GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #12

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Via Joe Kovac's Twitter: A two part exclusive, coming Sunday and Monday, gives a moving, inside account and sheds new light on the case.

Should be interesting. We'd heard in their most recent chat that they were getting an article ready about Lauren and Stephen and their interaction, etc.
 
NotALawyer said:
I have been following this tragic story also. I am struck by the quick turnover of autopsy and DNA results that have been instrumental in the investigation. The autopsy was conducted and findings released the same day as the body was found. DNA evidence was processed the following day. Reports indicate that all tests were conducted by the GBI. I am wondering why the difference in timing between this case and the Giddings case. I am sure there are good reasons - I'm just curious about the stark contrast. Could it be because:

-FBI involvement slows the process down to months, rather than hours. If so, why the FBI involvement in one case but not the other?
-Possibly, results in the Giddings case were turned around quickly, we just weren't told about them.
-One case involves a minor, the other does not.
-In the Giddings case a POI (who local authorities felt was a strong suspect) was already in custody, albeit on a different charge. In the Rivera case, no suspect was in custody and evidence was needed quickly to find him.

Any ideas anyone?

Autopsy:
http://www.ajc.com/news/cherokee/canton-girl-died-of-1252353.html

Reference to DNA timing:
http://www.wsbtv.com/ap/ap/crime/authorities-autopsy-shows-missing-georgia-girl-was/nFt5r/
Click to expand...
I was thinking about this, myself, yesterday. In Jorelys' case, a child killer was on the loose, and the neighborhood was in a panic. LE had to nab Brunn before he had a chance to run. Under those circumstances, the autopsy and lab tests would take top priority. In Lauren's case, LE had McD under their thumb from the first day, and within 12 hours or so, he was in custody. Still, the public was told that results would be back quickly. Then McD's bond was denied, and it became a waiting game. I think that was deliberate to some extent. Maybe someone requested that her tests be nudged toward the back burner. JMO.

I also agree with Backwoods that the condition of the remains in Lauren's case made the task of searching for a cause of death daunting, and as we know, it was never determined. I don't want to speculate too much, but I suspect the nature of the injuries to the body and the lack of a clear manner of death required special handling. Complications might have also resulted from the remains being frozen, if that did occur. There's still a lot of evidence to analyze in little Jorelys' case, and it will be interesting to compare the turnaround time.

LE did an excellent job in solving Jorelys' murder, and I'm very thankful the perp will face justice.
 
Focus said:
Hello All,
First time poster long time reader here. At times I understand if SM (assuming he did this) needed to get rid of LG's hands as they often hold DNA and considering that he supposedly had scratches on his torso I completely understand the need to dispose of those pieces in a much more seemingly guarded way. Btw has it been verified that scratches were present on SM? I am a local and admit this case has rocked my world; I went to the commitment hearing for the murder charge. The amount of evil involved in a crime like this is indescribable; it is something I will never fully understand how a perpetrator is able to follow through with a crime such as this with such little respect of another person's life, family, and loved ones. That may just be it, pure selfishness, a lack of reality, of compassion, plan and simply put pure evil. I think of Lauren on a daily basis.

I spend a lot of time walking my dogs in wooded areas, the river (via kayak), ect. I am constantly searching ... What many people who are not local or who are not very familiar with the Ocmulgee River may not know is that in the downtown area the river is very shallow especially during th summer months. . There is a lot of boat (kayak) dragging involved on the river. Granted there are some channels where the river is chest deep, there are few places in that direct vicinity of the downtown Rose Hill cemetery area of the river that have depth. Point is that the shallow certainly out weighs the deep in that vicinity of the river where his “comfort zone" would have been.
That being said the river does take lives. There are drownings because of undertoes and getting caught in debris as result of people being more confident while in it because of it being a shallow river. All I know is my heart goes out to her family (butterbean included), and the loss of such a seemingly beautiful soul.
Click to expand...
Welcome to Websleuths, Focus. Interesting insights on the river. Thank you.

Lauren and her family have touched me in a special way, too. I feel like I knew her. :(



:welcome5:
​
 
Oriah said:
Hi bessie!

Lauren's case is just plaguing me...my heart breaks for her friends and family. This is so terrible. :(

I don't know that I buy McD's 'disposal in the trash 'theory/method of all of her remains...

