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

[tomkat]

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 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!)




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.



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'm a Landlord, I would never let anyone in an apartment that is leased, vacant or otherwise, written or verbal, unless abandoned, power off by previous tenant. I have been in that situation. I do not think that a search warrant would be served to a Landlord if it's under lease, the warrant would be served to the occupant. Only for life or death emergency would it be opened by a Landlord or damage occurring at the time and so as anything, every situation is different.

JMHO

 

[pearl]

A question about some of the motions. Are the motions to suppress the evidence from electronics applicable to the murder charges or the child *advertiser censored* charges?

 

[Sonya610]

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.

This^^^.

If the cadaver dog "testimony" is tossed and that was a major reason for the search warrant would that make the warrant invalid and as a result get the evidence found in MCD's apartment tossed too?

Isn't that stated or implied in one of the many recent articles or documents? Or am I imagining it?

The cadaver dog thing is likely to get tossed anyway, and even if it didn't it would be easy to refute in front of a jury (but of course it would be better for the defense if it never came up).

Backwoods -- I think you mentioned the dogs not signalling where the trash can was found, if the body never touched the ground I suspect they wouldn't signal even if they could smell it. They are likely trained to signal when they find the SOURCE of the smell, giving signals due to a vague ambient odor instead of the source might be too confusing for the humans. Just a guess.

I now have a Blue Tick Coonhound at the house and those dogs signal continuously the moment they pick up the scent of an animal hundreds of yards away (which means he hollers pretty much non-stop when he is outside, if he stops it is time to go see what he is doing). They holler so the hunters can follow them, then use a different call when the prey is treed. The dogs can definitely pick up very faint odors, I think it is just a matter of how they are expected to relay that information.

 

[Backwoods]

A question about some of the motions. Are the motions to suppress the evidence from electronics applicable to the murder charges or the child *advertiser censored* charges?

I'd think they refer to any evidence from the electronics that the prosecution might introduce in the upcoming trial.

 

[Backwoods]

This^^^.

If the cadaver dog "testimony" is tossed and that was a major reason for the search warrant would that make the warrant invalid and as a result get the evidence found in MCD's apartment tossed too?

Isn't that stated or implied in one of the many recent articles or documents? Or am I imagining it?

The cadaver dog thing is likely to get tossed anyway, and even if it didn't it would be easy to refute in front of a jury (but of course it would be better for the defense if it never came up).

Backwoods -- I think you mentioned the dogs not signalling where the trash can was found, if the body never touched the ground I suspect they wouldn't signal even if they could smell it. They are likely trained to signal when they find the SOURCE of the smell, giving signals due to a vague ambient odor instead of the source might be too confusing for the humans. Just a guess.

I now have a Blue Tick Coonhound at the house and those dogs signal continuously the moment they pick up the scent of an animal hundreds of yards away (which means he hollers pretty much non-stop when he is outside, if he stops it is time to go see what he is doing). They holler so the hunters can follow them, then use a different call when the prey is treed. The dogs can definitely pick up very faint odors, I think it is just a matter of how they are expected to relay that information.

bbm: If I am understanding your question correctly: I believe the dog search as evidence in itself (dog "testimony") will be a separate issue altogether from whether the warrant/s resulting all or in part from the dog search might be illegal.

If "dog testimony" is disallowed at the trial, as the first motion requests, it just means, I think, that the dog search and any interpretations of it can't be presented directly to the jury in testimony.

I think it's likely that such "dog testimony" in that form will be disallowed, but no, I don't think that in itself would invalidate evidence from the other searches of the apartment.

Kind of similar (not saying exactly the same!) to this HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO: LE brings a psychic into the investigation. Then one of the following occurs (others might be possible, but I'm only trying to cover the most likely bases here):

(1) Not mentioning the psychic to Stephen, LE brings the psychic inside the apartment.

(2) LE tells Stephen, "We've brought a psychic into the search for Lauren (or "into the investigation", depending on at what point in the afternoon this occurs.) We want you to sign this form giving permission for the psychic to walk around your apartment." Stephen signs the form.

(3) Same as situation in (2), except Stephen declines to sign the form; maybe he makes some comment, maybe not. LE has the psychic walk around the apartment.

The psychic reports that some areas in the apartment resonate with connections to Lauren's fate. LE takes this information (and whatever other information they have in support) to a judge, who in turn issues a search warrant for the apartment. (Whether or not a judge would do this based largely or partially on psychic evidence isn't my focus -- let's assume for this example that judges occasionally do and that this one did.) The warrant search is done and turns up things LE feels are evidence of murder; from there, acting on evidence obtained and other information, other warrants are issued, other warrant searches done, additional evidence found, etc.

