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

[Backwoods]

Yes I am sure missing evidence is common in cases, trivial lab reports and such, but NOT smoking gun crucial DNA evidence.

Okay just pondering here....but does her hair look bleached or heavily highlighted? Based on the somewhat vague root definition I think probably foiled. If her hair was foiled with two tones then she would light brown strands too, based on this photo it looks like there were dual colors in use:

You raise an interesting question about Lauren's hair, Sonya. I have never been sure, even, if Lauren was naturally a blonde ...? The implication seems to have been that she was, but maybe not -- but certainly the blonde (even if natural, but darker, blonde) could have been "enhanced" in the way you mentioned -- leaving the possibility of light and darker strands, all from Lauren's own hair.

I wonder if there was an obvious textural, length, etc. difference between the lighter and darker strands found, or if they were in fact similar.

It doesn't sound, from what I remember, that they have a large quantity of hairs to work with.

BTW: What I'm finding (in some quick research, so everybody take it with a grain of salt) is that only mitochondrial dna can be obtained from hair without the root/follicle attached. It seems, from what I understand, that mitochondrial dna could possibly still be useful for IDing but not as definitively as the other (nuclear??) dna. ETA: Oooops, Sonya -- somehow, before posting this about mitochondrial dna, etc., I had managed to totally miss your post above replying to my question about hair dna.

 

[Sonya610]

It seems, from what I understand, that mitochondrial dna could possibly still be useful for IDing but not as definitively as the other (nuclear??) dna.

In a nutshell the way I understand it, mitochondrial DNA is basically ancient maternal line DNA, Nuclear DNA is your own personal DNA fingerprint (and an extreme longshot that another individual would match up to it).

Mitochondial DNA comes from our maternal lines, it can probably be used to show show small imediate family groups BUT depending on how far back it is traced it would show very large populations (i.e. the 7 European Eves -- meaning everyone of European descent can be traced back to one of 7 ice age female ancestors).

That is why they say the jurors are confused, yeah mitochondrial dna is broadly accurate BUT if the jury isn't that bright and/or wants to question the DNA evidence arguments could easily be made to cloud up the issue BIG TIME (I.e. "We have shown 150 million people all share the same mitochondrial dna from the same female ancestor! How can anyone claim it proves this defendant is guilty???)

Fact is chances are most of the jury has never heard of mitochondrial dna before and they have to be able to understand statistical significance -- that is kind of a long shot considering the average Bibb County resident these days. : )

Also regarding hair color, her hair was most definitely colored, no doubt about it. The bleach in hair color strips the majority of DNA out of the hair.

 

[pearl]

I wish Oriah would visit since the dog info has been made public. I'd sure like to know if he has any knowledge of the dogs that were used at the apartments. Also, I'd like to know what he thinks about the chances of the dog hits being allowed at trial.

 

[Backwoods]

I wish Oriah would visit since the dog info has been made public. I'd sure like to know if he has any knowledge of the dogs that were used at the apartments. Also, I'd like to know what he thinks about the chances of the dog hits being allowed at trial.

I guess we do know a bit more about the dog hits now, but not a whole lot more than we knew a good while back -- seems that, even fairly early on, we knew many of the locations where they were said to have "hit". What we still don't know is any specifics about those locations -- any specific items that they may have hit on, etc. I think we are unlikely to know those specifics if testimony specifically about the dog searches is disallowed at trial.

Oriah is way, way up high on my list of most-admired WS posters and I certainly would welcome hearing, too, pearl, anything Oriah might have to say. But I have a feeling -- don't know for sure, of course -- that Oriah might not feel it appropriate or helpful to the case to comment on anything about the dogs or the searches, even at this point. I could be wrong, though.

Just my own opinion: I think likely the dogs are probably well trained, well qualified ones. Were these particular searches carried out with the highest standards? I don't know. They may well have been, or there could have been some variation from best protocol. Again, we may never know...because I think the highest hurdle the prosecution may have to jump is the first one -- before getting to anything regarding the qualifications of the dogs and trainers and/or their performance on that particular mission -- and the first hurdle, IMO, is Georgia legal precedent. It just doesn't sound, to me, like direct testimony about dog searches makes it into Georgia courtrooms, as a rule.

 

[bessie]

bbm: Sonya, for some reason, I have to laugh every time you say ""Tis a mystery". Think I'll incorporate that into my own lingo -- hope you don't mind.

More on topic: I don't know what the reason would be to hold off on the formal reports -- that's why I was hoping some WSers who have seen that happen in other cases might join in to suggest some possibilities/recap reasons from other cases.

