GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #14

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just checked the digital subscription prices.
.99 for a one month trial subscription
99.99 for a one year digital subscription
I just don't think this is going to work out for them because I cannot forsee many Georgians paying that much for a smallish paper like the Telegraph. I think they will see fewer visits to their site and a loss in advertising dollars. Just my opinion.
 
Also found a brief report about the motions from another Macon media outlet, television station 41WMGT:

McDaniel's Attorneys Request Evidence be Withheld from Trial

...According to Prosecutor Nancy Scott Malcor, no hearings have been set yet in the Giddings murder trial.
read more at: http://www.41nbc.com/news/local-new...rneys-request-evidence-be-withheld-from-trial

Also, FWIW, don't think it has been mentioned on WS that David Cooke has already begun his term as DA -- his signature is on some of the motions documents linked in the post above. I once thought he would not start until the first of the year, but think I saw somewhere that he went in somewhere around the middle of this month.
 
:gthanks:

Huge thanks to the The Telegraph for making the documents available. Now I surely won't get any work done today. Oh well, time to put on a fresh pot of coffee and polish my reading glasses. ;)

bbm: Make mine Luzianne, please.
 
December 17, 2012

Documents in Giddings Slaying Chronicle Case's Early Hours

Published December 15, 2012, Updated December 17, 2012
By AMY LEIGH WOMACK and JOE KOVAC JR. — Telegraph staff

But what went on in a roughly 20-hour span in the immediate aftermath of Lauren Giddings’ torso being found has largely remained a secret.

What may or may not have happened in those hours could prove pivotal in the defense that Stephen McDaniel’s lawyers are mounting for their 27-year-old client.

Court documents filed Friday by McDaniel’s attorneys, Franklin J. Hogue and Floyd Buford, also reveal an almost hour-by-hour chronology that police and prosecutors have, for the most part, kept under wraps since their probe began a year and a half ago.


Defense Motions in State of Georgia v. Stephen McDaniel, December 14, 2012
 
:gthanks:

Huge thanks to the The Telegraph for making the documents available. Now I surely won't get any work done today. Oh well, time to put on a fresh pot of coffee and polish my reading glasses. ;)


I see that the motions pdf contains this in tiny letters: "Contributed by: Mike Stucka, The Telegraph of Macon" ...so: a particular thanks to Mike!
 
Does McDaniel expect people to believe that LE stomped all over the civil rights of a recent law school grad? He knew the law, but yet allowed himself to be treated as he claims he was treated? He was repeatedly questioned and did not request a lawyer and just shut his mouth? He was put in a police car, mobile crime scene lab, and police station and did not request a lawyer? Seems like he made his one phone call to his mother not a lawyer. He could have. just. shut. his. mouth.
Please excuse my rant. I've just entered an alternate reality reading these articles.

I was thinking the same, but then again, is it admissable? If not, maybe he was trying to confuse the case from the beginning. Because if he knows as much as he *claims (*key word here lol) why did he not ask for an attorney?
Just a thought
 
Also found a brief report about the motions from another Macon media outlet, television station 41WMGT:

read more at: http://www.41nbc.com/news/local-new...rneys-request-evidence-be-withheld-from-trial

Also, FWIW, don't think it has been mentioned on WS that David Cooke has already begun his term as DA -- his signature is on some of the motions documents linked in the post above. I once thought he would not start until the first of the year, but think I saw somewhere that he went in somewhere around the middle of this month.

Been in the back of mind that since he took office, more on SM seems to be coming out suddenly, maybe a coincidence since motions deadline was Fri anyway
 
I can't believe this! Buford and Hogue are citing a case from 1982 to support their claim that the use of HRD dogs "has not reached a scientific stage of verifiable certainty." How odd. They must realize they are grasping at straws.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/540762-mcdaniel-defense-motions-351-pages.html#wgt=rcntnews

Seems they want the whole case thrown out too, LOL. The searches with no warrants probably will and what about the questioning prior to attorney?
 
Another local TV station, FOX24, rings in on the motions -- starting off with a flashback to its shining moment (IMO) in this case:

Stephen McDaniel's Attorneys Want Evidence Thrown Out

"I mean we don't know if this is the same person you know what I mean? They took out a body earlier. We don't know if it's the same person or not. ..." -Michelle Quesada/Former WGXA Reporter


"I think I need to sit down." -Stephen McDaniel/Murder Suspect

When WGXA's Michelle Quesada conducted this interview with Stephen McDaniel she had no idea she was talking to the alleged killer of Lauren Giddings. ...

read more at: http://www.newscentralga.com/news/l...rneys-Want-Evidence-Thrown-Out-183880211.html
 
I can't believe this! Buford and Hogue are citing a case from 1982 to support their claim that the use of HRD dogs "has not reached a scientific stage of verifiable certainty." How odd. They must realize they are grasping at straws.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/540762-mcdaniel-defense-motions-351-pages.html#wgt=rcntnews

bbm: They are citing later cases, as well, though.