Comes time for preparation for trial. Defense drafts a motion asking that the psychic evidence be disallowed -- that the psychic not be allowed to take the stand and testify as to his impressions while in the apartment. In support, they cite cases going to show that, in the state of Georgia, direct testimony from psychics has always been disallowed. (I don't know if this is the case, BTW -- just for illustrative purposes.) Defense states "if the prosecution attempts to and is allowed to have this psychic testify, expect that we will attack that testimony in every way possible and we think there are a lot of ways."

But say that the defense also enters other motions, having to do with the legality of the "search" by the psychic and subsequent warrant searches that may have been based, in part, on the results of the psychic's impressions.

Here, I think, focus will fall on what happened in relation to the 3 numbered scenarios (and possibly others) above: Did Stephen sign any form giving permission to search, or verbally say something like, "Yeah, y'all can go on in and look for Lauren, but she's not in there." Can it be argued, if he did, that bringing the psychic in was part of that search? Did Stephen decline to sign a form but say something (in front of several witnesses or on video, say) to the effect of "I don't care if the psychic comes in. But, you know, Lauren lives right next door; if there's anything to this psychic stuff, he might pick up on stuff that happened anywhere around here."

Even if Stephen gave no permission, verbal or written, for any kind of non-warrant search with the psychic, the prosecution might be able to counter this motion in other ways -- say, for example, that the first warrant was granted not on the psychic search alone but on other support -- maybe someone from the friends' search the night before noted something Stephen said or did or had in his possession that cast suspicion on him. Take a look at that "good faith" exception in the Wiki link I posted -- seems like that could possibly be stretched pretty broad.

In short, in this HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO, the psychic might not be allowed to testify directly, but that doesn't mean, to my understanding, that evidence found in searches by warrant, even if the warrant was based partly on the psychic results, would automatically be disallowed.

Sorry this is so convoluted and long -- and again, I am not really equating dogs and psychics -- just tried to find something else to "plug in" that might allow similar arguments, all in order to illustrate my point that, IMO, we are talking about two different things when we talk about "dog testimony" being allowed or not and then talk about whether a search (and thus, perhaps, the resulting cascade of evidence) was legal.

 

[Sonya610]

IMO, we are talking about two different things when we talk about "dog testimony" being allowed or not and then talk about whether a search (and thus, perhaps, the resulting cascade of evidence) was legal.

Yes you are probably right.

Regarding the legality of the searches, sounds like Stephen did finally agree (on the third request) to let Patterson in to "Look for Lauren".

Then once he did, Patterson kicked Stephen out of his own apartment. After THAT Patterson tried to get Stephen to sign a consent form allowing the crime team to search and Stephen refused to sign anything. Those motions must leave out some statements though, Patterson and Winters both said Stephen objected to the dogs yet there is no mention of that.

Interesting that they would ASK him to sign something if he had already given full consent and they knew they were in the clear. Then they went ahead and searched with the dogs without a signature.

These details answer another minor question that came up ages ago regarding the McDaniel news interview, people thought it was weird that he broke down and left, then came back out of his apartment a few minutes later to talk to the reporter a second time. Seems he didn't go back into his apartment because the police had thrown him OUT of his apartment, he was probably just sitting out front the whole time.

 

[Backwoods]

<respectfully snipped for focus>

These details answer another minor question that came up ages ago regarding the McDaniel news interview, people thought it was weird that he broke down and left, then came back out of his apartment a few minutes later to talk to the reporter a second time. Seems he didn't go back into his apartment because the police had thrown him OUT of his apartment, he was probably just sitting out front the whole time.

I'm referencing the article at this link in much of this response:

http://www.macon.com/2012/12/15/2286427/documents-in-giddings-slaying.html#storylink=cpy

Sonya, it was the AT&T building (not his apartment) that he went into after the first part of the interview and then came back out of to resume the interview ... but still, I see what you mean. Just before that, according to the story linked above, he had accompanied LE on a walk-through search of his apartment, then was told to leave. *** (see note at end of post)

For me, the macon.com article (and then a day or two later, the source documents for the story) detailing the sequence of events that day, particularly in regard to SM, was a real eye-opener. We hadn't known a lot of detail about that, as the macon.com story points out -- but I guess I had kind of envisioned things having happened a certain way and, come to find out, I was way off on some things.

For starters, I'd always had the impression that the torso was discovered within a few brief minutes of LE arriving that morning. Didn't someone in LE once say something to the effect that "pretty much we just drove up and there it was"? But now we find out that it was about 40 minutes after LE arrived that morning that the torso was discovered and that, in the meantime, Stephen had been spoken to briefly at his apartment and then was being interviewed in a squad car, all before the remains were discovered. (Not saying this is out of line necessarily -- he WAS Lauren's neighbor, and a natural place for scrutiny to fall. Just not the timeline I had held in my mind.)