IF that is what's happening, I'd think it'd almost have to be a psychological ploy to some degree -- also could be just giving the defense less time to come up with ways to attack the evidence, if they DO have dna. I agree with you: It would really seem more likely to me that they don't, to use such a strategy -- that maybe, as you and tomkat suggest, they might be still hunting and/or "shopping". It seems as if, if they have dna, they'd want the defense to know (as you said, why on earth hold that back) -- pretty big psychological push there, too, I'd think -- maybe hoping for a plea bargain, etc.

How hard is it to obtain definitive dna from hair without roots attached, anybody know? It is possible, no? Just not something I know much about.

The long waiting time is common from what I've seen, and it can vary based on the type of evidence being analyzed. I've posted this in a couple of other threads, and might be helpful here, as well.

Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory's Forensic DNA Case Backlog, published by the OIG in 2010.

According to the findings, in March of that year, the nDNA unit had a backlog of 2722 cases, and the mtDNA almost 500 cases. The average turnaround time for both units was about 200 days, or 6-7 months, from time samples were submitted until a report was issued. However, this update was published last year:

Crime lab cuts down backlog of cases, report says

But...guess which unit is still lagging behind.

In an August 2010 audit report, the Justice Department watchdog said the lab had a large backlog of cases in both its nuclear DNA unit, which mostly analyzes biological fluids, such as blood and semen, and in its mitochondrial DNA unit, which examines evidence, such as naturally shed hairs, hair fragments, bones and teeth

But the mitochondrial DNA unit continues to have a backlog, Horowitz said. The unit reduced the number of its cases from 489 in March 2010 to 293 as of March 2012, but Horowitz said the reduction could not be attributed to the number of completed cases. Rather, he said, it was mostly due to a change in the way the unit calculates its backlog and other policy changes.

Even taking into consideration a backlog, we're way beyond the average waiting time reported in 2010. The reports should be in. The more likely reason for any missing documents is human error. Even the most organized law office can mis-file, mis-label, or misplace a document. It's there, but the attorney can't put his fingers on it at the moment, and squirming for time -- typical for defense teams as the deadline approaches -- he cries, "Whoa! Wait a minute! We're not ready."

Hogue doesn't believe prosecutors or law enforcement are hiding evidence. He says missing reports, and evidence are common in a case this large.

http://www.41nbc.com/news/local-new...ed-more-time-to-file-motions-missing-evidence

The prosecution has no reason to stall at this point. They're working on the public dime with a heavy caseload bearing down on them. Either they've got a case or they don't, and it behooves them to move forward. At this juncture, delays will only benefit the defendant. IMO

 

[Backwoods]

Good links, info and points in your post above, bessie.

I think I remember reading -- it may have been in one of Sonya's dna-related links -- that the FBI mitochondrial dna unit is relatively small...? If so, maybe that partially explains the backlog. Also, I know the science is complex and a relative newcomer to forensics, so maybe those are factors.

With the hairs, we don't know for certain, I guess, if we are talking only mitochondrial dna. (I guess, if hair was lost in a struggle, there could be cells there from which to obtain nuclear dna.) I can see that the prosecution might not mind keeping the defense a little in suspense on that one! Of course, the prosecution would certainly want to know the answer, too, if it's a matter of a lab backlog. I'm not saying the prosecution would be deliberately withholding evidence -- but maybe, if they "informally" know the answers already and the FBI final report is a little slow coming down -- well, maybe they'd see no need to light a fire under it. Maybe!

It doesn't seem to me as if, in the specific case of the hairs, it would be a matter of the defense misplacing the info after receiving it, or of the prosecution overlooking to include it, since the prosecution is pretty much outright saying they don't have those results and don't know when to expect them:

Prosecutors still are waiting for lab results from the FBI, said Nancy Scott Malcor, the circuit’s chief assistant district attorney.


“We don’t have it yet,” Malcor said. There’s no estimate for when all lab reports will be returned.

http://www.macon.com/2013/01/07/2308282/mcdaniel-defense-team-says-its.html

Although Malcor doesn't, in her quoted words, specifically reference the hairs, the article at least reads as though that is what she is talking about.

OT: bessie, new avatar! I was stumped at first -- but that is Janis as well, isn't it?

