GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #11

[tut med]

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/local/ar...gs-Search-Continues-at-Twiggs-County-Landfill

Mann and her husband dropped off cases of water, bushels of apples, and several dozen apple cider doughnuts for the workers

I watched that on the news this morining and it just breaks your heart.

 

[AgentFrankLundy]

Now my hinky meter is on full alert. Why are there 20 FBI agents involved in a landfill search that , as Bill Giddings describes it , is not even like looking for a needle in a haystack, since they don't even know which haystack to start looking in ? There has to be some credible lead to make them think the rest of the body is there, doesn't there , and they are just keeping it from the public? :websleuther:

 

[tomkat]

Now my hinky meter is on full alert. Why are there 20 FBI agents involved in a landfill search that , as Bill Giddings describes it , is not even like looking for a needle in a haystack, since they don't even know which haystack to start looking in ? There has to be some credible lead to make them think the rest of the body is there, doesn't there , and they are just keeping it from the public? :websleuther:

They initially did do a scanty search in that landfill didnt' they? I was under the impression it was scant and hurried for some reason. Maybe becuase the family wanted to go back there and have another search done..or someone. My memory may be wrong on that. Anyway, I think they are backtracking.

I know when I drive up I75 at the spring street exit, I wonder if she is in the woods there along the river on either side of the Hwy. I know there were searches done but I wondered if those wooded areas were searched. I mean drive by and throw something out the window, no one would ever find it. The park is below there on the river, but the wooded part up by the interstate is so thick you can't see through it much less walk in there.

??? I just hope they find something. They need something more quite obviously. Could be a lead but I just think they are backtracking. If not that, makes them look bad if they didnt' do it right the first time and she may be there, what a hayday the public would have.

 

[pearl]

Backwoods,
I think they can get a DNA sample from SM with a probable cause warrant in GA. Hope I'm right.

 

[bessie]

September 13, 2011

Search Continues at Twiggs County Landfill
According to Macon Police, 20 FBI agents from Georgia and Virginia are volunteering their time for the week-long effort.
For the second day, a Twiggs County Sheriff's deputy blocked the entrance to the public.

But that didn't keep away Lauren Giddings' cousin Kathy Mann.

 

[bessie]

Backwoods,
I think they can get a DNA sample from SM with a probable cause warrant in GA. Hope I'm right.

I don't think so, Pearl, but I'm glad Backwoods brought up this subject again.

Here's the bill that recently passed:

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/I6W7Q3D7RM.pdf

Here is the main point of the new law:

to expand the types of convicted felons who shall have a DNA sample collected and maintained in the DNA data bank from certain designated sex offender felons to all convicted felons who are incarcerated or on probation or parole

Here is a quote by Sen. Josh McKoon, one of the bill's authors, in an article dated April 15, 2011:

“I think it is important to point out that everyone who is arrested is fingerprinted and put into a database,” Sen. McKoon said. “This is a much more conservative system where only convicted felons will have their DNA put into a database. Eventually, however, I expect future legislation will allow DNA samples to be collected upon probable cause, rather than conviction. When this happens, many more crimes will be solved quickly and many more falsely accused suspects will be set free.”

http://georgiafrontpage.blogspot.com/2011/04/dna-database-bill-on-way-to-governor.html

That's not to say McD didn't submit a sample voluntarily, though I find that hard to believe.

ETA: From the GBI Service Manual under "Forensic Biology":

Buccal Swabs

NOTE: Do not collect a liquid saliva sample. Gum, cigarette butts or drink containers are also not to be collected as known reference items.

http://dofs.gbi.georgia.gov/00/article/0,2086,75166109_84393031_84480981,00.html

 

[Backwoods]

Backwoods,
I think they can get a DNA sample from SM with a probable cause warrant in GA. Hope I'm right.

I'm not so sure about that, pearl. According to a 2009-2010 table (which is a handy quick reference) at this link to the National Conference of State Legislatures web site, that doesn't appear to be so -- unless ... something has changed since then (which it may have):

link: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=12737
Also from the same link, some interesting facts about states that have recently passed laws requiring DNA sampling of certain arrestees:

QUOTE (emphasis mine on last sentence): "By 2009, 21 states, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas Vermont and Virginia, had passed laws authorizing DNA samples of certain arrestees; seven were passed in 2009 including Arkansas and Vermont, among others. Arkansas’s qualifying offenses are murder and sex crime arrests. The Texas law allows post-indictment samples of certain sex offenders. Minnesota's similarly requires a DNA sample after probable cause determination in a charge of one of many serious felonies. California’s Proposition 69, approved by voters on November 2, 2004, requires DNA samples of adults arrested for or charged with a felony sex offense, murder or voluntary manslaughter, or attempt of these crimes. Starting in 2009, the measure requires arrestee sampling be expanded to arrests for any felony offense. The same measure expanded DNA testing to all convicted felons. Kansas added the requirement that felony or drug sentencing guidelines grid level 1 or 2 crime arrestees provide a DNA sample in its law; and expanded in mid-2008 to all felony arrestees. New Mexico’s law also enacted arrestee samples from specified violent felons.

"DNA offender database policy is rapidly changing in states; especially that requiring certain misdemeants and certain arrestees to provide samples."

 

[Backwoods]

bessie, looks like we were posting on the same wavelength pretty much at the same time!

 

[bessie]

bessie, looks like we were posting on the same wavelength pretty much at the same time!

I know. You owe me a Coke.

 

[Backwoods]

Just when IS the commitment hearing for SM on the child *advertiser censored* charges?

