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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's a new article about a civil suit being filed by Lauren's parents:
http://m.macon.com/macon/db_294244/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=lk8AxFki

Two new items I see here in this article. They are saying SMD painted over the blood stains on Lauren's wall, and also that he stole a flash drive with her photos on it. I am interested to see if they can tie a paint purchase to him, and also if there's a time stamp on those photos from right before Lauren was killed to see if he was in her apartment close to that time.
 
It also says a computer thumb drive bearing pictures of her “was stolen from her apartment by McDaniel prior to her murder” and later found in his apartment. The suits says he “took numerous steps” to conceal the slaying, “including painting over blood stains on the walls” of Giddings’ residence.

The Giddingses are represented by close friends of Lauren’s, Kristin S. Miller, a now-lawyer she met as an undergraduate at Agnes Scott College in Atlanta, and Miller’s father, Richard A. “Doc” Schneider.

Schneider, a partner in the prominent Atlanta-based King & Spalding firm, graduated from Mercer’s law school in 1981 and has served on the university’s board of trustees.

It also says a computer thumb drive bearing pictures of her “was stolen from her apartment by McDaniel prior to her murder” and later found in his apartment. The suits says he “took numerous steps” to conceal the slaying, “including painting over blood stains on the walls” of Giddings’ residence.Read more here:

 
Here's a new article about a civil suit being filed by Lauren's parents:
http://m.macon.com/macon/db_294244/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=lk8AxFki

Two new items I see here in this article. They are saying SMD painted over the blood stains on Lauren's wall, and also that he stole a flash drive with her photos on it. I am interested to see if they can tie a paint purchase to him, and also if there's a time stamp on those photos from right before Lauren was killed to see if he was in her apartment close to that time.
I'll bet there was a can of paint somewhere on the premises, probably stored with the maintenance tools and supplies. Any paint he used would have to match the existing paint. Also, students were moving out, which means units were being cleaned and painted for the new tenants. Remember the gloves found in the laundry room? Didn't the manager say she used them for painting? I don't think he had to go any further than downstairs to access what he needed to do the job, the same way he "borrowed" the hacksaw. JMO
 
Here's a new article about a civil suit being filed by Lauren's parents:
http://m.macon.com/macon/db_294244/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=lk8AxFki

Two new items I see here in this article. They are saying SMD painted over the blood stains on Lauren's wall, and also that he stole a flash drive with her photos on it. I am interested to see if they can tie a paint purchase to him, and also if there's a time stamp on those photos from right before Lauren was killed to see if he was in her apartment close to that time.

I do not have the energy to find the article, but it was mentioned about repainting the walls earlier, once. Sorry I am sleepy :)

This is so sad. May the Giddings find justice!!! I am happy that Hogue cannot defend in this large civil case brought forth by her family and K and S!! Bring it K and S!!!
 
http://qpublic7.qpublic.net/qpmap4/...2&layers=parcels+streetnum+roads+parcel_sales

lots of water ALL around this place, flint river runs parallell to dripping rock rd where grandfather had land, don't need his land just the water anywhere near there, swamps, creeks, river abound

bbm: As they do, also, a whole lot closer to Macon.

I just really don't think the rest of Lauren is at the farm, even if Stephen is guilty. I don't see him travelling that far to "dispose of" some while leaving the torso behind (no matter how "attached" he was). It doesn't, IMO, fit in the time frame; and I don't think he would, if guilty, leave the torso behind "unattended" at the apartments to travel that far for his errand.

I want the Giddingses to find the rest of Lauren, but I just really feel she is not there.
 
I do not have the energy to find the article, but it was mentioned about repainting the walls earlier, once. Sorry I am sleepy :)

This is so sad. May the Giddings find justice!!! I am happy that Hogue cannot defend in this large civil case brought forth by her family and K and S!! Bring it K and S!!!

The only repainting I remember being mentioned (in a public way) was in some of the supporting LE documents that were included in the defense's first round of pre-trial motions (and maybe also noted in stories Telegraph/macon.com built around them*), a few months back. And that was referencing "possible" blood stains and possible repainting in the downstairs apartment, not Lauren's apartment.

*ETA: For example:

...When cadaver dogs searched the apartment below Giddings’ unit, police spotted what appeared to be a freshly painted wall with what seemed to be stains and smears that looked like dried blood. ...
http://www.macon.com/2012/12/14/2285130/defense-attorneys-dna-on-saw-may.html

I dunno -- maybe they found "what appeared to be a freshly painted wall" in Lauren's apartment, too; but if they did, I don't think we had heard of it before now, in the civil suit document.

