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

[tomkat]

http://www.macon.com/2012/03/15/1947380/mcdaniel-attorneys-file-motion.html This is incredible !! A procedural snafu will allow our Boy Wonder to get bond. Now , I think the judge can still deny bond , but still, this is not going to make Greg Winters and his office look good. And, I believe this is the tip of the iceberg of how badly the prosecution has bungled this thing. Will all be revealed in due time . Aye Yaye Yaye ! :jail:

OH BOY, HERE WE GO!

Yeah so apparently then LE WAS trying to hold him however they could. I thought so.

Will be interesting. But I won't doubt he'll walk. Hopefully the judge has reason to hold him (assuming he's guilty of something)

 

[McMunn]

WMAZ has an article about this as well: http://www.13wmaz.com/news/local/article/173138/175/Stephen-McDaniels-Lawyers-Request-Bond

 

[tomkat]

I was in Macon Saturday visiting my parents. My sister & I drove by the apartment complex just to see where it was. I was quite frankly surprised by A. How small it is and B. How close to the street and the college it is. I really really hope they have more evidence that we have been told to put this guy away. Haven't seen any news lately.

Thank you! It's all remarkable where and how that kind of killing took place and quite unbelievable really. It never ceases to amaze me!

 

[tomkat]

bbm: Yes, it has been very, very quiet on the news front lately ...but finally, a little news posted at macon.com:

read more at: http://www.macon.com/2012/03/13/1944510/source-all-forensics-testing-in.html

ETA: OK, now this is very strange!! There was a story there -- I did not even read the whole thing before posting here about it, grrrr!, and now it appears to be gone...? Can anyone else access it?? For me, the title (of a story showing as posted today) is still showing up in a search at macon.com on "Giddings", but when you click on, it says file not found...looks like maybe they yanked the story?

http://www.macon.com/2012/03/14/1944510/source-all-forensics-testing-in.html

it's there, and it appears they might read our site and others. LOL. Comments in article were made in regards to Laurens remains still being searched for. Not heard anything of any new searches, has anyone else?

 

[tomkat]

tomkat, I sure haven't heard another word about that possible search since that one flurry of discussion in the media. I guess any number of things could be going on with that ... or nothing. I guess it's even possible that there could have been a low-key search that was not publicized...?

With Ima Jean Sanders, the teenager you mention whose remains were found in Peach Co.: To be clear, the remains were found within a year or so of her disappearance, I believe. In her case, the hitch (or one of the hitches) seems to have been that no missing persons report got linked to the discovery of the remains at the time (it's not really clear, from recent reports, why).

Thank you for that correction backwoods. Your right, I remember now, it was 20 years later they discovered who she was.

I'd think it would be hard to keep any searches of Lauren secret but who knows.

 

[tomkat]

Yep, and it does answer our question about whether or not all the forensics were in, IF the source is accurate. That's big news, in a way, for those who assumed LE didn't have any evidence against McD. It still doesn't tell us what LE has, if anything, but at least now we know they were awaiting results.

The statement about the remains is interesting. I don't want to read too much into it, but it suggests the possibility that the remains could be Lauren's. In other words, the type of bones found do not eliminate LG as a match. Then again, it's probably the reporters looking for a story. I just hope her family has not been left to wonder.

When they say "all the forensics are in", I gathered that to mean that everything that was tested was finished, not necessarily that they have new forensic evidence. So I'm still a little frustrated, until we hear they DID FIND some forensic evidence on the perp.

These articles are confusing! We spend half our time trying to decipher what they really mean! LOL

Well, I pray for the Giddings family often. resolving this case isn't bringing Lauren back even thought it'll be nice to know if they have anything on SMcD. We wont' know until the trial i guess?????

 

[bessie]

When they say "all the forensics are in", I gathered that to mean that everything that was tested was finished, not necessarily that they have new forensic evidence. So I'm still a little frustrated, until we hear they DID FIND some forensic evidence on the perp.

These articles are confusing! We spend half our time trying to decipher what they really mean! LOL

Well, I pray for the Giddings family often. resolving this case isn't bringing Lauren back even thought it'll be nice to know if they have anything on SMcD. We wont' know until the trial i guess?????

No, not necessarily new evidence against McD, just leaves open the possibility that when it seemed there was nothing there might have been something that wasn't known yet. I'm frustrated, too. Even moreso now at the thought of McD bonding out.

I know it's late, but isn't this a typo in The Telegraph article??

Grand jurors indicted McDaniel on those charges 84 days after his arrest.

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2012/03/16/1947380/mcdaniel-attorneys-file-motion.html#storylink=cpy

Like we need anything else to confuse us. :banghead:

 

[Backwoods]

No, not necessarily new evidence against McD, just leaves open the possibility that when it seemed there was nothing there might have been something that wasn't known yet. I'm frustrated, too. Even moreso now at the thought of McD bonding out.

I know it's late, but isn't this a typo in The Telegraph article??



Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2012/03/16/1947380/mcdaniel-attorneys-file-motion.html#storylink=cpy

Like we need anything else to confuse us. :banghead:

bbm: Don't think it's a typo, if you mean the "84 days" -- well, I don't know the exact day count, but on the sexual exploitation charges, he WAS indicted within the 90-day time span. That is, he was indicted on those charges and the murder charge at the same time BUT the sexual exploitation charges had been made a good bit after the murder charge, so the clock had ticked out on the murder charge but not on the other charges. (Is this what you were asking about?)

If you go to:

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/article/173138/175/Stephen-McDaniels-Lawyers-Request-Bond

...and scroll down the left side, there's a link to the raw interview about all this with Frank Hogue, and he goes into this a little.

ETA: oh, OK, you are saying it wasn't "84 days after his arrest", I guess! And no, it wasn't -- since his "arrest" was initially for the burglary charges, well over 84 days before any indictment came. So yes, it is a typo. It should say, I think, 84 days after he was charged with sexual exploitation.

 

[Backwoods]

http://www.macon.com/2012/03/15/1947380/mcdaniel-attorneys-file-motion.html This is incredible !! A procedural snafu will allow our Boy Wonder to get bond. Now , I think the judge can still deny bond , but still, this is not going to make Greg Winters and his office look good. And, I believe this is the tip of the iceberg of how badly the prosecution has bungled this thing. Will all be revealed in due time . Aye Yaye Yaye ! :jail:

I'm not too surprised at this bond request (on the 90-day grounds) coming up again. Remember, it was about to happen and then Buford dropped it but said they might take it up again at some point.

I have no idea of whether the prosecution has bungled bigtime in an overall sense on the case (wish I knew what you are hearing, though, AgentFrank -- I admit you've got me really curious!). I do have a really hard time understanding, though, how they could let the 90-day thing AND the request for an extension of the 90 days "just slip by". Oversight? Over-confidence? Just not worrying about it because they feel SM will stay put on the sexual exploitation charges (which didn't miss indictment before 90 days) or that any bond set will be one that SM can't meet? So confident in their evidence that they feel when more is revealed they will get a guilty plea? Just really can't figure it out, from my "outside" vantage point.

I'm unclear about whether, on the murder charge anyway, the judge can just outright refuse to set a bond, under these circumstances. I guess maybe so, since the defense is saying they will seek to prove SM is not a flight risk, not a danger, etc.

 

[bessie]

Gotcha, BW. The Telegraph's wording wasn't clear. It's right, though. I had forgotten that he was arrested for the sexual exploitation charges while he was already incarcerated.

 

[Backwoods]

Gotcha, BW. The Telegraph's wording wasn't clear. It's right, though. I had forgotten that he was arrested for the sexual exploitation charges while he was already incarcerated.

bessie, read my ETA on that last post -- you were right, it was a typo in a sense. Definitely not clear!

 

[bessie]

bbm: Don't think it's a typo, if you mean the "84 days" -- well, I don't know the exact day count, but on the sexual exploitation charges, he WAS indicted within the 90-day time span. That is, he was indicted on those charges and the murder charge at the same time BUT the sexual exploitation charges had been made a good bit after the murder charge, so the clock had ticked out on the murder charge but not on the other charges. (Is this what you were asking about?)

If you go to:

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/article/173138/175/Stephen-McDaniels-Lawyers-Request-Bond

...and scroll down the left side, there's a link to the raw interview about all this with Frank Hogue, and he goes into this a little.

ETA: oh, OK, you are saying it wasn't "84 days after his arrest", I guess! And no, it wasn't -- since his "arrest" was initially for the burglary charges, well over 84 days before any indictment came. So yes, it is a typo. It should say, I think, 84 days after he was charged with sexual exploitation.

To refresh our (my) memories:

Arrested for burlgary July 1, 2011
Charged with murder August 2, 2011
Charged with sexual exploitation August 23, 2011
Indicted for murder and sexual exploitation November 15, 2011

http://www.13wmaz.com/laurengidding...Daniel-Charged-With-Child-Sexual-Exploitation

 

[Backwoods]

new article at www.macon.com:

McDaniel defense team: Prosecution may be “judge-shopping”

Attorneys for Stephen McDaniel, the suspect in the Lauren Giddings slaying, contend that the judge assigned to McDaniel’s case was chosen properly and that the prosecution may be “judge-shopping.” ...

...Judge Ronnie Joe Lane, of the Pataula Judicial Circuit, is scheduled to hold a hearing regarding the case assignment at the Bibb County Courthouse Friday. ...

read more at: http://www.macon.com/2012/03/19/1952895/mcdaniel-defense-team-prosecution.html

 

[AgentFrankLundy]

If they are judge shopping, I don't blame them. Judge Brown's reputation is very sympathetic towards defendants , See my earlier post on the Mercer co-ed who was asked to reveal her sexual past to defend herself in a rape case , and she was the one who was raped ! Judge Brown is also no Spring Chicken,
he is getting very forgetful of things.