Do you think it's possible that the remains that have not been found are the ones that were most significant to McD?

I don't know. I just know I feel that it is important.

Oiy. My heart breaks for Lauren's family. :(
Click to expand...

Just my very humble opinion, Oriah, but I'm inclined to say no.

Thanks for posting the links, you guys. I'm going to read them in bed if I can keep my eyes open. :eek:fftobed:
 
tomkat said:
What I bolded..............why it seems organized to me and especially with no other damming traces of a crime on scene thus far, that we know of. Whether dropped 2 days prior to pickup or the evening before, he'd already mentioned the "trash" as a location to dump so it seems just human error, getting sloppy and confident. But I dont' know the mindset and types of murderers as you all speak of, only traces of such that I've picked up on, on sleuths.

I think the river is most likely but wherever, if at all, he dropped parts along macon neighborhoods, I still wonder where every landlot or block is disposed of at the landfill. If only one area was searched and each landlot or block or several has a section at the landfill for disposal, they could have missed it, since the whole place would have to be searched. which probably won't happen. Not sure I'm making sense here lol
Click to expand...
Tomkat, it was said early on that the neighborhood trash goes to the city dump, and it was closed and searched the first two days. The univeristy trash goes to the landfill, and it was isolated from the time it was arrived there. I'm pretty sure that's correct, and if so, something should've turned up. I wish more effort would have gone into searching the river.
 
bessie said:
Tomkat, it was said early on that the neighborhood trash goes to the city dump, and it was closed and searched the first two days. The univeristy trash goes to the landfill, and it was isolated from the time it was arrived there. I'm pretty sure that's correct, and if so, something should've turned up. I wish more effort would have gone into searching the river.
Click to expand...

I wonder, though, about some of the other institutional (not Mercer)/industrial/retail/restaurant/etc. dumpsters that would have been within walking distance -- whether some of them are separately contracted and might go ...who knows where...maybe some other landfill. And could possibly have been used for disposal and then hauled away, even before Lauren was realized to be missing.

Agree about the river! The river comments by new poster Focus were enlightening to me.
 
bessie said:
Just my very humble opinion, Oriah, but I'm inclined to say no.

Thanks for posting the links, you guys. I'm going to read them in bed if I can keep my eyes open. :eek:fftobed:
Click to expand...

Hope you got some sleep, bessie. A lot of us seem to be night owls and/or insomniacs. :)

I am really stuck on the motivation regarding mutilation and dismemberment after death- and whether or not it is possible at this point to recover remains.

If I'm barking up the wrong tree, I am totally ok with that (and kind of want to be. :( ) But there are a couple of things I don't understand about Lauren's murder- that I hope the autopsy will be able to help explain.

The dismemberment/mutilation wounds would indicate to a certain degree, timing and position of when the wounds were inflicted- correct? So the ME would have an idea as to whether or not they all took place at the same time- which would give us an idea of when disposal of remains may have taken place- or whether they were staggered over a period of time?

I think that might be key in understanding McD's frame of mind- as well as possibly locating remains. Does that make any sense?
 
December 8, 2011

Death Penalty Sought for McDaniel in Lauren Giddings Case

Winters [Bibb County's District Attorney] says he's filed a motion seeking the death penalty on the grounds that Giddings killing was "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved depravity of mind."

In addition to Giddings' murder, he is charged with two counts of burglary and with sexual exploitation of a child, for allegedly possessing child *advertiser censored*.

http://www.11alive.com/news/article...sought-for-McDaniel-in-Lauren-Giddings-murder

Update: Giddings family supports DA’s decision to seek death against McDaniel
“It’s good to see the process moving along. ... We hope it’s over as soon as possible,” said Kaitlyn Wheeler, Giddings’ sister.

http://www.macon.com/2011/12/08/1816367/state-will-seek-death-penalty.html

Notice of Intention to Seek the Death Penalty
 
Oriah said:
Hope you got some sleep, bessie. A lot of us seem to be night owls and/or insomniacs. :)

I am really stuck on the motivation regarding mutilation and dismemberment after death- and whether or not it is possible at this point to recover remains.

If I'm barking up the wrong tree, I am totally ok with that (and kind of want to be. :( ) But there are a couple of things I don't understand about Lauren's murder- that I hope the autopsy will be able to help explain.

