GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 # 9

[SouthernKate]

I think so. The professor said he has gradually changed since beginning at Mercer. Genetics, Freedom, controlling mother, possible molestation, child *advertiser censored*, gaming, law student (theorizing), wrong influences/choices, and no telling what else. But after hearing of child *advertiser censored*, I can see necrophilia makes sense too. I didnt' get it to start with, We aren't talking just *advertiser censored*, bad enough, but prepubescence, so what is that, 6-12 yr olds? Max? But I still dont' understand what prompted it all, that's why I wondered if being caught on LG computer with *advertiser censored* was the trigger, as mentioned earlier, he'd be violently cursing at her instead of the war game, he really gets into his game it seems and maybe blind panic. ????????????????????????

Well, the details in the warrants varied - some said pre-pubescent and some said under 18. I got sickened reading them, honestly and couldn't go through all 7. I would think pre-pubescent would mean anything under 11 or 12. I just can't fathom the sickness behind that..this just gets stranger and stranger.

Just my opinion, but I think his murder of Lauren was much more than being caught doing something (snooping, burglarizing, using computer) and having to kill her out of convenience/impulse bc he was caught. I know lots of people have speculated that, but I just can't see it.

I think it was a very sinister crime and as the details unfold, much worse is being revealed.

I felt sorry for his mother in the beginning..her sadness broke my heart. But through her media statements, and the fact that she told those 4 children about Lauren's murder - with details - I can only hope that those children are in a safe environment. No child should be told about a murder by their uncle/brother and that the body was "in pieces." And in that same article it detailed one of the children saying stuff about Satan, etc..very extreme religious beliefs from children.

My thoughts are always with Lauren's family, but tonight are with those 4 little children, with a hope that nothing sinister has occurred to them and that they are raised in a healthy way.

 

[PsychoMom]

I heard this on the local news tonight. My first thought - That's the deviant history I have been looking for! Then, I started playing devil's advocate again. Who are the people in these pictures? Who are the adults? There is an adult female mentioned. My mind wandered all over the place with that. Part of me wondered if HE might be the child in some of these pics. And then a light bulb went off.

Is it possible that these are indeed his younger adopted siblings, and the photos are not of him abusing the children, or even related to him being into child *advertiser censored*, but evidence of WHY his sister no longer has custody? Maybe during his time in law school, he found the evidence his mother had denied regarding why his sister lost her children. He held onto it in case she ever considered returning the children, or began talking about how everyone lied about his sister. That is why the pics are stored on a separate flash drive instead of on the hard drive. Easily accessible to show dear old mom if she ever began talking that way.

Not anything I know for sure, but I would like to find out if that is what they found. It would constitute possession of child *advertiser censored*, but the meaning behind it is totally different. Again, until we know what it really is, we don't know what it means. Heck, it could even have been one of those small items he stole from an apartment. I mean a 1gb flash drive is less than $10. If he did steal it from another apartment and it was full of child *advertiser censored*, what a mess! I am leaning towards it being the proof against his sister more than that one.

It could be the deviant history, but there are other possibilities to be considered.

 

[ehmadpotter]

Huh?? Why would Glenda say that since her son has a master key, he downloaded child *advertiser censored* from someone else's computer?

Duh! No, Mommy Dearest McD would say that the same person (MM) who planted the master key in SMcD's apartment also used other tenants' computers to download *advertiser censored* and then place the relevant flashdrives in SMcD's apartment...or even used SMcD's own computer with which to downlaod the *advertiser censored* onto SMcD's own flashdrive....all as part of the master "frame game." Strictly My Opinion!

 

[PsychoMom]

I am not defending him if this is him actually obtaining child *advertiser censored* for personal use. Not at all. I am considering what else may be at play. But, I have to thank you for proving my point about something totally different.

 

[SmoothOperator]

I just wanted to put this idea out there regarding the child *advertiser censored* being found on the flash drive and several finding that to be somewhat unusual or not making sense why a grown adult man who lived alone would have it only stored on a flash drive rather than his own personal computer for which he knew he was the only, single, solitary user even having access to it..