 

[SouthernKate]

Here's a link to a murder investigation that is ongoing in Macon right now that you all might find interesting. It's one of many articles. Frank Hogue is also her attorney.

http://www.macon.com/2012/03/20/1954692/river-north-murder-suspect-in.html

She (allegedely) murdered a businessman recently. In 1997, she murdered her mother but was only convicted of involuntary manslaughter and served just 7 years. Suffice it to say, Hogue is a very good attorney and this makes me very nervous. He is definitely a huge asset to McD's defense.

 

[Backwoods]

Well, the hearing by the out-of-district judge on the judge assignment issue is tomorrow, I think ...? And there is a new article up at macon.com (which looks to have very recently undergone a web site revamp, BTW):

Bibb prosecutors file new motion in McDaniel murder case


Bibb County prosecutors have filed a motion arguing that they are not seeking to disqualify Chief Judge S. Phillip Brown from presiding in the Stephen McDaniel murder case, but instead want to be sure three pending capital cases were assigned to judges properly. ...

read more at: http://www.macon.com/2012/03/22/1956850/bibb-prosecutors-file-new-motion.html

note that the page at this link also includes links to a couple of court documents we have not seen before ...

​

 

[Backwoods]

Here's a link to a murder investigation that is ongoing in Macon right now that you all might find interesting. It's one of many articles. Frank Hogue is also her attorney.

http://www.macon.com/2012/03/20/1954692/river-north-murder-suspect-in.html

She (allegedely) murdered a businessman recently. In 1997, she murdered her mother but was only convicted of involuntary manslaughter and served just 7 years. Suffice it to say, Hogue is a very good attorney and this makes me very nervous. He is definitely a huge asset to McD's defense.

SouthernKate, there are several murder cases in the middle Georgia area right now that I think will take some of the media spotlight off Lauren's case -- the one in which a young man was apparently lured to a drug deal and then killed, the one in which a probation officer is charged with the murder of his girlfriend, and, most notably, the one you posted about.

(I know your post wasn't about media coverage specifically, just jumping off from there.)

I am hoping The Telegraph and other outlets won't forget to keep checking for any report of results/identity on the partial skeletal remains found in Macon recently. Seems like they would know something by now...? But we aren't hearing it. (Even if the remains are not Lauren's, there are missing persons cases in the area that they could relate to.)

Do any of you who regularly use the online databases for unidentified remains found, etc., know if a report of those remains has been posted anywhere?

 

[Backwoods]

If they are judge shopping, I don't blame them. Judge Brown's reputation is very sympathetic towards defendants , See my earlier post on the Mercer co-ed who was asked to reveal her sexual past to defend herself in a rape case , and she was the one who was raped ! Judge Brown is also no Spring Chicken,
he is getting very forgetful of things.

I read up some on the case referenced in this post the first time AgentFrank mentioned it to us, a few pages back.

See http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154808&page=20 for the earlier discussion, including some links that will help delve into the story, if you're interested.

I don't pretend to have become an expert on that case or to have any inside information on it -- nor do I have any particular leaning for or against Judge Brown in Lauren's case -- BUT, fact is, the earlier case wasn't a rape case. Apparently, no criminal charges of rape were brought.

It was a civil suit charging sexual battery. There are differing reports, too, of what the judge actually did in regard to referencing the plaintiff's sexual past. And, if I remember correctly, the Georgia Court of Appeals refused to hear her case.

If you look into the story, you can see why some charge that politics/money was behind the accused's "getting away with things" ... while others say money was the motive from the other side. Deep and sticky waters here ... and I don't know the "truth".

 

[Backwoods]

from www.macon.com:

Judge: Brown to stay on McDaniel case


A visiting judge has ruled that Bibb County Chief Superior Court Judge S. Phillip Brown should continue presiding over the Stephen McDaniel death penalty case. ...

read more at: http://www.macon.com/2012/03/23/1958560/judge-brown-to-stay-on-mcdaniel.html#storylink=rss#wgt=rss

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

SouthernKate, there are several murder cases in the middle Georgia area right now that I think will take some of the media spotlight off Lauren's case -- the one in which a young man was apparently lured to a drug deal and then killed, the one in which a probation officer is charged with the murder of his girlfriend, and, most notably, the one you posted about.

(I know your post wasn't about media coverage specifically, just jumping off from there.)

I am hoping The Telegraph and other outlets won't forget to keep checking for any report of results/identity on the partial skeletal remains found in Macon recently. Seems like they would know something by now...? But we aren't hearing it. (Even if the remains are not Lauren's, there are missing persons cases in the area that they could relate to.)

Do any of you who regularly use the online databases for unidentified remains found, etc., know if a report of those remains has been posted anywhere?

I don't think I've seen them on Doe Network or Charley Project, but I could be wrong. I will keep my eyes open.