We also now know SM was taken to the station for further interviewing separately from the others (friends, etc.) that morning. Among other things, during the interviews that took place there, if we believe what the defense says as presented in the macon.com story, he was asked to lift his shirt and complied, and marks on his torso were discovered.

If I'd been him, whether innocent or guilty (and, thus, whether I knew or didn't know what had happened to Lauren and where her partial remains had been placed), I think I would have begun to get a feeling that I was under the microscope on high zoom.

We've talked, in days past, about why Stephen might have left his apartment and headed across the street, just before he encountered the reporters. Some theories -- inserting himself in the investigation, trying to learn details of the investigation, going to rid himself of some small items of evidence, going to use Law School computers, going to get something to eat, going to make a phone call, etc. Any or all of these could still be true ... but we also know, now, as you point out, that he had been told to leave the apartment. *** (see note at end of post)

I always felt that some of the detail SM put in his answers to the reporters (Lauren's friends' names and streets of their residences, for one example) sounded like answers coming from someone who had already been interviewed pretty closely about some of the same details. That seems even more likely to me, now. Some people saw the detail as a red flag, and a way of distancing scrutiny of himself -- and it still could be, of course -- but some of it could have flowed forth mostly because he had recently been prompted to provide it. If any of you followed the Mickey Shunick case: I think we saw some of this phenomenon I am speaking of in some of the early media interviews with her friend Brettley (sp?), who was the last person known at that time to have seen Mickey. Though he proved to be completely innocent of anything befalling Mickey, LE had apparently (and understandably) questioned him intensely and, I thought, this was reflected in the way he answered some of the questions from the media. (NOT saying that because Brettley was blameless that Stephen is also, folks -- just pointing out a possible similarity in the way they answered some types of questions.)

I would really like to know what Stephen did while he was in the AT&T building. Who talked to him (if anyone)? What did he say, what did he ask? (I expect LE knows.) Did anyone in that building give him more info about what had taken place when remains were removed from the apartment premises? (The reporter had said only that "a body" was taken away from "in the parking lot area"; I don't expect a casual observer in the AT&T building would have been likely to know, at that point, that a complete body wasn't removed BUT he/she may have been able to pinpoint a location more closely. Just for me, the area where the trashcans were never seemed like "the parking lot" -- though of course it's all adjacent. Maybe someone told him, "They screened off that area over around the trashcans.")

We also know now that he was on the scene at the apartments for many hours afterward -- until almost 11 p.m. -- in the mobile station at times, on the couch in his apartment while the dog search was conducted, etc. -- where, before, I had assumed he must have been relocated back to the police station some time during the late afternoon.

*** ETA: I need to add to this to note that, in looking back again at some of the source documents, I found a footnote where the defense notes that, regarding whether Stephen was told to leave the apartment, a report by Det. Patterson says that Stephen asked to leave to go to the Law School. The footnote advises that, thus, whether Stephen was allowed to leave or told to leave is likely to be a point of dispute.

 

[Backwoods]

<snipped>

Those motions must leave out some statements though, Patterson and Winters both said Stephen objected to the dogs yet there is no mention of that.

<snipped>

Yes, I'm sure they don't tell the whole story! IMO, we are getting a peek into the story through a viewfinder the defense would like us to see it through. They can't help but cite some things that reveal "new" stuff to us, because they have to cite them in order to make their challenges and then that info becomes public. But they're going to take care, IMO, not to cite anything that doesn't need to be in there for their purposes.

So -- anybody -- how does this proceed? There will be hearings on the motions? ... and the prosecution can offer rebuttal (or whatever it's properly termed)? And then the judge rules on each one?

ETA: Sonya, just for clarity: I'm not so sure they outright said he "objected" to the dog search -- I expect, at this point, for the purposes of challenging the legality of the search, the defense would like for us to hear that!

Just going on my memory, I rather think they both made statements (at different hearings) that SM said things that, while maybe not objecting in the sense of saying "I don't want you to search", expressed his concern that anything that might be detected by the dogs could possibly be explained in some way other than that he had anything to do with anything that might have happened to Lauren. (Such as "something might have jumped on me in the parking lot", IIRC.) Such statements could have been part of a larger "I don't want this search to take place" objection -- but I don't remember that Patterson or Winters went that far with it.