Just in doing some reading about the child *advertiser censored* rings from its involvement in other cases.. In reading about many of the rings, the collectors, the super secretive sicko pals whom they share their love of pedophilia with and exchange media amongst their elite group of the ultimate sickos.. Its often traded and or sold on such devices as flash drives or other easily transferrable as well as disposable type of devices..

One reason in particular that pops in my mind immediately as to why this grown man who lived alone and was the only one who even had access to his personal computer would choose to keep the child *advertiser censored* on a flash drive is for the simple fact that anyone, let alone a law school graduate would realize that you would not want to get caught with child *advertiser censored* on any personal laptop or computer that is directly traceable right back to you.. But rather keep on something small, portable that you can pop it in and out of an entire multitude of devices including flat screen televisions, gaming systems such as xbox, etc, etc..the list goes on and on..

Why not only keep it on a tiny little flashdrive but even more questioned why on his very own Mercer lanyern?? IMOO.. so that it was never out of his sight..never mistaken for another flashdrive or accidentally handed over to a classmate asking for notes or such..but at the same time always, always accessible to, as I said, have to pop in and out of multiple devices for viewing it..

IMO this is seen to be quite a common thread for the pedophiles to have their child *advertiser censored* not on their personal, traceable to them hard drives but yet on flashdrives.. always there for their viewing pleasure, and never ever mistaken for another flashdrive to be shared or even ever to make the irreparable mistake of accidentally plugging the flashdrive containing your child *advertiser censored* into mommy or another's computer with intentions of her seeing photos of your latest sword collection.. That'd be a doozy there and a hard one to get out of..IMOO

But then again if mommy's computer was where that big Oops was made it wouldn't be such a doozy to get out of of..infact I can just here Mommy now saying to her little choirboy that hisses..Son, I know that bad ol' maintenance man is the evil doer of this pedophilia..mommy knows that MM obviously has gone and done it again trying to make my voluminously maned young boy look bad or as tho he might've even "hurt someone"..

 

[SmoothOperator]

What's that silly thing called again?? The old straw man theory??.. or maybe that's not the word for the silliness of it being thrown out there into cyberworld that the female engaging in the pedophilia is Stephen's sister..

And who is that man that is stated clearly in several of the charges that is actually committing the act of child rape?

I disagree completely with the notion even proposing it to be Stephen's sister engaging in pedophilia with her children..

Quite obvious IMO that it is not Stephen, nor his sister or any other family member otherwise we would be seeing charges of child rape..not child exploitation.. IMO

IMO odd that the notion of it being Stephen's sister actually being in the images with her own children engaging in full out child rape by its very definition as a even a remote possibility when the charges have not only been charged on Stephen and not anyone but Stephen but there is nothing in the charges that would even allude to Stephen being the perpatrator of these child rapes and certainly not one of his family members being the perp engaging in child rape on their own biological children..

IMO it is baseless and over the boundary of even far reaching as a plausible notion in any way whatsoever..

MOO and MOO strictly on the notion offered up of Stephen's sister being the female engaging in pedophilia with her biological children that is described in great detail in each of the seven charges.

 

[PsychoMom]

I don't know what all the reasons behind why her children were removed from her care. I do not know what charges she may have faced, nor do I know what any DFCS investigation may have yielded. I do know people will do awful things to children. I have dealt with more children than you can imagine who have been damaged by the ones who should protect them. I have worked with children who were prostituted by their own parents by the time they were 4yo (earliest they could remember), usually because of drugs. I know children whose own parents used them in videos to usually buy drugs, again. And many of these parents participated in the abuse on these videos. Sadly, many times, these cases aren't prosecuted fully because of the damage a trial does to the child. They settle for something less and get the parents locked away for something else. So, it does happen.

Is that what happened here? I don't know. But I don't know it isn't what happened either. And neither does anyone else on here.