The dismemberment/mutilation wounds would indicate to a certain degree, timing and position of when the wounds were inflicted- correct? So the ME would have an idea as to whether or not they all took place at the same time- which would give us an idea of when disposal of remains may have taken place- or whether they were staggered over a period of time?

I think that might be key in understanding McD's frame of mind- as well as possibly locating remains. Does that make any sense?
Click to expand...

It makes sense to me.
 
Wow, how do you all think SM will plead at the arraignment for the child exploitation charges on Monday? Not guilty?

You know, this takes me back to when we had LONG discussions about whether, under current Georgia law, LE had been able to obtain a legally-usable DNA sample (a buccal swab) from SM for comparison purposes. We wondered if maybe not having a sample was the reason Det. Patterson responded rather strangely when Buford asked him at the commitment hearing on the murder charges whether SM's DNA was on the hacksaw along with Lauren's. (Patterson hesitated, finally answered "Not that I know of.")

Remember, we determined that, in Georgia, the current state law did not compel a sample from arrestees, even on a murder charge. And one thing that was suggested was that maybe the child exploitation charges would bring a conviction -- or perhaps somewhere along the way would bring federal charges, to which different rules about compelling a sample apply -- and thus allow a sample to be compelled.

Since then, we had a poster -- I believe it was AgentFrankLundy -- tell us that "they have his DNA", meaning a comparison sample. And I think we all just kind of proceeded along with that information.

But, to be honest, I STILL am not so sure about it, the more I think about it. Not that I don't trust our posters who "hear stuff" from reliable sources locally -- but just that some wrong info might have been out there on this one?

It seems funny to me that we have heard nothing -- not officially in a court proceeding, not "from sources close to the investigation" via a Macon Telegraph/macon.com story -- about SM's DNA being on anything. I know we have heard rumors ... and, granted, maybe the Grand Jury heard about SM's DNA ... but I just can't help but wonder: Could they still not have an official comparison sample...??
 
pearl said:
He could also, theoretically, have gained acess somehow to an abandoned restaurant or store that, through an error on the power company's part, still has electrical power for a freezer or fridge. Also, depending on how handy he is, he could have tapped into the power line of a nearby building. I have heard of people tapping into their neighbor's power supply. I know this is farfetched, but it could (but probably did not) happen.
Click to expand...

That happens more than we think, it's very possible in mo and I dont think it's that difficult and SURELY HE was smart enough to do such tapping/stealing of power. The power co. can read meters in the area to find out if stealing of power ocurred and commpare to previous reading on file, but again, no dogs searched other apts in the complex (just the few near LG) so if never checked (is it too late?) how is the defense going to use that?

Taking a heavy object to another location would be obvious. The reason for it being where it was found?
 
Backwoods said:
Wow, how do you all think SM will plead at the arraignment for the child exploitation charges on Monday? Not guilty?

You know, this takes me back to when we had LONG discussions about whether, under current Georgia law, LE had been able to obtain a legally-usable DNA sample (a buccal swab) from SM for comparison purposes. We wondered if maybe not having a sample was the reason Det. Patterson responded rather strangely when Buford asked him at the commitment hearing on the murder charges whether SM's DNA was on the hacksaw along with Lauren's. (Patterson hesitated, finally answered "Not that I know of.")

Remember, we determined that, in Georgia, the current state law did not compel a sample from arrestees, even on a murder charge. And one thing that was suggested was that maybe the child exploitation charges would bring a conviction -- or perhaps somewhere along the way would bring federal charges, to which different rules about compelling a sample apply -- and thus allow a sample to be compelled.

Since then, we had a poster -- I believe it was AgentFrankLundy -- tell us that "they have his DNA", meaning a comparison sample. And I think we all just kind of proceeded along with that information.

But, to be honest, I STILL am not so sure about it, the more I think about it. Not that I don't trust our posters who "hear stuff" from reliable sources locally -- but just that some wrong info might have been out there on this one?

It seems funny to me that we have heard nothing -- not officially in a court proceeding, not "from sources close to the investigation" via a Macon Telegraph/macon.com story -- about SM's DNA being on anything. I know we have heard rumors ... and, granted, maybe the Grand Jury heard about SM's DNA ... but I just can't help but wonder: Could they still not have an official comparison sample...??
Click to expand...