I don't have the background that many WSers do on following cases in which SAR/HRD dogs have played important parts -- but I'm thinking that it is unusual, anywhere, to have the dog evidence presented directly in court to the kind of purpose described in the first motion. I'm reading the motion to say that it has never happened in Georgia (except when a dog actually located a body) and been upheld on challenge. Isn't that correct?

I'm thinking here that the usage referred to in this motion is more or less "putting the dog on the stand" (through the testimony of the handler and other experts and maybe through video, were it available, which in this case, it apparently is not), directly, as testimony/evidence in itself. I don't think that happens a whole lot anywhere, does it, think it's routinely challenged...? So I can't think the defense is "grasping at straws" with this part. Now that I've read the whole motion itself, and not just the recap in the earlier newspaper article, I think the defense would be remiss NOT to make this motion, and I think it likely to be upheld (or whatever is the correct term) -- though I still think some of the wording in the motion is perhaps a bit over the top (though not nearly so much as I thought earlier, when reading it out of the context of the entire motion), with the parts about Lassie, donkey-tail pulling, etc. Just a matter of style, I guess -- and it does explain and illustrate some of the problems of dog-search evidence used in this particular way and, well, sometimes you gotta be over the top a little bit to get the point across. On the whole, I think it is a well-presented motion.

I am aware that, many times, search warrants are based on, perhaps among other things, dog results -- and that those searches often turn up evidence that IS admitted. Whole 'nother ballgame. (And makes perfect sense to me -- I truly am awed by the abilities of some of the dogs!) I think that could very well happen in this case. That's why so much here, I think, maybe will hinge on whether the dog searches were "legal" or not -- whether permission was granted in an acceptable way (since there was no warrant) for the dog search of Stephen's apartment. It seems to me, from others of the motions, that that's where the real battleground will be. And sure looks like the two sides are telling different stories about that.

I wondered, way back when Patterson testified at the commitment hearing about the search with permission and kind of bundled the dog search in with his narrative, whether LE specifically mentioned in talking to SM that the dogs were HRD/cadaver dogs. I wondered if the impression might have been allowed that they were perhaps SAR dogs, looking for (an alive) Lauren or a direction in which to search for her. (I still wonder. I guess, though, IF the dog searches happened after LE was aware that Stephen had learned that remains had been found, that no mystery was maintained about what kind of dogs they were -- and I think that is probably the case, from what we've learned in the past few days, but I'm not certain.) Remember, Patterson and Winters (at two different hearings) reported two different remarks SM allegedly made in regard to the dogs -- Patterson saying, IIRC, that SM said something about maybe picking up something in Lauren's apartment when he was there the night before with the searching friends, and Winters saying SM said something might have "jumped on" him in the parking lot. Perhaps a possible dog search was proposed at two different points...? (All theory, here.)

Stephen's permission wouldn't be a factor in the dog searches outside Stephen's apartment, of course -- such as the front doors, etc. -- at least I would think not.

I hope some of the dog experts on WS will check in soon with some thoughts on all of this. I'm wondering why no dog alerts near the area of the trash can where the remains were found. I'm thinking probably the trash receptacle itself had probably been removed already...? Maybe, if the bags containing the remains never touched the ground there, that would make a difference?

Noted from the motion that the handler and one or both (can't recall for sure) dogs also checked out the Mercer Law dumpster and went to the Macon Landfill, with no alerts, apparently.
 
Been in the back of mind that since he took office, more on SM seems to be coming out suddenly, maybe a coincidence since motions deadline was Fri anyway

I think maybe AgentFrank hit it right by telling us that a decision had been made to hold off on the motions until after the election -- it makes sense, from all sides, I think, to have held off a bit if there was any chance of a changeover (and now, in hindsight, we know there was).

Since the changeover went into effect this month (not in Jan., as I had assumed it would), guess things were clear to move on ahead without the changeover hitting at a point that might cause things to proceed less smoothly.