 

[pearl]

I've wondered from the beginning about the infamous TV interview. I've wondered if someone in LE pointed the reporter in Stephen's direction. I've also wondered what Lauren's friends who were searching for her the night before told LE about Stephen's actions and words during this search. Another thing. Didn't Lauren's friends use her hidden spare key to enter her apartment that night? If so, that leads me to think the key to her apartment found in Stephen's apartment must have been a copy.

 

[Backwoods]

I've wondered from the beginning about the infamous TV interview. I've wondered if someone in LE pointed the reporter in Stephen's direction. I've also wondered what Lauren's friends who were searching for her the night before told LE about Stephen's actions and words during this search. Another thing. Didn't Lauren's friends use her hidden spare key to enter her apartment that night? If so, that leads me to think the key to her apartment found in Stephen's apartment must have been a copy.

I think there was some discussion on WS way back about whether LE might have asked a media person to see what they could get out of Stephen. Personally, I don't think the Fox24 team that first approached him were any kind of "plants" -- just judging on comments made later and how protective they were of their video when asked to turn it over. But some of the other media folks who gathered 'round after the interview started (and joined in) ...? I don't know -- maybe.

I have no way to prove it and could be wrong, but, yeah, I've always assumed the "spare" key the friends used and the key allegedly in Stephen's possession to be two separate keys. (Both were probably technically "copies".)

One thing I've wondered is, if Stephen did indeed have a master key and/or a copy key to Lauren's apartment, did someone know about it -- and did they tip LE about it, so that LE knew to search for it/them. (If he had a master key, for example, I can see that possibly some time in the past he might have used it to help someone get into their apartment after they locked themselves out, etc.)

 

[Backwoods]

Since the recent media coverage and document release concerning the motions (and our discussion of both here) tend to present things a little bit "from the defense side", or at least to "showcase" that "side" -- I don't think intentionally, but just because that's mainly where the current source info is originating -- I thought it might be helpful to post something directly here in the thread, for our quick reference, that reflects more from "the prosecution side". (There are some differences in the "stories told" in some particulars, as the defense notes in its documents. I'm finding some of them as we discuss these newest items and I comb through the pdf document more closely, and I don't want to inadvertently hold up one side or another as "the truth" when I'm not meaning to.*** see note at bottom of post)

So: In the defense motions, included as exhibits are several applications for search warrants, etc., and many of them include, in support, an affidavit from LE. As far as I can tell, the main affidavit used comes from the lead detective, David Patterson. It's repeated several times -- it may change a bit, as the dates progress and information develops and is added, but it remains essentially the same in his relating of early events of the case.

I thought it might be helpful to copy it and add it here for our quick reference, so I'm doing that below. I think it's OK to do this, but if it isn't OK, bessie, please just remove. The particular example I copied is dated July 1, 2011 and is signed by Patterson. It's included in the 351 pdf pages at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/540762-mcdaniel-defense-motions-351-pages.html#wgt=rcntnews

(I noticed that a few characters, mostly numbers, didn't want to copy for me correctly and produced gibberish. I fixed everything like that I noticed, but if anyone notices other "mistransfers", let me know -- trying to be helpful, not confusing)

EXHIBIT A
AFFIDAVIT
My name is Detective David Patterson and I am currently employed by the Macon Police Department I am a P.O.S.T. Certified Law Enforcement Officer for the State of Georgia. I have been employed by the Macon Police Department since 1996. I am assigned to the Criminal Investigations Division investigating violent crimes. I have been assigned to the violent crimes division since 2001. Prior to working in the violent crimes division, I have worked as a patrol officer answering calls for service from residence within the community. I have investigated misdemeanor crimes, traffic accidents, felony crimes, and assisted in preventing crimes. I have been a field-training officer; training newly hired officers once they have completed their basic mandate course. I have received specialized training in gang investigation, domestic violence, criminal investigation, criminal sexuality, homicide investigations, writing search warrants and affidavits. I have received over five hundred hours of training. I have investigated numerous misdemeanor and felony crimes, including homicides, robberies, rapes, aggravated assaults, and many others.

I have participated in multi-jurisdictional prosecutions. I have assisted other officers and detectives writing and executing search warrants. I have interviewed and interrogated hundreds of victims, witnesses, and suspects. I have testified in municipal court, magistrate court, state court, and superior court.

The following is the basis for finding probable cause so as to authorize the search warrant for which I have applied: On June 30, 2011, Mercer Police Department received a call to respond to 1058 Georgia Ave. regarding a missing person, Lauren Giddings, a resident Apt. 2 at said location. Upon arrival, Officer Vince Broccolo met with the complainant, Ashley Moorehouse.