 

[Backwoods]

Well, here is some coverage that caught me by surprise -- don't know why really, just wasn't expecting it at this time:

Civil case settled in Giddings killing

...The “compromised settlement” also ended the case without a finding of fault or admission of liability, said Boni Bush, co-owner of the apartments, which sit across Georgia Avenue from Mercer’s Walter F. George School of Law. ...

read more at: http://www.macon.com/2013/01/13/2315313/civil-case-settled-in-giddings.html http://www.macon.com/2013/01/13/2315313/civil-case-settled-in-giddings.html

 

[pearl]

Off Topic for Bessie

My favorite singer of all time is Janis Joplin. I wish I had been old enough to have seen her live in concert in my lifetime. Several years ago, my daughter gifted me with a pencil sketch portrait of Janis. It hangs over my computer desk. Last year, I heard of a female singer that is compared to Janis. Her name is Brittany Howard of the band Alabama Shakes. Her voice is young and doesn't have the whiskey depth that Janis's did, but she is good. I think when she reaches her full potential, she will be awesome.

 

[bessie]

Yep, BW, a young Janis.

Pearl, I'll keep an eye out for Brittany Howard.

I've attached a couple of photos of the house where Janis grew up in Port Arthur. I took these about two years ago.

 

[bessie]

respectfully snipped

It doesn't seem to me as if, in the specific case of the hairs, it would be a matter of the defense misplacing the info after receiving it, or of the prosecution overlooking to include it, since the prosecution is pretty much outright saying they don't have those results and don't know when to expect them:

Prosecutors still are waiting for lab results from the FBI, said Nancy Scott Malcor, the circuit’s chief assistant district attorney.

“We don’t have it yet,” Malcor said. There’s no estimate for when all lab reports will be returned.

http://www.macon.com/2013/01/07/2308282/mcdaniel-defense-team-says-its.html

Although Malcor doesn't, in her quoted words, specifically reference the hairs, the article at least reads as though that is what she is talking about.

So if that's the case, I'm really curious about what's holding things up. Remember this from last March?
Source: All forensics testing in Giddings case now complete

Then, iirc, another article followed that said, in so many words, "Oops. We spoke too soon." Do you guys remember that? I can't find it right now, but I believe it was published around the time the OC posts came up in court. Apparently, some item(s) were missed or had to be re-tested. Even so, that's almost a year ago. Unless another problem came up since then. I sure would like to know what's going on. :waitasec:

 

[Backwoods]

respectfully snipped

So if that's the case, I'm really curious about what's holding things up. Remember this from last March?
Source: All forensics testing in Giddings case now complete

Then, iirc, another article followed that said, in so many words, "Oops. We spoke too soon." Do you guys remember that? I can't find it right now, but I believe it was published around the time the OC posts came up in court. Apparently, some item(s) were missed or had to be re-tested. Even so, that's almost a year ago. Unless another problem came up since then. I sure would like to know what's going on. :waitasec:

Soon as I saw the headline, I remembered the one article you posted -- and while I don't right off hand remember one where they said, in effect, "ooops, not quite", I don't doubt there was one. (There have been so many stories and developments, especially during a certain period, that it sure is hard to keep them all in memory!) Maybe the "source" for the first one just didn't quite know the whole story and they had to go back and correct a little after getting some additional info...?

Like you, I am mighty curious.

Pics you posted are neat!

 

[Backwoods]

Still rolling around and around in my mind are some questions brought up for me by one of the recent (those that came out not long before Christmas) news stories and the defense motion around which it centers. Finally decided to sit down and try to sort through my thoughts on this enough to express some of them, because I'd really like to know what some others of you think about this.

For reference, the story is this one:

Lawyers want McDaniel’s ‘perfect murder’ discussions kept out of court

Read more at: http://www.macon.com/2012/12/14/2285676/lawyers-want-mcdaniels-perfect.html#storylink=relast

...and the motion is Motion 4.3 in the defense motions at this link:

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

For background, and just to my layperson's understanding: The main gist of the motion seems to be to ask that Thad Money's account of Stephen McDaniel's discussions with TM about how he (SM) would go about committing the perfect murder be excluded from the trial, with the argument being based on legal precedent that has excluded remarks about committing murder, etc. unless they more or less matched the crime of which the person is accused in method, victim, and so on. (Just kind of my loose summary, good enough, I hope, for my purpose here.)

In illustrating why, according to such precedent, the evidence in question should be excluded, the motion points out, among other things, that the remarks made to TM did not name Lauren as a potential victim, and were, in fact, made before SM even knew Lauren. There is also a good deal said to illustrate that SM's alleged "perfect murder" scenario and what happened to Lauren are dissimilar, with the motion stating that the only similarity between the two is that the victim was dismembered.

All this I follow pretty well, I see where they're heading, it doesn't confound me.

Where it begins to get really interesting, and somewhat confusing, is when, to show the dissimilarities, the defense quotes things that TM apparently said that SM said in his scenario, things other than those we had already heard about. Apparently, there is a document -- one we don't have and the Telegraph/macon.com doesn't have, but the defense does; as the Telegraph article puts it, the defense is

apparently quoting from a police transcript of Money’s statement, which he made by phone.