I noticed in one of the recent media reports that Lauren's sister Kaitlyn said they knew in advance that the motions deadline was at hand. Glad of that. I've found myself really hoping that the family already knew most of the "new" things we are finding out now. Otherwise, I especially hate to think of them having to deal with this right at Christmas time. I've kept hitting little details in what's coming out that are newly jarring to me, a stranger, and I find myself hoping each time that the Giddings family is not encountering those bits of information for the first time now.
 
Seems they want the whole case thrown out too, LOL. The searches with no warrants probably will and what about the questioning prior to attorney?

It does seem that way, doesn't it? Mostly on the lines of "fruit of the poisonous tree", too, from searches they are questioning. I think that's pretty much to be expected, though, challenges along those lines -- par for the course, defense attorneys doing their job, the job you or I would probably want done for us if we were on trial for our lives.

I think they have some good arguments in their motions, but I can't imagine that all they are asking to be thrown out will be! As I said, it's their job to ask, though.

There are some ways around the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Not being in a legal profession, I don't understand it all that well. Here's a link to an article, though -- it's wikipedia, but it does have a little section that sums up exceptions to the doctrine pretty neatly, for laypersons like me:

The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if:

  1. it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source; or
  2. it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
  3. the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
  4. the search warrant not based on probable cause was executed by government agents in good faith (called the good faith exception).

more at: Fruit of the poisonous tree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Thank-you to all you WSers who maintain Lauren's thread, and stand by waiting for justice. I will try to catch up on her case over the holidays. I am thinking of her poor family and friends at this special time.

Rest in Peace, Lauren.
 
I haven't had time to read through the defense motions. Holidays start tomorrow so maybe I'll be able to catch up.
 
<snipped> McDaniel went back to his apartment, where Patterson “confronted” him and asked McDaniel to sign a form giving police the OK to search it.

“Stephen did not respond and did not sign anything,” a defense motion notes. He was then placed in the Macon Police Department’s RV-like Mobile Command Center that was parked at the apartment complex. They say he remained there for several hours while various police officers came and went.

Sometime that afternoon, a pair of cadaver dogs, led by their handler, sniffed around McDaniel’s apartment while McDaniel sat in the apartment on a sofa.

“This search,” one motion contends, “was conducted without a warrant and without consent.”

At 8:42 that night, “based on purported alerts” by cadaver dogs, Patterson obtained a search warrant for McDaniel’s residence. McDaniel was still in the police truck, his lawyers write, “under the watchful eye of law enforcement.”

Shortly before 11 p.m., McDaniel was taken back to the detective bureau at City Hall for a fourth interview. About 1 a.m., detectives called McDaniel’s mother, Glenda, and let him talk to her.

Patterson left, and just before 2 a.m. obtained more search warrants -- another for McDaniel’s apartment and others for his decade-old Geo Prizm and his body, which let police take DNA and hair samples and allowed them to snap full-body pictures of him.
<snipped>
Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2012/12/15/2286427/documents-in-giddings-slaying.html#storylink=cpy

We don't know whether or not McD signed a consent for the HRD dog search. Patterson asked him to sign the form, but never said whether he got a signature. The defense claims McD didn't sign anything. If McD did comply with Patterson's request, there will be proof in writing. I'm wondering, though, would the search be permissible without McD's written consent if Boni Bush signed a consent form allowing all of the apartments to be searched, since she is the owner of the apartment complex?

This article from last year describes the HRD dog searches and where they alerted:

http://www.13wmaz.com/laurengidding...-Cause-to-Charge-McDaniel-in-Giddings-Murder-
<snipped>
Police called in cadaver-sniffing dogs, and those dogs had "hits" at Giddings second-floor apartment, McDaniel's apartment next door and a vacant apartment on the first floor.
<snipped>
He then described how officers searched the Barristers Hall apartment complex and found a hacksaw with blood on it in the common laundry room.
IMO, these excerpts give the impression that LE had formal permission to search the entire apartment complex (given by Boni Bush, most likely), but asked McD permission orally, out of courtesy, since he was there. I have no background in law, either, but wouldn't that be protocol? LE did search the apartment below Lauren, which was described at first as being vacant, although the tenant had not completely moved out. He was living primarily across town with his GF. I don't think the apartment searches would be any different than LE having the owner of a house sign a consent to search the house. If LE found incriminating evidence inside the owner's adult son's room, could the evidence be dismissed because LE didn't get the son's written permission to search? I don't know for certain, but I'd think not.