 
Preponderance of Evidence A standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action.

In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the facts and claims asserted in the complaint. If the respondent, or defendant, files a counterclaim, the respondent will have the burden of proving that claim. When a party has the Burden of Proof, the party must present, through testimony and exhibits, enough evidence to support the claim. The amount of evidence required varies from claim to claim. For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincing evidence. A third standard, proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, is used in criminal cases and very few civil cases.


The quantum of evidence that constitutes a preponderance cannot be reduced to a simple formula. A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult to translate this definition and apply it to evidence in a case, but the definition serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining whether a claimant has carried his or her burden of proof.


The majority of civil claims are subjected to a preponderance of evidence standard. If a court or legislature seeks to make a civil claim more difficult to prove, it may raise the evidentiary standard to one of clear and convincing
from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence



A strong personal dislike of mine, and not at all limited to this case:
I really hate seeing a wrongful death suit filed before the criminal case is settled -- especially when the criminal case seems to be moving along pretty much on the time track expected.

I look at the following language, lifted out of the civil suit document macon.com posted:

...Lauren Giddings was murdered and dismembered by defendant Stephen McDaniel in Macon, Georgia during the period of June 25, 2011 to June 30, 2011. ...
Seeing this statement presented in a civil action before any criminal conviction, confession, or acquittal...and knowing that the standard of proof the civil jury will be instructed to use is much lower than that in a criminal trial, something in me just bucks up and says: "Yeah? Says who?"

Especially when I read on and find this:

...The allegations in this Complaint concerning the conduct of McDaniel are made on information and belief based upon the available evidence ...
OK -- and how much of the criminal prosecution's evidence does that include? What about not-yet-completed forensic studies? What if some heavy exonerating evidence turns up between the time of the civil case and criminal case, I always wonder: If the civil suit has been settled against the defendant, does he/she have any recourse? I think probably not.

Some other reasons about why civil-before-criminal bothers me are touched on in the macon.com story about the suit. It doesn't seem right to force the defense to choose between tipping its hand or risking incurring for the defendant a hefty monetary penalty (or both). Is the prosecution going to spill everything it has to the civil lawyers -- and thus, by default, to the defense? No, I think not. The civil lawyers just get to take bits and pieces and spin their own tale, independent of the theory the criminal case may take following the bulk of the evidence.

Oh, they have to "prove" it, if it goes as far as a jury -- but just to preponderance of evidence, I think, not beyond a reasonable doubt. And, in the meantime, what effects do the publicity surrounding the suit and the allegations made by the civil suit language, crafted for that lower standard, have on the populace from which the criminal jury will be drawn?

Don't get me wrong: Lauren's life was precious, beyond valuing. Besides that, I tend to believe that what the Giddingses, at least, want most from this is answers and the rest of Lauren. And I want those for them, too. I don't know that this course will get those for them, though.

As for a federal judge ordering that SM's grandfather's farm be searched, I find it hard to imagine that happening, not on the weight of what I read in the civil suit document alone, anyhow. Now if there's GPS or cell phone records from SM that we don't know about, something like that -- well, then maybe a different story.

Then again, there are some powerful players attached to the periphery of this case -- maybe somebody has that much influence. I don't know.

Personally, I wish the farm could just be searched and have that done with. If Lauren's there, I want her found. I just don't think she's there. If Stephen killed her, I think they'd do better to search the state parks, etc., in that area. I think, if he was going to travel that far at all, he wouldn't have taken her to his grandfather's place -- jmo. (Although I will admit, I occasionally have the stray thought that, after all this time, and with the grandfather gone, someone else could have put her there, by now... straying off into conspiracy-land there though, I guess.)
 
Here's a new article about a civil suit being filed by Lauren's parents:
http://m.macon.com/macon/db_294244/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=lk8AxFki

Two new items I see here in this article. They are saying SMD painted over the blood stains on Lauren's wall, and also that he stole a flash drive with her photos on it. I am interested to see if they can tie a paint purchase to him, and also if there's a time stamp on those photos from right before Lauren was killed to see if he was in her apartment close to that time.

Thanks for posting, MaconMom.