It could be his deviance showing. I have been looking for that to pop up. I am a little hesitant to swallow this is all new info to the police RIGHT before the commitment hearing. A little too convenient. If they had this info, they should have figured it out long ago, so this is simply a game. If they are resorting to games, it makes me wonder what their evidence may be lacking. I hope that isn't the case. If he did this horrible murder, I hope they can show direct connections to him and only him. Same with the photos. If he is a pedophile, I want him to go away forever for that, too.

 

[SmoothOperator]

Something else that just came to my mind in thinking about it having been specifically Detective Patterson that was the actual person stated in each of these latest charges as being the one to give the details and charges..and then seeing that it also specifies the date of June 30th(on or about)..

Those two specifics in my mind[i.e Detective Patterson and the date of June 30th] if you recall as several have pointed out even from that very first day Stephen in his on cam interview seems to be so well informed on these detectives, especially pointing out to one of the reporters that she was infact mistaken in stating that the vehicle parked in a spot near her apt was actually Lauren's car.. He quickly rattles off that no, that is not Lauren's car it had already been towed away earlier that morning after having set in its parking spot unmoved for days..but that car the reporter was speaking of was actually Detective Patterson's and that interview was of course given on the date Lauren's torso was found, June 30th..

Just something that played thru my mind when again seeing the specific name of Detective Patterson and the actual date of June 30th..

Bet he never dreamed that very day that the very detective whom he was correcting a reporter about Patterson's car that exact day and exact detective would later be charging him with seven counts of possessing child *advertiser censored* that was located that very day..

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Hello again, folks -- been out of touch for a couple of days, tune in local TV & bam! There is new info!

Hyrax makes good points that the kiddie *advertiser censored* charges are likely based on solid, if not unimpeachable, evidence. But the big question for me is:

Why charge SMD with these offenses?

LE doesn't just automatically serve warrants because they have new evidence of an additional crime. The decision to make these charges tells us something about the felony murder case. Our job is to figure out what it tells us:

1) That LE has NOTHING in addition to the hacksaw package (which many here have said just isn't enough to convict and, even if it turns out to be enough in the jury's opinion, is a very weak case). At least, one might conclude that LE found nothing (yet) on SMD's computer that is usable to make the murder case.

2) LE is trying to further convince the public that SMD is such a bad guy that he must've -- therefore -- committed the murder? There are posts on Macon.com and even here that would say, if that is their motive, they succeeded.

3) LE is scared that they might not be able to convince the judge at the upcoming commitment hearing on the low probable cause standard to hold SMD for murder? On that theory, this charge will continue to hold him securely, much as the burglary charge (also probably on a weak evidentiary base) held him until a murder warrant was served.

I'm personally a bit perplexed that the next big news in this case is about a totally unrelated crime allegedly committed by the murder suspect. I fear that LE's murder evidence isn't nearly so strong as I was hoping it would be.

Thoughts?

Just because these crimes were inadvertently discovered during the investigation of another crime are you suggesting that LE shoudln't do anything about them? There are VICTIMS of these crimes - they deserve to have the perpetrator of the crimes against them prosecuted just as Lauren does. I don't think its a strategic move for LE at all. I think its simply time for McD to pay up for his crimes. Unfortunately for him, his pridefulness made him believe he could get away with it, but instead its all crumbling down around him.

 

[Sandstorm]

Huh?? Why would Glenda say that since her son has a master key, he downloaded child *advertiser censored* from someone else's computer?

The whole context in reference:
Originally Posted by 3doglady View Post
I find it strange that he had the pics on a flash drive attached to his lanyard. If they were downloaded to his computer why did he put them on a flash drive that he carries around? If there were pics on his computer wouldn't LE have charged him with those? If the pics were not downloaded from his computer SM can say someone borrowed the flash drive and he had no knowledge of the pics. Since he had a master key I'm wondering if he downloaded them from someone else's computer.

