GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #15 *appeals denied*

Respectfully snipped-



I firmly believe he was in Lauren's apartment many, many times. I've wondered if he obtained the user/pass for her email and Facebook accounts. What a great way to know when she would be going out, etc. I'll bet he got quite the thrill from his voyeuristic forays into her personal space.



He was said to have researched and purchased the ingredients to make chloroform.

bbm: I believe the only place this has formally been "said" is in the pending wrongful death suit -- correct? And I'm not even sure that "researched" is included there; it may be. I know it does allege he purchased ingredients.
 
sbm

Hard to be sure about that since SM might have had a few days before her friends came. Didn't he reportedly bleach his and/or her bathroom? I'd imagine he'd try to make her place look meticulous since in that first interview he "speculated" that she went on a run and someone snatched her.

bbm: I've never heard this reported. Speculated, yes. During the discussion at the pre-trial hearings of the luminol testing, when it began to look as though the luminol testing would be excluded from evidence (as it eventually was) because there were no follow-up tests that confirmed the presence of blood, the prosecution seemed to make a try at getting the luminol tests included because the "positive" luminol result could also possibly indicate the presence of bleach, some cleansers, or a number of other substances.

I think there is also evidence that SM may have bought a 48-oz. bottle (kinda small container, as bleach goes) of bleach sometime during the months preceding Lauren's death. Of course, they could have also found larger containers, etc. -- but I don't think we know that.
 
Prosecutors don’t oppose moving McDaniel trial

...On Wednesday, a day after a motion from McDaniel’s lawyers that requested his trial be moved out of town, prosecutors filed their response, saying they don’t object to a move. ...
more at: http://www.macon.com/2014/01/15/2881237/prosecutors-dont-oppose-moving.html





District Attorney David Cooke looks back on one year in office

...Cooke also removed the death penalty as a possible punishment in the upcoming trial of Stephen McDaniel. McDaniel is accused in the 2011 dismemberment slaying of his Mercer University classmate and neighbor Lauren Giddings. His trial is expected to be held later this year....
more at: http://www.macon.com/2014/01/15/2881256/district-attorney-david-cooke.html
 
Some thoughts I had on the security bar, Lauren's Zaxby's order, and the toxicology report:

1. SMD (supposing he is Lauren's killer) may have been doing computer searches on the security bar in Lauren's apartment to figure out how to disarm it from the outside. He could only access her apartment (using the utility keys) whenever LG was out. Perhaps he'd been in her apartment Friday night when she stayed with a friend. He may have waited for her to return home for hours. He would have seized upon the opportunity again on Saturday. If he watched her leave, who knows how long he hung around in her apartment until she returned.

2. Conflicting reports on Zaxby's trash may have been due to wrappers being left in car while Lauren carried her soft drink inside with her because it wasn't empty yet. I'm thinking of a scenario where LG sat her drink down on the table and then went into the bathroom, or maybe into the bedroom to change clothes. If SMD was lurking in the apartment, it would have been his opportunity to emerge from hiding and pour alcohol/drugs into Lauren's drink.

3. SMD would have waited until LG took a drink and then for the alcohol/drugs to take effect. For her BAC to be so high, I think she must have consumed something very close to time of death, and this scenario would explain it -- I think. Also, LG would have put up a much bigger struggle had she been in full control of her mental and physical function. She was tall and athletic (ie., strong with quick reflexes). Yet, there has been no report of a sign of struggle inside Lauren's apartment or elsewhere. Nothing broken, knocked over or out of place.

I was just thinking about these pieces of information today and wondering how (or, if) they fit together. Hoping the DA has already sorted through every bit of information and knows how it all fits together. Wishing justice for Lauren in the New Year!

Wasn't aware of the BAC,but she was known to "partake" though she did drive home

I was thinking about the phone being plugged in by the bed, were the covers rumpled? Had she slept in the bed? Or was that too undisturbed? Was wondering about the perp hiding inside as you stated and using chloroform rag while she was asleep, she'd have been disoriented

Whatever happened, it had to be quick and quiet tho no one else lived there but the elderly lady below him, she may have been used to his loud antics and not even noticed anything

I wish we could back up the clock and warn her and see her clock his sorry SSA

I don't know how the family handles all this
 
Bibb DA agrees to change of venue for McDaniel trial

...Now the defense wants Judge Howard Simms to allow them to bring out-of-town jurors to Bibb, but Simms could also decide to move the trial to a different courthouse in Georgia. ...


