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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have only followed one other case closely enough to know what has or hasn't happened in it. I'm not that familiar with what prompts a landfill search a couple of months after the crime. I know landfills are searched in the early days of investigations. This search is FBI initiated isn't it? Do the FBI usually initiate searches and conduct them? The newspaper articles states that they will probably search for this whole week. Is this usual also? Did LE ask this landfill company to keep this area of trash inaccessable to being used or did the company decide to do it? I'm hoping they find something.
 
Knox said:
Winters hasn't revealed everything to date. Do they have a smoking gun, maybe not. But I have faith they will be able to secure a conviction.

One subject we haven't touched on is tool marks. If that saw had a slight defect or perhaps it wore or warped a certain way while it was being used, would the bone show this? Would the ME compare the findings during autopsy or the FBI in the lab?

http://symesforensics.com/documents/SawMarkManual_Symes.pdf
Click to expand...

The problem I see with that, is there is no DNA from SM on it. We know it was used on LG because her DNA is on it. Buford can say there are 1000's (or whatever the correct #is) of packing slips with that hacksaw lot # on it so there's really no definite way of linking SM to it that we know of. If LE found LG's blood in Sm's apt then that would give credence to SM using the hacksaw. I agree with Thinman. At this point I think the evidence is thin. JMO
 
bessie said:
There's no question that McD is cunning. Examples of his craftiness fill several pages in a thread downstairs. No doubt that's caused problems for the investigation. But if he was foolish enough to leave the torso to be found right on the property and blood on the hacksaw, then he could have made other mistakes, as well, like droning on and on in an on camera interview, for instance. So I think it's likely that there is evidence, possibly even enough to convict him. It's not necessarily an all or nothing situation. Yet, obviously, LE would like more or they wouldn't be searching the landfill.

It's not necessary to prove cause of death, but it's an important part of the evidence because it completes the picture for the jury. If there were no fatal wounds to the torso, and the toxicology reports showed no poisoning or drug overdose, then the missing remains could hold the answer to that question. Even after all this time, a fractured skull would still be visible. And if not the remains, a weapon found in the landfill could be used to explain COD. So that's one good reason to do the search, but it doesn't mean that without it, the case cannot proceed.
Click to expand...

Earlier there was discussion of SM's motive. Several posters theorized that SM was obsessed with LG and that the killing was love, hate, sex related. If that were the case I think we would have heard something from friends or neighbors concerning SM's actions around LG. Did he stalk her? Did he make excuses to be around her? Did he speak of her? I'm starting to think this may have been more a murder of convenience. Since she lived next door the chances of him getting caught were slimmer. He could easily have moved the body during the night from her apt to his. The empty apt downstairs was another convenience. If anyone saw him taking a trash bag that way he could say he was on his way to the dumpster. He could make an excuse for his DNA in her apt by saying he visited her. He had been talking about planing the perfect murder for years. He may have thought he would never get a more perfect setup. If this theory is true, SM may have thought it part of the game to leave a few clues, as long as the clues were problematic.
 
tomkat said:
So that means LE still doesnt' have enough evidence.
Click to expand...
We don't know that, tomkat, because we can't make a judgment about that we haven't seen, nor can we assume that because we haven't seen it, it does not exist.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomkat
So that means LE still doesnt' have enough evidence.

bessie said:
We don't know that, tomkat, because we can't make a judgment about that we haven't seen, nor can we assume that because we haven't seen it, it does not exist.
Click to expand...

TK and I are not making judgments about what we haven't seen . . . we're making judgments about LE's motive for undertaking a week-long landfill search at this late date after subjecting over 200 items to forensic analysis.

Nor can we assume that because we haven't seen it, it DOES exist. All of us are left making (hopefully) logical deductions from what we do know about what we don't know (and haven't seen). I think it's is certainly reasonable to conclude, as TK did, that the landfill search means "LE still doesn't have enough evidence."

Oh, they'll try SMD with whatever evidence they have or can find, but I think it's very reasonable to conclude that WInters does not currently have a very strong case against SMD. I don't like it either, but one shouldn't deny the logic that supports TK's conclusion.
 