The article quotes the motion on some of the details of SM's alleged scenario:

“Stephen said he would wear shoes that were too small, that he would make himself appear to be bald, that he would cut up the body, put the parts in bags, use chemicals to mask the odor, and spread the body parts in the woods,” a defense motion’s account of Money’s statement to police says.

It also recounts something we've heard about before, that TM said SM thought chloroform would be an effective way to subdue a victim.

The the article then goes on to lift some of the defense's wording (from the motion) about how Lauren's murder was dissimilar to the scenario, and all this is the part (in the article and directly from the motion, as well) that sort of made my head spin when I really took the time to read it closely on the second or third reading:

“No evidence exists that chloroform was ever used since none was found in or near the victim’s or Mr. McDaniel’s apartments and no evidence exists to show that the victim was dismembered in a bathroom,” the attorneys write.


“Furthermore, all other facts ... differ from Mr. McDaniel’s alleged ‘perfect murder.’ For example, the body was not found in the woods, nor did chemicals conceal the smell of decomposition and the murder does not have the appearance of a lover’s feud.”

Lover's feud?? OK, guess TM must have said that part of SM's scenario was to make a murder look like a lover's feud. Hadn't heard that one before, but OK.

Body not in the woods ... Can't recall for sure whether body-in-the-woods was a part of the "scenario" we heard some about earlier on, but this does sort of give me chills (just to clarify: not at all saying that I have come off the fence, folks, because I have not -- but this did give chills a bit). The fact is, of course, we don't know where most of Lauren's body was placed -- only that what was found was not in the woods. With all of our speculation about bodies of water and landfills, I've always had a feeling that the rest of Lauren might indeed be in the woods; I'm not claiming psychic powers here, but I know my feelings about this stem from a very vivid dream I had early on in this case -- I posted very briefly (not wanting to break TOS) about it months ago.

And, hold the phone, here's the big one: "no evidence exists to show that the victim was dismembered in a bathroom".

Huh? What?

First of all, apparently, by the motion mentioning dismemberment in a bathroom in this way, dismemberment in a bathroom must be part of what TM said was SM's scenario. News to me, certainly.

But -- no evidence???

So ... going back to one of Patterson's reports -- as quoted in the defense motions, which I more properly cited and quoted much more of in my post here: Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 27 June 2011 - 14

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.

Does "no evidence" that dismemberment occurred in a bathroom mean that the substance indicated around the drain and on the tub was NOT blood? Or could it not be proven to be blood? Had whatever it was been removed/degraded by bleach (which I think can, in itself, react with luminol ...?) or affected by luminol so that no lab confirmation could be made that blood had indeed been there? (Also: I seem to be remembering that luminol examination in itself is not generally admitted as evidence -- because it is not infallible -- but I am not positive; can someone confirm?) Or are we maybe, even, once again talking about missing or not-yet-complete forensic results?

And the tub that was removed ... "no evidence". Has it turned out that those marks on the tub could not be matched to a hacksaw or other tool of dismemberment?

Really, what do y'all think about all this?

Finally -- and maybe a little bit anticlimactically! -- though the Telegraph apparently (as indicated above) doesn't have the police transcript of what TM said, it seems the paper did get access to an affidavit regarding some of what TM reported, because the defense sure didn't include the following stuff in its motion, hence the paper cannot be quoting from there in this instance:

”In his remarks to police, which appear in an affidavit filed Friday, Money said McDaniel was “a self-proclaimed psychopath” who “proclaimed often that he has no conscience and was incapable of feeling emotion.”

Money said McDaniel’s “perfect murder” talk came up “almost nightly,” and that the frizzy-haired McDaniel’s reasoning for trying to look bald in pulling off such a crime would be so people wouldn’t “point him out because of his big hair.”


“What Stephen relishes is power,” Money told police. “He’ll tell you ... You don’t have to ask him. ... Everything he does is the result of a power play. He is an odd duckling who looks weak, but has one of the sharpest minds I have ever seen. Stephen said if he killed someone, he’d do it in a way to establish dominance over them. He always said he wanted to feel the power of someone’s life in his hands. He said he wanted them to beg, and then to take it.”

I would have thought such an affidavit might still be confidential/not public record at this point, but apparently not -- so now I want to know: If the paper has it, why don't we? :fence:

 

[pearl]

Still rolling around and around in my mind are some questions brought up for me by one of the recent (those that came out not long before Christmas) news stories and the defense motion around which it centers. Finally decided to sit down and try to sort through my thoughts on this enough to express some of them, because I'd really like to know what some others of you think about this.