"The only additional cost is a motel room, everything else is the same. You spend just as much time in court. ..." says Hogue.


However, that's just for the defense. Mercer Law professor David Oedel says it's not common for a judge to grant a request like Hogue's, especially because it can cost the county a lot of extra money. ...


...Simms has not scheduled a hearing date to rule on the change of venue request...
more at: http://www.13wmaz.com/story/news/local/macon/2014/01/15/mcdaniel-change-of-venue/4499169/



41NBC/WMGT - Stephen McDaniel Trial Venue Change - 1.15.13 - YouTube
 


If you listen to the audio at the link I've snipped from my earlier post, Cooke starts talking about the Giddings case a little ways in (around 2:55). He's saying how when the death penalty was dropped and a trial date set, the FBI was prompted to get the forensic results coming on down. I understand Cooke to say then that now ALL the results ARE in. If this is so, maybe many of the answers are in that finally-complete file.

I think this is the direct link to the audio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OX15yFVJ9a8
 
bbm: I believe the only place this has formally been "said" is in the pending wrongful death suit -- correct? And I'm not even sure that "researched" is included there; it may be. I know it does allege he purchased ingredients.

Correct, and I have to believe they have some sort of evidence to back up this assertion.
 
http://www.13wmaz.com/story/news/local/macon/2014/01/17/mcdaniel-case-gag-order/4586829/

Here's another article about the gag order. I guess the judge is referring to the article about the websites SMD visited.

I think not so much web sites mentioned in court as the ones told to The Telegraph by "a source close to the investigation" -- these (bbm):

McDaniel visited websites about violent sex acts and intercourse with dead people, according to a source familiar with the investigation.


He also viewed Lauren Giddings’ Facebook page and appeared to research a device similar to the burglar bar that Giddings used to secure her apartment door, the source said.
http://www.macon.com/2014/01/10/2872227/da-mcdaniel-visited-website-about.html#storylink=cpy

I think it is fair to say that The Telegraph probably also based its headline for that particular story on the "source's" info.

Telegraph has used unidentified sources several times in covering Lauren's case. Just speaking for me, I think it's rarely a good idea to quote an unidentified source like that regarding a criminal investigation or trial. (IMO, there ARE exceptions, but they are rare.) To me, as the reader, it usually appears to mean: Either (1)the source is someone who shouldn't be telling this to the media, has an agenda for doing so and would only do it anonymously, or (2)the source is likely not "close" enough to the investigation to know for sure what he/she is talking about.

I think the media will still be able to report from hearings and court documents unless something is specifically closed by the judge -- I think.

Gag order is probably a good thing, IMO (though maybe a little frustrating); what all of us want is a fair trial, I believe.

I posted this link the other day, for general "laws about the media and trials info":

http://www.rcfp.org/georgia-open-cou...endium/general

If you visit the page and look to the table at the left, section XI covers cameras and other technology (including webcasting, Twitter, etc.) in the courtroom and section XII covers restrictions on participants in litigation (gag orders and the like). There's some interesting info there, both in overview and specific to Georgia.
 
Did I do a poor job of skimming or is it known where it would get moved to? High profile cases always get moved to my county in GA for some reason, lol. I've never even been inside of a courthouse so I have no idea how trial spectating works, if that's the case again..
 
Did I do a poor job of skimming or is it known where it would get moved to? High profile cases always get moved to my county in GA for some reason, lol. I've never even been inside of a courthouse so I have no idea how trial spectating works, if that's the case again..

You didn't miss anything on that, I don't think. IF the judge approves the change of venue (still waiting on his decision), trial could pack up and go somewhere else in Georgia -- I think right now we don't know anything about where; OR jurors could be "imported" from somewhere (and I think right now we don't know from where) in Georgia to come to Macon.
 
I am extremely disappointed in the gag order.
As soon as I finished reading the article, my next thought was this trial will be a circus because leaks most always happen one way or another.


If the judge wants JUSTICE then this entire trial should be open to the public, e.g. the entire trial should be broadcast on live TV.
IMO

Sandstorm, not sure I understand...? I don't think this gag order (as it now stands) will stop media attending and reporting on the pre-trial proceedings and/or the trial -- that is not its intent. Only to keep those directly involved with the case from speaking to the media about it. Statements made in the courtroom and documents, I think, will still be covered.

I highly doubt the trial would be closed to the public. It will be a separate decision whether to allow cameras, etc., at hearings and at the trial, but I don't think it is likely they will be banned. I, too, would like for the trial to be televised.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, though?
 