Backwoods, since Glenda has made an excuse for every piece of evidence, I think she will continue to do so.
Glenda did say McD had a master key that was planted in his apt by the maintenance man.
Glenda also said that the maintenance man planted Lauren's apt key and the hacksaw wrapper inside McD's apt.
She also announced that McD threw away the hacksaw and the MM plucked it from the trash and killed Lauren.

The bolded section was my point, that Glenda will announce that McD's flash drive had been stolen.
Sorry for the confusion.
Bottom line: Glenda will say McD is innocent. Her son could not have done this no matter what the evidence is that points directly at her son.

 

[tomkat]

Just because these crimes were inadvertently discovered during the investigation of another crime are you suggesting that LE shoudln't do anything about them? There are VICTIMS of these crimes - they deserve to have the perpetrator of the crimes against them prosecuted just as Lauren does. I don't think its a strategic move for LE at all. I think its simply time for McD to pay up for his crimes. Unfortunately for him, his pridefulness made him believe he could get away with it, but instead its all crumbling down around him.

Hasn't been convicted yet, anything's possibly, that's what the defense is for, <modsnip>

 

[Lawette32]

We're given those lanyards and flashdrives when we start at Mercer Law. Definitely not the intended use for that little present....geez. Completely not relevant, but it just creeps me out that the same flashdrive that he probably brought to school for class projects, etc. housed such despicable pictures.

On another note, I wonder if they thought about trying to use the child *advertiser censored* revelation get a confession about the body parts out of McD. Kind of like...if you tell us where the body is, we won't charge you w/ the child *advertiser censored*. To him, I would think (more like HOPE) the condemnation he would get from his mother would be almost worse for the *advertiser censored* than the concept of a murder (creepy thought, I know.) Since he's been charged w/ the *advertiser censored* now, clearly it's a little late for that..but I still wonder how a hypothetical conversation like that would've gone.

 

[tut med]

I heard this on the local news tonight. My first thought - That's the deviant history I have been looking for! Then, I started playing devil's advocate again. Who are the people in these pictures? Who are the adults? There is an adult female mentioned. My mind wandered all over the place with that. Part of me wondered if HE might be the child in some of these pics. And then a light bulb went off.

Is it possible that these are indeed his younger adopted siblings, and the photos are not of him abusing the children, or even related to him being into child *advertiser censored*, but evidence of WHY his sister no longer has custody? Maybe during his time in law school, he found the evidence his mother had denied regarding why his sister lost her children. He held onto it in case she ever considered returning the children, or began talking about how everyone lied about his sister. That is why the pics are stored on a separate flash drive instead of on the hard drive. Easily accessible to show dear old mom if she ever began talking that way.

Not anything I know for sure, but I would like to find out if that is what they found. It would constitute possession of child *advertiser censored*, but the meaning behind it is totally different. Again, until we know what it really is, we don't know what it means. Heck, it could even have been one of those small items he stole from an apartment. I mean a 1gb flash drive is less than $10. If he did steal it from another apartment and it was full of child *advertiser censored*, what a mess! I am leaning towards it being the proof against his sister more than that one.

It could be the deviant history, but there are other possibilities to be considered.

He was a law student and holding on to *advertiser censored* to keep his mom in order so she would not return the kids back to his sister (or any other scenario) doesn't make sense. Child *advertiser censored* is illegal and would land him in jail.
So his innocence for protecting idea doesn't hold water.

 

[AgentFrankLundy]

I snipped for focus

I am very curious about that, too.

Could it be the date LE got the flash drive in their possession ? It is a good question.

 

[Lawette32]

Something else that just came to my mind in thinking about it having been specifically Detective Patterson that was the actual person stated in each of these latest charges as being the one to give the details and charges..and then seeing that it also specifies the date of June 30th(on or about)..