For reference, the story is this one:


Read more at: http://www.macon.com/2012/12/14/2285676/lawyers-want-mcdaniels-perfect.html#storylink=relast

...and the motion is Motion 4.3 in the defense motions at this link:

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


For background, and just to my layperson's understanding: The main gist of the motion seems to be to ask that Thad Money's account of Stephen McDaniel's discussions with TM about how he (SM) would go about committing the perfect murder be excluded from the trial, with the argument being based on legal precedent that has excluded remarks about committing murder, etc. unless they more or less matched the crime of which the person is accused in method, victim, and so on. (Just kind of my loose summary, good enough, I hope, for my purpose here.)

In illustrating why, according to such precedent, the evidence in question should be excluded, the motion points out, among other things, that the remarks made to TM did not name Lauren as a potential victim, and were, in fact, made before SM even knew Lauren. There is also a good deal said to illustrate that SM's alleged "perfect murder" scenario and what happened to Lauren are dissimilar, with the motion stating that the only similarity between the two is that the victim was dismembered.

All this I follow pretty well, I see where they're heading, it doesn't confound me.

Where it begins to get really interesting, and somewhat confusing, is when, to show the dissimilarities, the defense quotes things that TM apparently said that SM said in his scenario, things other than those we had already heard about. Apparently, there is a document -- one we don't have and the Telegraph/macon.com doesn't have, but the defense does; as the Telegraph article puts it, the defense is
The article quotes the motion on some of the details of SM's alleged scenario:
It also recounts something we've heard about before, that TM said SM thought chloroform would be an effective way to subdue a victim.

The the article then goes on to lift some of the defense's wording (from the motion) about how Lauren's murder was dissimilar to the scenario, and all this is the part (in the article and directly from the motion, as well) that sort of made my head spin when I really took the time to read it closely on the second or third reading:

Lover's feud?? OK, guess TM must have said that part of SM's scenario was to make a murder look like a lover's feud. Hadn't heard that one before, but OK.

Body not in the woods ... Can't recall for sure whether body-in-the-woods was a part of the "scenario" we heard some about earlier on, but this does sort of give me chills (just to clarify: not at all saying that I have come off the fence, folks, because I have not -- but this did give chills a bit). The fact is, of course, we don't know where most of Lauren's body was placed -- only that what was found was not in the woods. With all of our speculation about bodies of water and landfills, I've always had a feeling that the rest of Lauren might indeed be in the woods; I'm not claiming psychic powers here, but I know my feelings about this stem from a very vivid dream I had early on in this case -- I posted very briefly (not wanting to break TOS) about it months ago.

And, hold the phone, here's the big one: "no evidence exists to show that the victim was dismembered in a bathroom".

Huh? What?

First of all, apparently, by the motion mentioning dismemberment in a bathroom in this way, dismemberment in a bathroom must be part of what TM said was SM's scenario. News to me, certainly.

But -- no evidence???

So ... going back to one of Patterson's reports -- as quoted in the defense motions, which I more properly cited and quoted much more of in my post here: Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 27 June 2011 - 14

Does "no evidence" that dismemberment occurred in a bathroom mean that the substance indicated around the drain and on the tub was NOT blood? Or could it not be proven to be blood? Had whatever it was been removed/degraded by bleach (which I think can, in itself, react with luminol ...?) or affected by luminol so that no lab confirmation could be made that blood had indeed been there? (Also: I seem to be remembering that luminol examination in itself is not generally admitted as evidence -- because it is not infallible -- but I am not positive; can someone confirm?) Or are we maybe, even, once again talking about missing or not-yet-complete forensic results?

And the tub that was removed ... "no evidence". Has it turned out that those marks on the tub could not be matched to a hacksaw or other tool of dismemberment?

Really, what do y'all think about all this?

Finally -- and maybe a little bit anticlimactically! -- though the Telegraph apparently (as indicated above) doesn't have the police transcript of what TM said, it seems the paper did get access to an affidavit regarding some of what TM reported, because the defense sure didn't include the following stuff in its motion, hence the paper cannot be quoting from there in this instance:

I would have thought such an affidavit might still be confidential/not public record at this point, but apparently not -- so now I want to know: If the paper has it, why don't we? :fence:

Hi,
I've only read the defense motions from start to finish one time and not as familiar with them as you are. I want to really study them, but I am just trying to get by until the end of this school year when I will most likely retire from teaching. My off-the cuff take is that the defense is trying to get all potential damning evidence eliminated from the upcoming trial. I feel the defense knows what the test results, etc are. They begin by asking that the first dog search be eliminated and go on from there to cover various bits of evidence, fruits of the forbidden tree idea if that is appropriate terminology. If the evidence is not damning to SM, why try to suppress it? I understood more from reading the affadavits for the searh warrants. I think if what was put into the first warrant was not born out, the information would have been taken out of the affadavit for the second one and so forth. Yet, the continuity of these affadavits doesn't have things taken out just added to. My opinion is that the Telegraph articles are reactive in nature. My opinion is the paper finds out about developments from another source and then reports it. I don't think there is much true investigative work in their articles. I may be wrong, but I sensed a change in their coverage when Hogue joined the defense. To me, it is almost as if they are in awe of him. From my research on him, my opinion is that he is a formidable defense attorney. But, he has to defend SM with the evidence cards he is dealt. I think he has been dealt a very bad hand and is trying to have as much as possible suppressed.

 

[Backwoods]

pearl, I appreciate your replying.

I think I blathered on with so much background, etc., in my post above that I really didn't make very clear that the thing I am really puzzling about and especially wanting to know what others make of is this part (quoting my previous post):

<snipped>
And, hold the phone, here's the big one: "no evidence exists to show that the victim was dismembered in a bathroom".

Huh? What?

First of all, apparently, by the motion mentioning dismemberment in a bathroom in this way, dismemberment in a bathroom must be part of what TM said was SM's scenario. News to me, certainly.

But -- no evidence???

<snipped>

Does "no evidence" that dismemberment occurred in a bathroom mean that the substance indicated around the drain and on the tub was NOT blood? Or could it not be proven to be blood? Had whatever it was been removed/degraded by bleach (which I think can, in itself, react with luminol ...?) or affected by luminol so that no lab confirmation could be made that blood had indeed been there? (Also: I seem to be remembering that luminol examination in itself is not generally admitted as evidence -- because it is not infallible -- but I am not positive; can someone confirm?) Or are we maybe, even, once again talking about missing or not-yet-complete forensic results?

And the tub that was removed ... "no evidence". Has it turned out that those marks on the tub could not be matched to a hacksaw or other tool of dismemberment?

Really, what do y'all think about all this?

I agree that, by now, barring a missing result or two possibly, the defense probably does have all the evidence relating to the bathroom(s) that the prosecution has. That's part of what has me so curious about this.

IMO, it is pretty bald and bold of the defense to say outright in its motion "no evidence exists to show that the victim was dismembered in a bathroom", unless it is true -- knowing that the prosecution could come back, to argue against the motion, and say "oh yes there is!", if there is. In this case (and I'm referencing the remark about dismemberment in a bathroom, not the entire motion), they are not saying "there is no admissible evidence" or "there is evidence that should be ruled inadmissible because <insert reason>". They are saying, "No evidence exists."

For a long time, I considered it very possible that Lauren was not killed/dismembered at the apartments, but somewhere else. After a while, with such intense focus there and with them pulling out drains and finally hauling out Lauren's tub with ominous markings on it, etc., and with everyone seeming to accept as a given that the dismemberment did take place there, I eventually came to accept that, too, pretty much. But IF it proves true that the prosecution has no evidence that it did... then I will have to again allow for the possibility that the dismemberment did not take place in one of the three bathrooms so closely examined. And that, to me, would put a very different light on some matters.

Hi,
I've only read the defense motions from start to finish one time and not as familiar with them as you are. I want to really study them, but I am just trying to get by until the end of this school year when I will most likely retire from teaching. My off-the cuff take is that the defense is trying to get all potential damning evidence eliminated from the upcoming trial. I feel the defense knows what the test results, etc are. They begin by asking that the first dog search be eliminated and go on from there to cover various bits of evidence, fruits of the forbidden tree idea if that is appropriate terminology. If the evidence is not damning to SM, why try to suppress it? I understood more from reading the affadavits for the searh warrants. I think if what was put into the first warrant was not born out, the information would have been taken out of the affadavit for the second one and so forth. Yet, the continuity of these affadavits doesn't have things taken out just added to. My opinion is that the Telegraph articles are reactive in nature. My opinion is the paper finds out about developments from another source and then reports it. I don't think there is much true investigative work in their articles. I may be wrong, but I sensed a change in their coverage when Hogue joined the defense. To me, it is almost as if they are in awe of him. From my research on him, my opinion is that he is a formidable defense attorney. But, he has to defend SM with the evidence cards he is dealt. I think he has been dealt a very bad hand and is trying to have as much as possible suppressed.

bbm: I pretty much agree, pearl, that the defense is trying to get all thrown out that it can.