Ms. Moorehouse advised Officer Broccolo that her friend, Ms. Giddings, was missing and would not answer the front door to Ms. Giddings' apartment. Complainant stated that she entered Ms. Giddings apartment with a hidden key and could not location Ms. Giddings. Officer Broccolo
then contacted the Macon Police Department ("MPD") and notified them of the situation. MPD Officer Copeland responded to the scene and met with Complainant and several other concerned friends. Later that same morning, at approximately 9:15 a.m., I, Det. David Patterson, received the report of the missing person and I proceeded to the location where I was met upon arrival by the original Complainant and Sgt. Steve Gatlin, with the MPD Crime Lab.

While standing on the outside of the apartment complex, I smelled a strong odor coming from the garbage containers and observed several flies swarming around the trash containers. I immediately recognized this odor to be that of dead person which I know and recognize from my training and experience having investigated homicides previously. I notified Sgt. Gatlin, who opened the garbage containers, and he found two large black garbage bags. At this time, Sgt. Gatlin opened one of the trash bags and discovered that it contained what appeared to be a human female torso with what appeared to be a superficial cut or wound to the chest. The human torso did not have a head, arms, or legs.

I then began to interview neighbors. Sgt. Chapman and I knocked on the door of Apartment #4 and Stephen McDaniel came to the door and we talked with him. We asked McDaniel if he would come to the Detective Bureau and give a statement regarding his neighbor Lauren Giddings. He agreed to come. I interviewed McDaniel at the Detective Bureau at which time I saw a red mark on the left side of his face near his nose. I asked him if he had any other marks on his body. He lifted his t-shirt and revealed what appeared to be two fresh scratch marks on the right side of his stomach. These scratch marks were approximately three to five inches in length. During the interview of Stephen McDaniel, I asked him for consent to search his apartment, which he granted. McDaniel gave oral consent which was recorded on video.

We then left the Detective Bureau and proceeded back to Georgia Avenue. When we arrived at McDaniel's apartment, which is apartment #4, he unlocked the door and allowed me to go in and look around. While inside the apartment, I observed a large "Samurai-type" sword in
his bedroom and a large knife with a blade in excess of a foot long also in his bedroom. I also observed numerous firearms, including what appeared to be a semi-automatic rifle and a semiautomatic handgun lying on the bed. I also saw a large cooler sitting near the front door. We then left the apartment, and McDaniel, who was not in custody, left our presence.

Subsequently, McDaniel returned to the Georgia Avenue area and struck up a conversation with MPD detectives and DA's Office personnel who were on the scene, including DA' s Investigator Jim McDonald. In the presence of MPD Detective Chapman, Investigator McDonald asked McDaniel whether he would consent to allow investigators from the Macon Police Department Crime Scene unit to enter his apartment. McDaniel agreed that he would allow this, provided he could be present. McDaniel then admitted officers back into Apartment #4.

Because of the torso being found in the garbage container and the necessity to search for additional body parts, Macon Police Department personnel had contacted Tracy Sargent, who handles two human remains detection (HRD) dogs, commonly known as a "cadaver dogs", called Cinco and Chance. HRD canines are trained to detect the odor of human remains, which may include not only corpses but also blood, semen, and other body fluids or tissues, for a period of up to several years after said specimens were in a particular location. Cinco has been certified on the local, state, national and international levels for HRD for the last five years. Chance has been certified on the local and state level for HRD for the last seven months. Ms. Sargent has been handling HRD canines for the last 18 years and is a handler, trainer, evaluator, master trainer, and subject matter expert in the training and handling of HRD canines. HRD canines are trained to detect the odor of human remains, which may include not only corpses but also blood, semen, and other body fluids or tissues.

In the presence of Detective Scott Chapman, MPD Sgt. Steve Gatlin, and DA Investigator McDonald, and McDaniel, Ms. Sargent utilized her HRD canines to sniff the inside of McDaniel's apartment. Ms. Sargent has reported to me that she first utilized Cinco to sniff the inside of McDaniel's apartment (#4) and then utilized Chance to sniff the inside of McDaniel's apartment also. Both Cinco and Chance separately alerted on the scent of human remains in the back bedroom and bathroom of McDaniel's apartment.

Ms. Sargent also utilized Cinco and Chance to perform separate searches of Apartment #1, which is located in the same building, directly below Apartment #2, which is Lauren Giddings apartment. Cinco and Chance both alerted on the scent of human remains in the bathroom of Apartment #1 and the back wall of the living room of Apartment #1. According to MPD Crime Scene Investigator Amy Wheeler, the wall where the HRD canines alerted appeared to have been freshly painted in some sections, and there were some small stains and smears which appeared to be consistent with dried blood.