Also, the subsequent search in which LE collected physical evidence from McD's apartment was in response to the HRD dog alerts and was conducted with a SW. Since there is physical evidence to present in court, would the dogs necessarily need to be present at the trial? I don't recall any cases in which that happened. The only thing unusual about this case, mainly, is that only a partial body was recovered. There have been cases in which convictions were made without a body.
 
Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2012/12/15/2286427/documents-in-giddings-slaying.html#storylink=cpy

We don't know whether or not McD signed a consent for the HRD dog search. Patterson asked him to sign the form, but never said whether he got a signature. The defense claims McD didn't sign anything. If McD did comply with Patterson's request, there will be proof in writing.

<respectfully snipped>

Yes, that's what I was saying -- seems like two different stories are being told and guess maybe only time will tell where the truth lies. I also wonder if maybe (certainly not sure about this) even verbal permission for the search, if verified by witnesses, etc., might not help legitimize it. (Not saying I know that SM gave verbal permission -- but if he did.)

Also, very important, IMO, to keep in mind that, even with no express permission on the dog search, it seems likely that some of the exceptions to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine (see the Wikipedia article I posted above) come into play here and will get much of the prosecution's evidence admitted anyhow.

I'm wondering, though, would the search be permissible without McD's written consent if Boni Bush signed a consent form allowing all of the apartments to be searched, since she is the owner of the apartment complex?
<respectfully snipped>

I wondered about this, too. What I think would be true (again, not sure) is, as a renting tenant, he would probably have the same legal rights concerning his residence being searched by LE, etc., as he would if he owned his residence. I'm thinking that while the owner might be within his/her rights to unlock a door to a tenant's apartment and allow LE to enter, say, that would not guarantee that anything produced by such a "search" could not be successfully challenged as evidence. (All just my non-legally-educated musings here.)

I'd think that in the common areas, such as the laundry room, yes, the owner/manager could give permission, and, again, it might not have to consist of written permission, I don't know.

Don't know how all this would apply in the case of the rented-but-vacant apartment on the ground floor. (But, at any rate, that tenant is not on trial and so won't be challenging any evidence!)


I don't think the apartment searches would be any different than LE having the owner of a house sign a consent to search the house. If LE found incriminating evidence inside the owner's adult son's room, could the evidence be dismissed because LE didn't get the son's written permission to search? I don't know for certain, but I'd think not.
<respectfully snipped>

That's an interesting scenario and a good question. The only difference I can see is that, in the case of the homeowner with the live-in adult son, there probably isn't a rental contract, etc. -- the son most likely is just to be considered a member of the household -- so, again just IMO, I think a search with the homeowner's permission would be harder to challenge than in the case of an apartment-dweller.

Also, the subsequent search in which LE collected physical evidence from McD's apartment was in response to the HRD dog alerts and was conducted with a SW. Since there is physical evidence to present in court, would the dogs necessarily need to be present at the trial? I don't recall any cases in which that happened
<respectfully snipped>

Yes, this is what I was talking about in my long post above about the first motion. That motion seems aimed mostly at just stopping any attempt to introduce the "dog results" as evidence in itself. (Not meaning have the dog/s there, in the courtroom -- but having the trainer or dog expert testify that during the search "the dogs did thus-and-thus and that means thus-and-thus, and from this we can assume, etc., etc." -- a sort of expert testimony. The argument against that seems to be that, in the case of dogs, they're the real experts -- but, since they can't speak our language to testify, a human has to interpret and explain -- sort of a second-hand expert testimony, which can pose problems. If only the dogs could talk directly to a jury!)

And you're right, to my knowledge (which is limited) -- evidence found by following up on dog searches is often admitted and often very valuable. That's what I meant when I said that I think the real battleground about the dog search in this case will be about the legality of the dog search -- because the dog results are largely what led to getting the search warrant, apparently. (And again, keep in mind those exceptions to the "poisonous tree" doctrine, which possibly could override the question of whether the dog search was with permission.)
 
I haven't had time to read through the defense motions. Holidays start tomorrow so maybe I'll be able to catch up.

You know, pearl, you might even want to hold off a little (if you can). I couldn't -- I was starved for information on this case and had to dive right in. But gotta tell you -- revisiting all this, and learning some of the "heavier" info that is new to us -- coupled with the deep, deep sadness of the Sandy Hook school shootings ... it's affecting me.

Just saying -- if you can, give yourself some space to enjoy your break, get some holiday spirit and sample some of the brighter things in life. Happy holidays to you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
161
Guests online
2,251
Total visitors
2,412

Forum statistics

Threads
589,946
Messages
17,928,043
Members
228,010
Latest member
idrainuk
Back
Top