Where we differ, I think, is that I don't think that necessarily means the evidence is particularly damning or that the defense is holding "a very bad hand". (It may be -- I still really am not sure. I am not seeing "a very bad hand" ... but, again, a lot of the "cards" are still hidden.) But I just see it as a defense attorney's job to challenge any evidence for which there may exist grounds for a challenge. (IMO, it's the judge's job to weigh whether there really are grounds.)

One thing is pretty much a given: Any evidence the prosecution is hoping to introduce is not going to be favorable to the defendant; it may be damning, indeed -- but it also may be a long chain of "mediocre evidence" (or, maybe most likely, a combination of the two). Even if ALL the evidence was sort of "so-so", the very fact that it is being presented to them in a court of law on so serious a charge carries weight with jurors, IMO. So of course the defense will (and should, IMO) make its challenges.

I'm not gonna pick on the Telegraph too much, LOL. All in all, I think it has done a pretty good job with covering the case. (Well, I did get pretty upset when the authenticity questions about the "Mickey Finn post" were ignored for so long -- now THERE I think some investigative reporting was in order!) I think that, at this point in a murder case, going to other sources (court documents, etc.) is pretty much the best avenue they have. Witnesses/potential witnesses aren't gonna be talking, the McDaniel family has withdrawn from media attention, the Giddings family has been gracious and open but there is only so much that one can expect them to say at this juncture. I think the Telegraph probably did dig a little to bring us that latest installment on the civil case -- so kudos, actually, there.

I do think Mr. Hogue is good at what he does. I haven't thought media seemed in awe of him, exactly, but I do think he interfaces well with the media, from what I've seen thus far -- he's matter-of-fact, he can give the appearance of being quite open with and ready to talk to the media (and thus the public) while still properly protecting confidentiality, etc.

I'll throw in here, too, that I also think Mr. Buford is a very competent attorney, as well. Death penalty cases not being his "specialty", he has faded a bit from the focus, with Hogue getting a lot of the attention -- but my guess is that he remains an important part of the team, in his own right.

 

[pearl]

Lauren's dismemberment very well could have taken place at a location other than one of the 3 apartments. Since only her torso has been found, the missing parts could have been discarded at that place. I dislike writing about Lauren that way; it seems so cold. Since there was so much focus at the apartments, I think most people assumed all of the crime had been committed there. We wouldn't necessarily know of another crime scene. The grandfather's farm comes to mind. Isn't the prosecution required to file an answer to the defense motions with the court? Do you have any idea when would be their deadline to do this if they have to? I would also like to see what evidence was taken from Lauren's and the downstair's apartments.

 

[Backwoods]

Lauren's dismemberment very well could have taken place at a location other than one of the 3 apartments. Since only her torso has been found, the missing parts could have been discarded at that place. I dislike writing about Lauren that way; it seems so cold. Since there was so much focus at the apartments, I think most people assumed all of the crime had been committed there. We wouldn't necessarily know of another crime scene. The grandfather's farm comes to mind. Isn't the prosecution required to file an answer to the defense motions with the court? Do you have any idea when would be their deadline to do this if they have to? I would also like to see what evidence was taken from Lauren's and the downstair's apartments.

bbm: I had asked a few weeks back if anyone could say "what happens next" with the motions and I think no one replied, but then, later -- somewhere within the motions themselves, IIRC -- I was reading something that kind of outlines the possible procedures. Seems like it said the judge could grant the motion, or the judge may choose to hold a hearing, presumably with both sides arguing their positions. Not sure whether, if no hearing, the prosecution files something answering each motion...? Maybe so, seems reasonable. (pearl, I will try tomorrow to find whatever it was I was reading and post the location.) Not sure about any deadlines, either -- with the new motion to postpone completion of motions until April (? -- I think), guess that could change any deadlines that had been set, if accepted.

I'd also really like to know about evidence taken from the other two apartments! The revelations in the recent documents about apparent fresh paint and possible blood smears in the downstairs apartment -- that really surprised me (especially the paint). Wonder if they proved to be what they appeared to LE to be. Ditto the suspected blood stains in Stephen's car.

 

[tomkat]

Just some things that come to mind:
a: doesn't seem that all of SM desired scenario has been played out, so he either didnt' do it, didn't do it exactly has he'd dreamed or got excited and screwed up
b: the defense certainly wants all damming or possibly damming evidence dismissed, who wouldn't if you know you are guilty or evidence makes you appear guilty
c: I've always wondered HOW, with some time restraints, dismemberment was carried out in the apts with not much if any evidence left behind from such brutality
d: WAS there EVER any evidence that a crime was committed in the bathroom?? or was it assumed by readers because their was mention of DNA found in the bathroom drain in LG apt. If anyone ever used it, there'd be DNA, right? Not necessarily SM DNA in Laurens drain but no doubt Laurens, I dont remember the "DNA in the drain discovery" article ever mentioned blood, may be wrong . When they say DNA didn't necessarily automatically think it had to be blood.
e: I do find it hard to believe that the crime was commited elsewhere, maybe on the BH grounds, inside or outside, becuase it seems difficult (maybe not they aren't rediculously large) but definitely dumb (clearly in this case) to transport the torso back to the apts had the dismemberment taken place elsewhere, still baffled that there wasn't a huge mess and more discovered by Detectives if it took place inside, but then again, no other apts were checked but the 3