The human torso found in the garbage dumpster was submitted to the Office of the Medical Examiner for examination: Dr. Gaultney Kraft was the medical examiner who performed the post-mortem examination. Dr. Kraft reported that the torso was clad in cotton shorts with no underwear or shirt. Dr. Kraft located a few hairs which appeared to be brown in color and several inches long on the abdomen, and a clump of hair on the back of the shorts which appeared to be made up of a mixture of brown and blonde hair which appeared to be appeared to be saturated in decomposition fluid. Stephen McDaniel has long shoulder-length brown hair.Lauren Giddings had blonde hair.

At approximately 6:00p.m. on today's date, MPD Crime Scene Investigators performed a "luminol examination" of bathroom of Lauren Gidding's apartment, which is Apartment #2 of the same building located at 1058 Georgia Avenue. This examination revealed the possibility of substantial quantities of blood both around the drain of the bathroom tub and splattered on the walls of the tub and above the tub to a height of approximately four feet.

Stephen McDaniel identified a certain four-door black Geo Prism, bearing Georgia tag number BTL2870, which is parked outside the apartments, as being his vebicle. A visual inspection from the outside of this car reveals large dark stains possibly consistent in appearance with blood on both the front and rear seats. The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) of this car is 1Y1SK5281VZ443940. A check of the tag registration reveals that the vehicle is registered to Stephen McDaniel at 1058 Georgia Avenue, Apt. #4.

Based on all of the above, I believe that probable cause exists to search the apartment of Stephen McDaniel located at 1058 Georgia Avenue, Apartment #4 for blood and blood spatter, body parts, and body tissue and fluids, knives, firearms, or any other instrument capable of
inflicting bodily injury, cutting implements, instruments capable of dismembering a human body, cleaning and laundry supplies, garbage bags, paint and painting tools, computers, cameras and any other digital storage devices, which are evidence of the crime of Murder, in violation of
O.C.G.A. 16-5-1. All of the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

ETA: *** Case in point: I wrote, in an earlier post (which has passed the time limit for editing, else I would add this note there) that it now seems that the remains were not discovered until about 40 minutes after MPD arrived on the scene on June 30 and also that, by that time, Stephen had been interviewed briefly at his apartment and then relocated to a squad car for more interviewing -- these statements were based on the timeline sketched out by the defense in its motions and reflected in recent media coverage. But ... Patterson's statement, above, does not support that version. Two different stories.

 

[Indy Anna]

I'm a Landlord, I would never let anyone in an apartment that is leased, vacant or otherwise, written or verbal, unless abandoned, power off by previous tenant. I have been in that situation. I do not think that a search warrant would be served to a Landlord if it's under lease, the warrant would be served to the occupant. Only for life or death emergency would it be opened by a Landlord or damage occurring at the time and so as anything, every situation is different.

JMHO

I just want to back up a moment and expound some on the consent for a search of a tenant's apartment. Tomkat, couldn't you include a clause in the lease stating that the tenant agrees to certain terms, such as allowing management to grant access for a criminal investigation?

I've lived in a townhouse for 17 years. I don't have time to look at my lease agreement, but I know that management can enter our homes in certain instances without formal consent (I believe it's contained in the lease agreement). They do give us advance notice when a safety inspection, pest-control, etc. is scheduled, but we don't know the specific time, or often the specific day. When I first moved in, someone would come in to do more thorough inspections of the homes. IIRC, there were a few drug busts that resulted, or at least there were a few tenants who were evicted because they were caught with drugs.

I know that privacy is a big issue, but there are also terms in license agreements for computer software stating that you give up rights to your personal information while using the software for a criminal investigation. I've seen other agreements that contain a similar clause. Because criminal investigations can be hindered when people refuse to cooperate by citing the right to privacy, I think more frequently such clauses are tacked onto formal agreements. A criminal investigation, especially a murder investigation, is very serious. So, I wonder if there was such a clause in the Barristers Hall lease.

Patterson didn't state whether McD signed the consent to have his apartment searched or not. Buford and Hogue are suggesting the HRD search was conducted illegally because McD didn't sign the consent and I think they want the entire case dismissed based on that. The consent may not have been required, though, if Boni Bush was authorized to give the consent due to a clause in the lease agreement. I think investigators would have been careful to keep the searches legal, unless they knew the investigation would still be intact if they obtained SWs for subsequent searches, supposing they found anything during the initial search (which they apparently did).

I was just thinking how ironic it is if McD is claiming that LE entered his apartment illegally, considering he is also accused of entering other tenants' apartments without their consent or knowledge, and even stealing from them.