Sandstorm, not sure I understand...? I don't think this gag order (as it now stands) will stop media attending and reporting on the pre-trial proceedings and/or the trial -- that is not its intent. Only to keep those directly involved with the case from speaking to the media about it. Statements made in the courtroom and documents, I think, will still be covered.

I highly doubt the trial would be closed to the public. It will be a separate decision whether to allow cameras, etc., at hearings and at the trial, but I don't think it is likely they will be banned. I, too, would like for the trial to be televised.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, though?

Backwoods, This is a relief! I read the gag order to mean totally no speaking about the trial. Thank you for clarifying my misunderstanding. I definitely want to know what is happening when this trial begins. I really wish it would be televised!
 
Backwoods, This is a relief! I read the gag order to mean totally no speaking about the trial. Thank you for clarifying my misunderstanding. I definitely want to know what is happening when this trial begins. I really wish it would be televised!

OK --whew -- I thought that must be what you were thinking at first look, but wasn't sure. Yeah, I would be really upset, too, in that case! But I think that would be unconstitutional, for starters.

I guess it makes investigative reporting kind of hard if you can't call up anyone connected with the case and kind of be like, "Hey, what's happening? What's up with the case?" because that person knows that if he/she talks to you and you print/broadcast it, he/she might go to jail or be fined. So we probably won't be getting much, between court doings. But really, that has been pretty much true for a while now.

I noticed, however, looking at the 13WMAZ report of the gag order again, this:

...However, Gerry Weber, an attorney with the Georgia First Amendment Foundation, told 13WMAZ the order was not issued properly.


He says Simms should have explained reasons why other options, such as the change of venue request filed by the defense, would not minimize potential prejudice in the case.


"This order fails to do that," says Weber. "It fails to analyze why venue wouldn't work, why sequestration of witnesses wouldn't work, why postponement of the trial wouldn't work in order to address the prejudicial publicity that he's outlined."...
http://www.13wmaz.com/story/news/local/macon/2014/01/17/mcdaniel-case-gag-order/4586829/

Not sure if that had been added to the text since it was first posted or if I just missed it the first time around. Anyhow...

Apparently, the media has some legal standing to challenge gag orders such as this one. From the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press web site I linked earlier:

Media standing to challenge third-party gag orders

Overview

The Supreme Court has not addressed the issue, but lower courts have found that media organizations have standing to challenge gag orders on third parties. Thus, the court in CBS, Inc. v. Young, 522 F.2d 234, 237-38 (6th Cir. 1975) was “not persuaded by the argument that petitioner lacks standing because it is not a party to the civil litigation. The fact remains that its ability to gather the news concerning the trial is directly impaired or curtailed. The protected right to publish the news would be of little value in the absence of sources from which to obtain it.” Likewise, the court in In re Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 842 F.2d 603, 607-08 (2nd Cir. 1988) found that “news agencies have standing as recipients of speech to prosecute this appeal,” in part because they record showed they were “potential recipients of speech.”

Georgia

The right of the media to intervene in legal actions, where their newsgathering rights are burdened by court orders, is well established in Georgia. See, e.g., R.W. Page Corp. v. Lumpkin, 249 Ga. 576, 581 (1982); Atlanta Journal-Constitution v. State, 266 Ga. App. 168, 170 (2004) (holding that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and WSB-TV had standing to challenge a gag order entered against trial participants and witnesses)
http://www.rcfp.org/georgia-open-courts-compendium/media-standing-challenge-third-party-gag-orders

Not sure it will come to a challenge, though. (Very costly, I think.) Guess we'll see.
 
Wanted to address this in a separate post because, well, I think it deserves one:

What if the rest, or a portion of the rest, of Lauren's remains should be discovered, under circumstances in which, normally, there would be media coverage (after notifying the family, etc., of course). If LE is barred from speaking to the media about the case, how would that be handled?

Just crossed my mind and now I'm really wondering.
 
In my county many years ago, a young man killed 4 members of a family, molested another, and took the remaining children and put them out about 50 miles away. His was a death penalty case. His lawyers claimed that he could not get a fair trial in our county and that our county was known to support the death penalty. The trial was moved to another county somewhere in middle GA. The young man was convicted and sentenced to death in this other county. One of his appeal issues was that the trial was moved to another county that was also pro death penalty. Thankfully, the GA Supreme Court upheld the conviction.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
123
Guests online
4,208
Total visitors
4,331

Forum statistics

Threads
593,104
Messages
17,981,305
Members
229,027
Latest member
irennnnn
Back
Top