's opinion, though.

Back when this post first appeared, I agreed with this poster. That it was silly to assume that SM just crashed LG's graduation party. Like this person stated, there are not a ton of nice restaurants in Macon. Fish n Pig is a large restaurant with lots of seating inside and out and would have been a great choice for multiple large parties that night. Anyone in Macon knows it's hard as hell to get a table anywhere in Macon on a holiday (like Mother's Day) or after a large event.

But NOW, knowing what we know, it could have well been thought out by SM to show up where he knew LG would be. LG and her parents probably didn't think much about it at the time but now that they recall....LG could have even said something like "Oh there's SM, hey come join us, meet my cousin xxxxx." Just a thought, of course.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

Especially for Lawette32 ~

In answer to your query, I have searched WS threads and failed to find mention that the early story about SMD attending a Giddings family party at Fish 'n Pig had been disproved. I cannot recall where I read that, but it was along the time that the "playing darts by himself at a downtown bar on Friday nite before commencement" story emerged. Thanks, Lawette32, for the correction, and apologies for my statement as if it were a fact that the Fish 'n Pig story was just rumor.

On the other hand, does the story that he did attend the Fish 'n Pig party uninvited have substantiation in print? or just in Macon.com comments?

Found it.

Police have told Giddings’ family that information from the public has been “beneficial” in the case, a cousin of Giddings’, Joseph Mann, said Wednesday.

Giddings had sent text messages and e-mails to her mother June 25, Mann said.

He said he didn’t know anyone who’d talked with her after that day -- an anomaly, since she kept in regular touch with her close-knit family.

Mann said her family was familiar with McDaniel, but he didn’t insinuate that family members suspect that McDaniel had anything to do with Giddings’ disappearance or slaying.

The family had seen McDaniel at a graduation party thrown jointly by the Giddings family and another law student’s family at the Fish N’ Pig restaurant in May.

McDaniel attended the party. Although both students’ family members and friends were at the party, it seemed to family members that McDaniel was there uninvited, Mann said.

He said Giddings was always kind to McDaniel.

“That’s the way she was,” he said.

Giddings ran virtually every day -- sometimes in a group and other times solo, Mann said.

She knew self-defense and “was really smart and aware of her surroundings,” he said.

http://www.macon.com/2011/07/07/1623060/body-is-lauren-giddings-police.html

 

[PsychoMom]

Found it.

Thanks. So, we do not have confirmation he was not invited. It is likely either of the graduates may have issued him an invitation to come to the public restaurant, whether a formal invite or a casual "You ought to stop by."

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

In case you missed it...

Just so that I can wrap my head around all this recent questioning of whether there is any evidence
of SM being infatuated in some way with LG, could PsychoMom and/or southern_comfort give a few examples
of the type of evidence you're looking for?

I realize the assumption is being made based only on a few references from family/friends,
which is IMO due to the fact that all of them have been generally silent about anything
since this crime occurred - and there are several understandable reasons for this.
So, I tend to put a lot of weight into these few suggestive references.
At the same time, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything other than hearsay (maybe not the correct term here)
as evidence of SM having been infatuated with LG - whether this be in a normal "in love" sense, or some other abnormal or "disturbed" sense.
In either case, I don't see SM as being one to show his feelings publicly.
So, maybe this is why I'm having a hard time thinking of better "evidence"?

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

Thanks. So, we do not have confirmation he was not invited. It is likely either of the graduates may have issued him an invitation to come to the public restaurant, whether a formal invite or a casual "You ought to stop by."

IMO, Mann probably made this comment because of the way SM acted at the gathering.
He's socially awkward, so he probably did not mingle or talk much, and probably appeared
somewhat uncomfortable and out of place.

 

[angelanalyzes]

Thanks. So, we do not have confirmation he was not invited. It is likely either of the graduates may have issued him an invitation to come to the public restaurant, whether a formal invite or a casual "You ought to stop by."

But the family did say it seemed like he was uninvited. I'd like to know what went into their assumption.

 

[Sandstorm]

Especially for Lawette32 ~

In answer to your query, I have searched WS threads and failed to find mention that the early story about SMD attending a Giddings family party at Fish 'n Pig had been disproved. I cannot recall where I read that, but it was along the time that the "playing darts by himself at a downtown bar on Friday nite before commencement" story emerged. Thanks, Lawette32, for the correction, and apologies for my statement as if it were a fact that the Fish 'n Pig story was just rumor.

On the other hand, does the story that he did attend the Fish 'n Pig party uninvited have substantiation in print? or just in Macon.com comments?

Two Parties

First party was at Fish n Pig and McD was not invited but showed up.
The two famililes, Giddings and _______ , who were jointly giving the party thought that the other had invited McD.
Neither had.

Second party was at the Hummingbird.Lauren mentioned to McD to go out that night to the Hummingbird. She was surprised to see him when her mother pointed him out. He was invited to that gathering but was alone playing darts.

Articles:

Fish n Pig
The family had seen McDaniel at a graduation party thrown jointly by the Giddings family and another law student’s family at the Fish N’ Pig restaurant in May.
McDaniel attended the party. Although both students’ family members and friends were at the party, it seemed to family members that McDaniel was there uninvited, Mann said.
He said Giddings was always kind to McDaniel.Read more: http://www.macon.com/2011/07/07/1623060/body-is-lauren-giddings-police.html#ixzz1UvQkekYz

Hummingbird
Graduation day was May 14. Two nights earlier, Lauren and her family celebrated at the Hummingbird Stage & Taproom in downtown Macon. The bar was packed with joyful class*mates.
Karen glanced up and saw McDaniel and pointed him out to Lauren.
"Oh, look, he showed up!" Karen remembers her daughter saying. Lauren had suggested that McDaniel come. "She was surprised to see him," Karen says, "but happy."
He was standing in a corner throwing darts. Alone.
http://www.ongo.com/v/1550554/-1/EEDC3B7D04FE94AE/md-familys-journey-into-heartache

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

I'll elaborate on this...

One problem here is this is not a great sentence/statement.

Although both students’ family members and friends were at the party, it seemed to family members that McDaniel was there uninvited, Mann said.

There were apparently 2 graduates (Lauren and an unknown) and their family/friends present.
We have a reporter stating that Mann said that "family members" seemed to think he was there uninvited.
But there's no mention of which family members he's referring to.
He could have been referring to Lauren's family members only,
or some brief observation he shared with only 1 or 2 members of either family.
It's really not specific at all.
But, it does indicate that there was some observation/discussion on this.

So, as I said:

IMO, Mann probably made this comment because of the way SM acted at the gathering.
He's socially awkward, so he probably did not mingle or talk much, and probably appeared
somewhat uncomfortable and out of place.

 

[southern_comfort]

In case you missed it...

I did miss that... I'm sorry.

I asked because another poster suggested that it was inappropriate to dismiss the family's opinion as to motive in favor of things inferred from the "facts in evidence".

I would like to give the family's opinion proper weight. The problem is, from my particular seat, I didn't have any information about the family's opinion as to motive. I still don't, to be honest. I was aware of the article where a family member speculated that he might have had a psycho love affair with LG, but I didn't take it as being a strong opinion or to have any particular basis, other than a grieving person trying to make sense of something that is senseless.

That is why I asked. I didn't have a particular evidentiary standard in mind.