 

[tomkat]

You raise an interesting question about Lauren's hair, Sonya. I have never been sure, even, if Lauren was naturally a blonde ...? The implication seems to have been that she was, but maybe not -- but certainly the blonde (even if natural, but darker, blonde) could have been "enhanced" in the way you mentioned -- leaving the possibility of light and darker strands, all from Lauren's own hair.

I wonder if there was an obvious textural, length, etc. difference between the lighter and darker strands found, or if they were in fact similar.

It doesn't sound, from what I remember, that they have a large quantity of hairs to work with.

BTW: What I'm finding (in some quick research, so everybody take it with a grain of salt) is that only mitochondrial dna can be obtained from hair without the root/follicle attached. It seems, from what I understand, that mitochondrial dna could possibly still be useful for IDing but not as definitively as the other (nuclear??) dna. ETA: Oooops, Sonya -- somehow, before posting this about mitochondrial dna, etc., I had managed to totally miss your post above replying to my question about hair dna.

I saw brunette pics, the color of her mother

 

[tomkat]

Off key here, but Recalling the time before LG murder where there was lots of overgrown brush around BH apts and terrible odor, the city or someone came out to clear the overgrown brush around the building and said it was a or some dead animals or cats or soemthing.

Can anyone recall that and have time frame in regards to LG murder? Often wondered if it was more, not animals but still think it had something to do with this case. Never could find the article again after LG discovery but I THINK was just prior to LG murder

ALSO, someone commented and said that they felt that SM was in LG apt (reason he had her things in his possession and having a master key not to mention hers was under the pot at door) when she arrived home one evening, backing him into a corner (literally probably), as he couldn't flee out the front without being seen so all that he had planned couldn't be played out and had to react suddenly when she came in the apt. What we all kind of thought at one time or another.

Reason why the SM case doesnt' match scenarios TM quoted SM as saying.

 

[Backwoods]

Off key here, but Recalling the time before LG murder where there was lots of overgrown brush around BH apts and terrible odor, the city or someone came out to clear the overgrown brush around the building and said it was a or some dead animals or cats or soemthing.

Can anyone recall that and have time frame in regards to LG murder? Often wondered if it was more, not animals but still think it had something to do with this case. Never could find the article again after LG discovery but I THINK was just prior to LG murder

ALSO, someone commented and said that they felt that SM was in LG apt (reason he had her things in his possession and having a master key not to mention hers was under the pot at door) when she arrived home one evening, backing him into a corner (literally probably), as he couldn't flee out the front without being seen so all that he had planned couldn't be played out and had to react suddenly when she came in the apt. What we all kind of thought at one time or another.

Reason why the SM case doesnt' match scenarios TM quoted SM as saying.

bbm: tomkat, the only thing like that I remember was after the murder, when the search for additional remains in the immediate area was still pretty intense. Not sure if this is the same thing you are remembering but, anyhow, here's one link:

Police sifting through clues in Giddings case, but no arrest so far

Macon police were back inside the apartment of Lauren Giddings on Sunday, looking for clues that would help them solve her disappearance and presumed slaying.

Saturday night and Sunday morning, workers also cleared property adjacent to apartments 13-16 at the Barristers Hall apartment complex, where Giddings lived, cutting back an overgrown area after receiving a tip about a &#8220;foul odor.&#8221; ...

...Saturday night, someone reported a &#8220;foul odor&#8221; in a wooded area adjacent to the apartments. Workers, particularly employees of the city&#8217;s Public Works Department and the Macon-Bibb County Fire Department, spent several hours cutting back overgrown brush -- bamboo, privet hedge and the like -- beside the rear apartment building. The odor was coming from a dead animal, Gaudet said. ...

read more at: http://www.macon.com/2011/07/04/1619672/police-sifting-through-clues-in.html

Also -- the scenario where Lauren happened upon SM while he was somehow prowling her apartment is probably now the one I consider most likely, when pondering on the "he did it" side of the fence.

Some great posts, tomkat -- I hope I'll get a chance to respond to your others a little later, but just wanted to go ahead and link the story about the odor and about the undergrowth cutting now, since I happened on it.