Those two specifics in my mind[i.e Detective Patterson and the date of June 30th] if you recall as several have pointed out even from that very first day Stephen in his on cam interview seems to be so well informed on these detectives, especially pointing out to one of the reporters that she was infact mistaken in stating that the vehicle parked in a spot near her apt was actually Lauren's car.. He quickly rattles off that no, that is not Lauren's car it had already been towed away earlier that morning after having set in its parking spot unmoved for days..but that car the reporter was speaking of was actually Detective Patterson's and that interview was of course given on the date Lauren's torso was found, June 30th..

Just something that played thru my mind when again seeing the specific name of Detective Patterson and the actual date of June 30th..

Bet he never dreamed that very day that the very detective whom he was correcting a reporter about Patterson's car that exact day and exact detective would later be charging him with seven counts of possessing child *advertiser censored* that was located that very day..

Another reason that McD might've known Patterson's name so well could be because of McD's internship at the DA's office. It would seem likely that various detective's drop by the DA's office often or are used at witnesses in a DA's cases. Maybe he's came in contact w/ Patterson before and that's why the name came so easily? May be way off base, but just a thought.

 

[Lawette32]

He was a law student and holding on to *advertiser censored* to keep his mom in order so she would not return the kids back to his sister (or any other scenario) doesn't make sense. Child *advertiser censored* is illegal and would land him in jail.
So his innocence for protecting idea doesn't hold water.

I mean, clearly child *advertiser censored* is illegal and would land him in jail. I was just thinking, if McD possibly thought he was already sunk on the murder charge and just didn't want the child *advertiser censored* to come to light (who knows, we already know that the kid has twisted logic) could maybe strike a deal. I could just see his mom being more ashamed by the kid *advertiser censored* thing at this point, and thus, might have been a bargaining tool to use again him. Obviously too late for that too happen, it was just some musing outloud.

 

[southern_comfort]

This is a curiosity question. Would your opinion of the latest charges against SM change if it turned out that:

(a) The images were cartoon drawings?
(b) The images were cartoon drawings of members of the clergy and children with "humorous" captions? (Not that there is anything humorous in the subject, but people will attempt a joke about anything).
(c) The images weren't currently available files on the flash drive, but had been previously deleted and were discovered via forensics?
-If they had been deleted 2 months ago?
-If they had been deleted 2 years ago?

 

[AgentFrankLundy]

Backwoods

Just tried link, a couple times. "...page you were looking for could not be found"
Maybe just me? Anyone else able to link?

Thanks for the alert.

I got the same thing Maybe someone can tell us what it said ?

 

[southern_comfort]

~snipped~ It could be his deviance showing. I have been looking for that to pop up. I am a little hesitant to swallow this is all new info to the police RIGHT before the commitment hearing. A little too convenient. If they had this info, they should have figured it out long ago, so this is simply a game. If they are resorting to games, it makes me wonder what their evidence may be lacking. I hope that isn't the case. If he did this horrible murder, I hope they can show direct connections to him and only him. Same with the photos. If he is a pedophile, I want him to go away forever for that, too.

I agree, PsychoMom. If he did these things, then I want nothing less than the full hammer of justice to come crashing down.

But I am also skeptical. He may be the biggest perv in the universe. Or this may be a desperate attempt by LE to put some padding in place before the commitment hearing when they know something is lacking. We just don't know for sure at this point.

 

[tut med]

I mean, clearly child *advertiser censored* is illegal and would land him in jail. I was just thinking, if McD possibly thought he was already sunk on the murder charge and just didn't want the child *advertiser censored* to come to light (who knows, we already know that the kid has twisted logic) could maybe strike a deal. I could just see his mom being more ashamed by the kid *advertiser censored* thing at this point, and thus, might have been a bargaining tool to use again him. Obviously too late for that too happen, it was just some musing outloud.

I just didn't see McD holding on to child *advertiser censored* to keep his mother in check about his sister's children as an explanation here.

I do agree with you that mom will be more ashamed by the accusation of child *advertiser censored*. In their weird logic land, they will raise to the occasion and find a way to explain away the child *advertiser censored* too.

I still can't get over the - He couldn't have committed murder because he is the great protector of bugs defense.