 

[Indy Anna]

Since the recent media coverage and document release concerning the motions (and our discussion of both here) tend to present things a little bit "from the defense side", or at least to "showcase" that "side" -- I don't think intentionally, but just because that's mainly where the current source info is originating -- I thought it might be helpful to post something directly here in the thread, for our quick reference, that reflects more from "the prosecution side". (There are some differences in the "stories told" in some particulars, as the defense notes in its documents. I'm finding some of them as we discuss these newest items and I comb through the pdf document more closely, and I don't want to inadvertently hold up one side or another as "the truth" when I'm not meaning to.*** see note at bottom of post)

So: In the defense motions, included as exhibits are several applications for search warrants, etc., and many of them include, in support, an affidavit from LE. As far as I can tell, the main affidavit used comes from the lead detective, David Patterson. It's repeated several times -- it may change a bit, as the dates progress and information develops and is added, but it remains essentially the same in his relating of early events of the case.

I thought it might be helpful to copy it and add it here for our quick reference, so I'm doing that below. I think it's OK to do this, but if it isn't OK, bessie, please just remove. The particular example I copied is dated July 1, 2011 and is signed by Patterson. It's included in the 351 pdf pages at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/540762-mcdaniel-defense-motions-351-pages.html#wgt=rcntnews

(I noticed that a few characters, mostly numbers, didn't want to copy for me correctly and produced gibberish. I fixed everything like that I noticed, but if anyone notices other "mistransfers", let me know -- trying to be helpful, not confusing)

ETA: *** Case in point: I wrote, in an earlier post (which has passed the time limit for editing, else I would add this note there) that it now seems that the remains were not discovered until about 40 minutes after MPD arrived on the scene on June 30 and also that, by that time, Stephen had been interviewed briefly at his apartment and then relocated to a squad car for more interviewing -- these statements were based on the timeline sketched out by the defense in its motions and reflected in recent media coverage. But ... Patterson's statement, above, does not support that version. Two different stories.

Thanks for posting. I haven't had a chance to read much of the document. I was already typing up my post when you posted, but I think this still leaves in question what type of consent Patterson obtained for the 2nd search - videotaped oral consent, written consent, or oral non-videotaped consent.

 

[pearl]

The motions give several references to assistant district attorneys accompanying the officers at various times during the early days. I think the DA's office was calling the shots from day 1.

 

[Backwoods]

Thanks for posting. I haven't had a chance to read much of the document. I was already typing up my post when you posted, but I think this still leaves in question what type of consent Patterson obtained for the 2nd search - videotaped oral consent, written consent, or oral non-videotaped consent.

bbm: ...and also, as the defense would probably be quick to point out, whether any consent was given freely or "under duress" (since that question figures into the motions, too)

 

[Backwoods]

The motions give several references to assistant district attorneys accompanying the officers at various times during the early days. I think the DA's office was calling the shots from day 1.

That kind of touches on something I've wanted to ask some of the more-knowledgeable-about-investigation-protocol folks here: How usual is that, to have DA staff and DA office investigators on scene so early on? Accepted practice or not a good idea?

What got me wondering was that, during David Cooke's campaign against Winters for DA, I saw one interview where he mentioned something about the Giddings case and some kind of improper DA's office involvement in the Giddings case investigation. Usually, he stuck to talking about the failure to indict within 90 days or the "Mickey Flynn" post when zeroing in on this case -- but that once, he mentioned this other topic. I wasn't sure exactly what he was referring to. I do seem to remember that there was something discussed here about Winters being on scene at the jail when the murder warrant was served and perhaps some impropriety in that...? Not clear in my memory, though.

And, yikes, now we know that a DA staff member picked up the hacksaw barehanded. That can't be good.

 

[Sonya610]

Because criminal investigations can be hindered when people refuse to cooperate by citing the right to privacy, I think more frequently such clauses are tacked onto formal agreements. A criminal investigation, especially a murder investigation, is very serious. So, I wonder if there was such a clause in the Barristers Hall lease.

Google it. All of the legal sources say ONLY the occupants can authorize a warrant less police search, NOT the landlord.

Landlords can enter to protect THEIR property (the building itself). Your landlord would not be able to enter your apartment and start eating your food, drinking your liquor, snooping through your lingerie drawer, etc....that would against the law. Likewise they cannot authorize a search of your personal property by the police.

Also think about what you said regarding a "clause in the lease agreement allowing criminal searches". Talk about LAWSUITS claiming discrimination and violation of fair housing practices etc.... We would read all about it in the national news when some poor under-privileged section 8 soul had their civil rights violated and were the victims of discrimination by an "rich evil prejudice landlord". It probably wouldn't be legal anyway but it sure would spawn some hefty lawsuits!