On the face of it, the stolen flash drive certainly perks the interest. Wow.

You're right, it's "new" -- not something we have ever seen mentioned in LE/prosecution public statements (or statements that later became public through defense motions, etc.). Makes me wonder what strength of evidence the civil lawyers have to back up the claim that SM stole a flash drive from Lauren.

Not saying there isn't reliable evidence safe with LE/prosecution, because of course they may have it and it's just still a hidden card (ummm, or was until now) -- I'm sure they must have some! But it just has me wondering; I have seen some claims put forth in civil suits before that ended up not having much to back them up.
 

A strong personal dislike of mine, and not at all limited to this case:
I really hate seeing a wrongful death suit filed before the criminal case is settled -- especially when the criminal case seems to be moving along pretty much on the time track expected.

<snipped>
Just quoting a part of my long rant-ish post above so I can administer a self correction!

I did not realize there is a two-years-from-the-death time limit to file the civil action. My bad -- sorry!

The time limit for filing a wrongful death case in Georgia is generally two years from the date of death. This limitation is based on separate statutes in general personal injury and medical malpractice contexts, but the effect is almost always the same.
http://www.atlantainjurylawyer.com/wrongful-death-attorney-lawyer-1008545.html

So ... maybe a stay for the civil suit will happen until after the criminal trial, and all those concerns I outlined won't be concerns.

(That would still leave the Giddingses waiting and wondering, though.)
 
from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence



A strong personal dislike of mine, and not at all limited to this case:
I really hate seeing a wrongful death suit filed before the criminal case is settled -- especially when the criminal case seems to be moving along pretty much on the time track expected.

I look at the following language, lifted out of the civil suit document macon.com posted:

Seeing this statement presented in a civil action before any criminal conviction, confession, or acquittal...and knowing that the standard of proof the civil jury will be instructed to use is much lower than that in a criminal trial, something in me just bucks up and says: "Yeah? Says who?"

Especially when I read on and find this:

OK -- and how much of the criminal prosecution's evidence does that include? What about not-yet-completed forensic studies? What if some heavy exonerating evidence turns up between the time of the civil case and criminal case, I always wonder: If the civil suit has been settled against the defendant, does he/she have any recourse? I think probably not.

Some other reasons about why civil-before-criminal bothers me are touched on in the macon.com story about the suit. It doesn't seem right to force the defense to choose between tipping its hand or risking incurring for the defendant a hefty monetary penalty (or both). Is the prosecution going to spill everything it has to the civil lawyers -- and thus, by default, to the defense? No, I think not. The civil lawyers just get to take bits and pieces and spin their own tale, independent of the theory the criminal case may take following the bulk of the evidence.

Oh, they have to "prove" it, if it goes as far as a jury -- but just to preponderance of evidence, I think, not beyond a reasonable doubt. And, in the meantime, what effects do the publicity surrounding the suit and the allegations made by the civil suit language, crafted for that lower standard, have on the populace from which the criminal jury will be drawn?

Don't get me wrong: Lauren's life was precious, beyond valuing. Besides that, I tend to believe that what the Giddingses, at least, want most from this is answers and the rest of Lauren. And I want those for them, too. I don't know that this course will get those for them, though.

As for a federal judge ordering that SM's grandfather's farm be searched, I find it hard to imagine that happening, not on the weight of what I read in the civil suit document alone, anyhow. Now if there's GPS or cell phone records from SM that we don't know about, something like that -- well, then maybe a different story.

Then again, there are some powerful players attached to the periphery of this case -- maybe somebody has that much influence. I don't know.

Personally, I wish the farm could just be searched and have that done with. If Lauren's there, I want her found. I just don't think she's there. If Stephen killed her, I think they'd do better to search the state parks, etc., in that area. I think, if he was going to travel that far at all, he wouldn't have taken her to his grandfather's place -- jmo. (Although I will admit, I occasionally have the stray thought that, after all this time, and with the grandfather gone, someone else could have put her there, by now... straying off into conspiracy-land there though, I guess.)

I agree with your reasoning, BW. In principle, it makes a lot of sense. In this particular case, however, time has run out. The statute of limitations is two years. If the family doesn't file now, they lose their chance.