You know, if convicted on CE, he would, until his dying day, be on the sex offenders list and would be monitored quite closely, checked in on and must always turn in a change of address or if not and discovered, considered a fugitive until located, possibly charged. LE checks with Landlords on a regular basis to ensure the SexO whereabouts are as they have reported, they can't be within certain distances of schools, so the main reason they are kept in check by LE but Landlords kind of keep an eye on these kind closely too. I've known SexO to use one location for their "residence" to report to LE ( paying utilities etc) but actually residing elsewhere with someone else. I do think some of this SexO list is trumped up (another story for another day LOL) but not the majority.

At any rate, it would be like prison to some extent and/or he'd constantly be trying to beat the system if so prone to do/need to (actually might enjoy the game?)

Good back up plan I suppose, if there isn't enough to convict when obvious by LE and others he's guilty since jurors sometimes don't hear the whole truth .........Just my thoughts on that.
 
Backwoods said:
bessie, I'm not seeing any reference to a hearing at the link you posted...?

That quote you posted sounds like it is referring back all the way back to the commitment hearing ...?

A little confused...
Click to expand...
Oops! You're right, BW. I misread the caption. :eek:
 
Front page of Macon Telegraph... I don't know... it kinda reads like the Enquirer.

7ZSRE.St.71.jpg
 
McMunn said:
Front page of Macon Telegraph... I don't know... it kinda reads like the Enquirer.

7ZSRE.St.71.jpg
Click to expand...

bbm: It does, kinda!

I'm thinking maybe this is going to tell us some of the things about Lauren's activities in the last two days she was ever seen by friends, etc. -- you know, the stuff we have only ever heard about before in that one Washington Post article. (It's a small thing, I know, but I hope maybe it will clear up whether the Zaxby's stuff was found in her apartment, as we heard locally, or in her car, as the WP story said. That little detail has bothered me, for some reason.)

Hmmm ... "a moving, inside account." I wonder who the source(s) will turn out to be for this story? I have to admit, I am anxious to read it.
 
Backwoods said:
Wow, how do you all think SM will plead at the arraignment for the child exploitation charges on Monday? Not guilty?

You know, this takes me back to when we had LONG discussions about whether, under current Georgia law, LE had been able to obtain a legally-usable DNA sample (a buccal swab) from SM for comparison purposes. We wondered if maybe not having a sample was the reason Det. Patterson responded rather strangely when Buford asked him at the commitment hearing on the murder charges whether SM's DNA was on the hacksaw along with Lauren's. (Patterson hesitated, finally answered "Not that I know of.")

Remember, we determined that, in Georgia, the current state law did not compel a sample from arrestees, even on a murder charge. And one thing that was suggested was that maybe the child exploitation charges would bring a conviction -- or perhaps somewhere along the way would bring federal charges, to which different rules about compelling a sample apply -- and thus allow a sample to be compelled.

Since then, we had a poster -- I believe it was AgentFrankLundy -- tell us that "they have his DNA", meaning a comparison sample. And I think we all just kind of proceeded along with that information.

But, to be honest, I STILL am not so sure about it, the more I think about it. Not that I don't trust our posters who "hear stuff" from reliable sources locally -- but just that some wrong info might have been out there on this one?

It seems funny to me that we have heard nothing -- not officially in a court proceeding, not "from sources close to the investigation" via a Macon Telegraph/macon.com story -- about SM's DNA being on anything. I know we have heard rumors ... and, granted, maybe the Grand Jury heard about SM's DNA ... but I just can't help but wonder: Could they still not have an official comparison sample...??
Click to expand...
Arrestees are not required automatically to give a DNA sample, but with probable cause, a DNA sample can be obtained through a search warrant served on any individual, arrestee or not.

The Georgia Assembly determined DNA to be an individual's "unique property".
O.C.G.A. 33-54-1

The Criminal Code states, in short, that "any item, substance, object, thing or matter" that is tangible evidence can be seized with probable cause.
O.C.G.A. 17-5-21

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Found Deceased GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 27 June 2011 #11
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 92 more.
Total: 2,825 (members: 93, guests: 2,732)

Online statistics

Members online
93
Guests online
2,732
Total visitors
2,825
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,180
Messages
17,964,710
Members
228,714
Latest member
hannahdunnam
Back
Top