 

[Backwoods]

Google it. All of the legal sources say ONLY the occupants can authorize a warrant less police search, NOT the landlord.

Landlords can enter to protect THEIR property (the building itself). Your landlord would not be able to enter your apartment and start eating your food, drinking your liquor, snooping through your lingerie drawer, etc....that would against the law. Likewise they cannot authorize a search of your personal property by the police.

Also think about what you said regarding a "clause in the lease agreement allowing criminal searches". Talk about LAWSUITS claiming discrimination and violation of fair housing practices etc.... We would read all about it in the national news when some poor under-privileged section 8 soul had their civil rights violated and were the victims of discrimination by an "rich evil prejudice landlord". It probably wouldn't be legal anyway but it sure would spawn some hefty lawsuits!

bbm: That sums it up pretty effectively, I think!

 

[Backwoods]

This sad little snippet from Patterson's affidavit I posted above:

...Sgt. Gatlin opened one of the trash bags and discovered that it contained what appeared to be a human female torso with what appeared to be a superficial cut or wound to the chest....

Most of you who have followed Lauren's threads from the start remember that, in earlier days, some posting of rumors was allowed and that, of those allowed to some extent, a fair number involved reports of further (some very extreme) mutilation to the torso. Even more recent posts have alluded to that.

Is anyone reading the description above as likely indicating that most of those rumors were not true? (The "superficial cut or wound" does fit with one rumor I recall.) I'm thinking that way -- although I suppose something could have been held back out of the report...?

I remember that I gave up trying to decide which of those rumors, if any, were true -- it seemed highly unlikely to me that all were -- in fact, it hardly seemed possible -- but I always thought some probably might be.

Regarding former rumors, also: I saw, one time, a report about the torso being found clad in running shorts. (It was on a media comment board -- I didn't bring it here but did point posters here to it.) Somehow, I felt that one might be true -- now we know it was. Just seemed to me at the time to be unlike the others -- not likely to be a possible exaggeration of something factual that just grew and grew, and not the kind of thing someone would be likely to fabricate for "shock value". But I remember at the time thinking..."Why?" and coming up with answers that ran from "convenience" on to some pretty bizarre things.

I know it doesn't really make a huge difference in the overall scheme of the loss of Lauren...but, still, it would be a relief to me to know for sure that all those extreme additional mutilation rumors were false.

 

[tomkat]

I just want to back up a moment and expound some on the consent for a search of a tenant's apartment. Tomkat, couldn't you include a clause in the lease stating that the tenant agrees to certain terms, such as allowing management to grant access for a criminal investigation?
I've lived in a townhouse for 17 years. I don't have time to look at my lease agreement, but I know that management can enter our homes in certain instances without formal consent (I believe it's contained in the lease agreement). They do give us advance notice when a safety inspection, pest-control, etc. is scheduled, but we don't know the specific time, or often the specific day. When I first moved in, someone would come in to do more thorough inspections of the homes. IIRC, there were a few drug busts that resulted, or at least there were a few tenants who were evicted because they were caught with drugs.

I know that privacy is a big issue, but there are also terms in license agreements for computer software stating that you give up rights to your personal information while using the software for a criminal investigation. I've seen other agreements that contain a similar clause. Because criminal investigations can be hindered when people refuse to cooperate by citing the right to privacy, I think more frequently such clauses are tacked onto formal agreements. A criminal investigation, especially a murder investigation, is very serious. So, I wonder if there was such a clause in the Barristers Hall lease.

Patterson didn't state whether McD signed the consent to have his apartment searched or not. Buford and Hogue are suggesting the HRD search was conducted illegally because McD didn't sign the consent and I think they want the entire case dismissed based on that. The consent may not have been required, though, if Boni Bush was authorized to give the consent due to a clause in the lease agreement. I think investigators would have been careful to keep the searches legal, unless they knew the investigation would still be intact if they obtained SWs for subsequent searches, supposing they found anything during the initial search (which they apparently did).

I was just thinking how ironic it is if McD is claiming that LE entered his apartment illegally, considering he is also accused of entering other tenants' apartments without their consent or knowledge, and even stealing from them.

That's taking away all the tenants rights to privacy. We dont' open homes so one can search into someone's private life. I do not. I would never sign such myself. For emergencies of life or building it is stated. But Just what you are saying, lots of legalities, and confusion, lawsuits abound, it's not my home and I would never do that ...until court ordered of course. This is in regards to long term leases, however, there is a BIG difference in that and Short term leases, the occupants can be required to leave at any moment and owners may lock out the occupants without warning, for reasons. Unlike long term leases, which is possession. As they say, possession's 9/10 of the law