ETA: We always seem to end up posting at the same time. LOL
 
Wrongful death suit seeks search for Giddings' remains
Published: June 17, 2013
By AMY LEIGH WOMACK and JOE KOVAC JR. &#8212; Telegraph staff
In a $5 million-plus wrongful death lawsuit, the parents of slain Mercer University law graduate Lauren Giddings contend that her accused killer stole pictures of her and, after dismembering her, painted over blood stains on her apartment walls.
In hopes of finding her remains, they want a federal judge to let them search farmland that belonged to one of suspect Stephen McDaniel&#8217;s grandfathers.
Family of slain law grad Lauren Giddings files wrongful death suit
Giddings' sister, Kaitlyn Wheeler, told the station in an email: "My parents and I are dedicated to pursuing every avenue the law allows to seek justice for my sister and find out exactly what happened here. In addition to an opportunity to get answers, a civil judgment against McDaniel will ensure he never profits from what he did to my sister."
McDaniel trial postponed to January, may be delayed further
Published: June 18, 2013
By AMY LEIGH WOMACK and JOE KOVAC JR. &#8212; Telegraph staff
Stephen Mark McDaniel, previously scheduled to go to trial in September, now is facing a Jan. 6, 2014, trial date, said David Cooke, Macon Judicial Circuit District Attorney.
 
Two years ago on the late evening of June 25 - 26, Lauren's life was taken.

Here is an older article that details the night of panic when her friends and family discovered that something was wrong since they had not heard from her in 4 days.

They all thought she was studying for the Georgia bar - when in fact she had been murdered.

For those of us who have followed this case from the beginning - this article will bring back memories of sadness and tragedy that beautiful Lauren was the innocent victim of a psychopath.


http://www.macon.com/2012/06/24/2071775/night-of-panic-the-evening-before.html
 
Search for Giddings' Remains Leads to Pike County


...McDaniel's grandfather, Hollis Browning, lived at 791 Dripping Rock Road near Molena. The 63-acre tract is called Browning Place.

In a federal lawsuit filed recently, the parents ask permission to search for their daughter's missing head, arms and legs on the property.

Browning Place has a house with trimmed lawn, a couple of pastures, a large wooded area and a lake. ...
more and video of property at: http://www.13wmaz.com/news/topstori...rch-for-Giddings-Remains-Leads-to-Pike-County

The "lake" is most likely a farm pond/fishpond.
 
Lauren Giddings' parents allege in the lawsuit that a surveillance video camera captured McDaniel looking at boat anchors at Wal-Mart, even though McDaniel didn't own a boat. The parents allege McDaniel looked at anchors as possible devices to submerge body parts.

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/article/236157/175/Search-for-Giddings-Remains-Leads-to-Pike-County


And how might all this evidence coming out BEFORE the trial, allegedly effect the trial?? If at all? I know it seemed that the information was being held on too tightly and now we are hearing more in regards to evidence that I dont' recall before
 
bbm: As they do, also, a whole lot closer to Macon.

I just really don't think the rest of Lauren is at the farm, even if Stephen is guilty. I don't see him travelling that far to "dispose of" some while leaving the torso behind (no matter how "attached" he was). It doesn't, IMO, fit in the time frame; and I don't think he would, if guilty, leave the torso behind "unattended" at the apartments to travel that far for his errand.

I want the Giddingses to find the rest of Lauren, but I just really feel she is not there.

Not as far away as I orginally thought, but my thoughts were that he had to scatter to cause confusion IMO, but also, easier to transport small parts than a torso in his car

I just know there is a river, ocmulgee, parrallell to Georgia Ave as well as Dripping Rock Rd, the flint, so we might wonder why go that far except to get the parts away from Ga Ave and HIM, on the other hand, why chose his grandfathers land to drop it when surely he'd know that it would be searched since connected to his family, so I dont' doubt he pondered it and likely pondering it that night he and grandpa strolled or drove the property, and that would be possessing if he did use his family land, seems kind of risky,
but who knows whats in the mind of a killer or anybody for that matter, we all have our own perspectives but i do believe she's in water

And the family has to search it for closure if nothing else
 
Not as far away as I orginally thought, but my thoughts were that he had to scatter to cause confusion IMO, but also, easier to transport small parts than a torso in his car

I just know there is a river, ocmulgee, parrallell to Georgia Ave as well as Dripping Rock Rd, the flint, so we might wonder why go that far except to get the parts away from Ga Ave and HIM, on the other hand, why chose his grandfathers land to drop it when surely he'd know that it would be searched since connected to his family, so I dont' doubt he pondered it and likely pondering it that night he and grandpa strolled or drove the property, and that would be possessing if he did use his family land, seems kind of risky,
but who knows whats in the mind of a killer or anybody for that matter, we all have our own perspectives but i do believe she's in water

And the family has to search it for closure if nothing else

bbm: You know, we have known about that drive over the property since Sept. 2011, when The Telegraph ran the story based on an interview with Hollis Browning, the grandfather:

...Browning had last seen his grandson on Father&#8217;s Day.