The Telegraph originally said Sept. 14. Someone mentioned that date (which was yesterday, of course) on the macon.com comments under a recent article and was told no, it will be this Friday morning. Anybody certain? Anybody going?

 

[AgentFrankLundy]

Just when IS the commitment hearing for SM on the child *advertiser censored* charges?

The Telegraph originally said Sept. 14. Someone mentioned that date (which was yesterday, of course) on the macon.com comments under a recent article and was told no, it will be this Friday morning. Anybody certain? Anybody going?

Just posted on Macon.com , it ain't going to happen. wonder what to make of Floyd's quote ? “The stage that we’re in now, we don’t feel like having the hearing at this time is necessary,”

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2011/09/15/1704903/mcdaniels-friday-hearing-canceled.html#ixzz1Y379yrXa

 

[Backwoods]

Just posted on Macon.com , it ain't going to happen. wonder what to make of Floyd's quote ? “The stage that we’re in now, we don’t feel like having the hearing at this time is necessary,”

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2011/09/15/1704903/mcdaniels-friday-hearing-canceled.html#ixzz1Y379yrXa

Thanks for answering, AgentFrank, and for posting the link.

Wow, I don't know just what to make of that, either.

So it isn't just postponed -- the defense has waived the right to that hearing, am I understanding correctly?

 

[AgentFrankLundy]

That's the way I understand it , but again it is just to see if there is enough to move forward to trial, just going through the motions, not any admission of guilt.
Grand Jury did meet yesterday , did not hear the McD case , and my sources (not saying they are reliable) say it could be a long while before they do.

 

[Backwoods]

More here on the waiving of the hearing:

link: http://www.13wmaz.com/news/article/144335/175/McDaniel-Waives-Hearing-on-Child-Endangerment-Charges

They are saying child endangerment charges -- wasn't it sexual exploitation of a child, instead? Wonder if the charges were changed or if the report is just in error... If the charges (now) are actually child endangerment, we could be looking at a different type of situation, an especially delicate one that might have had a bearing on the decision to waive the hearing (though there could be several good reasons to do so).

(Inmate details report still says sexual exploitation of a child, but I wonder could there have been a possibility or threat of changing the charges...?)

QUOTE:
"McDaniel Waives Hearing on Child-Endangerment Charges

Court officials on Thursday canceled a commitment hearing on the child endangerment charges against murder suspect Stephen McDaniel. ..."

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

A long while before they do have enough to go forward to trial? (Just asking to clarify...sorry long week at work so far so my brain's a little fuzzy...)

 

[Backwoods]

A long while before they do have enough to go forward to trial? (Just asking to clarify...sorry long week at work so far so my brain's a little fuzzy...)

Think you are probably referring to AgentFrank's comment a few posts above, but here's a quote from the link I just posted that sort of ties in, possibly:

QUOTE:
"Winters hasn't set a date for presenting the murder and burglary charges to a grand jury for consideration. He said officials are still waiting for the results of test the FBI is conducting on evidence gathered in the case."

read more at: http://www.13wmaz.com/news/article/144335/175/McDaniel-Waives-Hearing-on-Child-Endangerment-Charges

 

[SmoothOperator]

Just posted on Macon.com , it ain't going to happen. wonder what to make of Floyd's quote ? “The stage that we’re in now, we don’t feel like having the hearing at this time is necessary,”

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2011/09/15/1704903/mcdaniels-friday-hearing-canceled.html#ixzz1Y379yrXa

The prosecutors would have to present the evidence they have(atleast some capacity of what they have).. the last thing this guy wants is his being further smeared in the press with a play by play of what is said in the hearing.. They rather it quietly move along without further public opinion being severely negatively impacted with these multiple charges on him involving innocent children being raped and sexually abused in very extremely sick ways.. You bet Buford and McDaniel waived that on bye-bye.. That's the last thing they want/need at this point.. Jmo, tho!!

 

[bessie]

McDaniel Waives Hearing on Child *advertiser censored* Charges
District Attorney Greg Winters said McDaniel's attorney Floyd Buford waived McDaniel's right to a commitment hearing on child- exploitation charges because Buford doesn't think it would be helpful at this time.

 

[3doglady]

My understanding of the reasons for a commitment hearing is to determine if LE has enough evidence to hold the defendant and take the charges to trial. Since there's no chance of SM being released due to the murder charge there's no benefit to SM for a commitment hearing on the CP. As Smooth said, that would just put more negative info in the media. At this point, we don't know if the CP charges will be admissible in the murder trial so why put that in potential jurors minds? I do wonder why the charges are listed as child endangerment. JMO

 

[Backwoods]

My understanding of the reasons for a commitment hearing is to determine if LE has enough evidence to hold the defendant and take the charges to trial. Since there's no chance of SM being released due to the murder charge there's no benefit to SM for a commitment hearing on the CP. As Smooth said, that would just put more negative info in the media. At this point, we don't know if the CP charges will be admissible in the murder trial so why put that in potential jurors minds? I do wonder why the charges are listed as child endangerment. JMO

One point, for the defense, of a commitment hearing is also to learn more about the evidence for a charge the prosecution has -- but yes, that has to be balanced with possible negatives, such as publicity about the charges and evidence. Or the possibility the charge will be changed, even "upped", on the evidence presented.

Somehow I can't imagine 13wmaz pulling "child endangerment" out of thin air! It had to come from somewhere ... didn't it...? I'm thinking Winters, since that station's quotes were from him (while the macon.com article a little earlier quoted Buford).

The thing is -- child endangerment, as I understand it, implies a personal responsibility to or for a child is in question.