There&#8217;d been a get-together at Buckner&#8217;s Family Restaurant, an all-you-can-eat-a-rama along Interstate 75 between Barnesville and Jackson.

Afterward, Stephen&#8217;s parents headed home to Lilburn.

Driving his black Geo Prizm, Stephen -- still living in Macon after graduating from Mercer University&#8217;s law school in May -- followed his grandfather the 40 or so miles out to the Browning farm.

Stephen didn&#8217;t stay long.

The property, once home to a pear orchard, lies about 15 miles northwest of Thomaston, not far upriver from Sprewell Bluff State Park. Browning and his wife, Wonnis, who died in 1992, retired there in the late &#8217;80s. Browning, who refurbished the house and outbuildings, now raises a dozen or so cattle and grows vegetables.

On Stephen&#8217;s visit, Browning said, they toured the farm by car, &#8220;looked at the animals.&#8221; ...

...He said his grandson appeared &#8220;fine, absolutely normal&#8221; that day. ...
http://www.macon.com/2011/09/25/1717788/mcdaniels-grandfather-stung-by.html

I really never saw anything odd about that incident -- figured Stephen just followed his grandfather back from the gathering to make sure he made it home OK (he was in his 80s) and then just companionably took that brief drive-tour of the place with him.

In a later story (don't have the link right handy), when the idea began to surface that the farm might be where the rest of Lauren is, we learned that the Giddingses had been in contact with the grandfather and that they said he said he would allow them to come look around the place.

While I understood why the idea might occur to Lauren's family, especially after the heartbreak and frustration of some futile searches elsewhere, frankly I have never understood why the farm seemed to them so likely.

In the coverage of the latest in the case, though, there's a report from Macon's FOX24 that possibly sheds a little more light. Look at these quotes from Karen Giddings (bolding is mine):

..."We had been told, from...well not straight from his lips to ours, but the Grandfather, Stephen McDaniel's Grandfather that Stephen had been there on Father's Day and had asked for a tour of the land and he had never done that before. And then we had heard from his roommate that that was part of his plan was to scatter body parts throughout the woods." ...

..."We don't understand why that hasn't been searched yet. We were told that they had to go get search warrants for it so now that we're pursuing our own civil case we're hoping that we'll be able to get search warrants and get a search of his property done." ...
more and phone interview with Karen Giddings at: http://www.newscentralga.com/news/local/Giddings-Family-Wants--212078121.html

I don't know quite what to make of this. That Stephen asked for the drive around the property and had never done that before -- well, I still don't find that wildly suspicious but I do understand how it could fuel the hunch and the need to search. Seems the info was sort of "secondhand", not directly from their conversation/s with the grandfather...? I wonder who told them? Maybe a Telegraph reporter who did the Sept. 2011 interview with him?
 
Interesting discussion of the wrongful death suit, originating from yet another area TV station:

41NBC/WMGT- It's The Law- 6.19.13 - YouTube

ETA: In the neighborhood of the 2:15 mark, does he say something to the effect that the grandfather or someone else "gave them" permission to go on the property and then someone "had them" removed from the property? Anybody know about anything like that...??
 
Here's a new article about a civil suit being filed by Lauren's parents:
http://m.macon.com/macon/db_294244/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=lk8AxFki

Two new items I see here in this article. They are saying SMD painted over the blood stains on Lauren's wall, and also that he stole a flash drive with her photos on it. I am interested to see if they can tie a paint purchase to him, and also if there's a time stamp on those photos from right before Lauren was killed to see if he was in her apartment close to that time.
The images themselves might reveal when it was stolen. Pictures of the graduation, for instance, would mean he had stolen it very recently. It could be very telling, especially if the pictures were from a year or more before LG died. Regardless, the fact that it was in his possession at any time is downright creepy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
139
Guests online
2,731
Total visitors
2,870

Forum statistics

Threads
590,018
Messages
17,929,073
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top