3doglady said:
The problem I see with that, is there is no DNA from SM on it. We know it was used on LG because her DNA is on it. Buford can say there are 1000's (or whatever the correct #is) of packing slips with that hacksaw lot # on it so there's really no definite way of linking SM to it that we know of. If LE found LG's blood in Sm's apt then that would give credence to SM using the hacksaw. I agree with Thinman. At this point I think the evidence is thin. JMO
Click to expand...
It might not be necessary to establish a direct link between the saw and the packaging. If there's other evidence to link him to the crime, a jury will overlook it, especially if the DA explains why it's impossible to link the two. IMO, a jury is more likely to look at the other circumstances surrounding the hacksaw.

  1. LG's blood was found on a hacksaw
  2. The packaging for the "same such" hacksaw was found in McD's apartment
  3. McD could not produce a hacksaw to go with the packaging.
But, convincing the jury the hacksaw is McD's only helps to prove that he dismembered LG's body. It will take more to prove that he is responsible for her death. The DA knows he needs that evidence, and imho, he would not have sought murder charges without knowing that it exists.
 
Oriah said:
Hopefully no time soon.

MOO of course- but that info should be kept private out of sensitivity to the family, and preservation of integrity of the case.

I hope we only hear about anything found after a conviction is made.
Click to expand...

about the bolding: I basically agree, Oriah, but I am just thinking of the intense scrutiny focused on this search already, wondering if word (or at least rumor) may leak out.
 
pearl said:
I have only followed one other case closely enough to know what has or hasn't happened in it. I'm not that familiar with what prompts a landfill search a couple of months after the crime. I know landfills are searched in the early days of investigations. This search is FBI initiated isn't it? Do the FBI usually initiate searches and conduct them? The newspaper articles states that they will probably search for this whole week. Is this usual also? Did LE ask this landfill company to keep this area of trash inaccessable to being used or did the company decide to do it? I'm hoping they find something.
Click to expand...

To add to pearl's list of questions, I am also wondering if there are other institutional or company dumpsters in the area of Barristers Hall that go to the Wolf Creek landfill? Also, one of the recent articles said "some" of Mercer's garbage goes to Wolf Creek -- wonder where the rest goes?
 
I've asked this before -- hate to come across as ignorant about the procedure, and I DID read the documents bessie provided about DNA collection a while back (several threads ago) -- but I am still not completely clear ...can we pretty much assume that a legally-usable DNA sample from SM has been obtained by now for comparison to any DNA found on the remains, hacksaw, etc.?

eta: I've elaborated a bit in another post, below
 
3doglady said:
The problem I see with that, is there is no DNA from SM on it. We know it was used on LG because her DNA is on it. Buford can say there are 1000's (or whatever the correct #is) of packing slips with that hacksaw lot # on it so there's really no definite way of linking SM to it that we know of. If LE found LG's blood in Sm's apt then that would give credence to SM using the hacksaw. I agree with Thinman. At this point I think the evidence is thin. JMO
Click to expand...

I don't imagine many murder weapons have DNA from the perp on them.

Buford can say a multitude of things to point suspicion away from McD. It doesn't change the fact that McD bought a hacksaw, had packaging from a hacksaw in his apartment, Lauren was dismembered and her DNA was found on a hacksaw. The SODDI story is so weak, it's laughable. Buford can try to sell that to a jury, but will they believe him? Did we?

Let's re-visit the details ...
Glenda McDaniel says her son, Stephen, admits buying the hacksaw on which authorities found traces of Lauren Giddings’ DNA.

But, she says, he has told her that he threw away the saw months ago, that Giddings’ “real killer” must have plucked the saw from the trash and used it to frame him for a crime that she says detectives have -- in questioning her son -- threatened to seek the death penalty.
Click to expand...
-and-

She says it wasn’t until after her son recovered from the shock of his arrest and was “able to focus and process things” that he recalled hearing a noise and seeing someone standing on Giddings’ balcony one night.

It was June 23, two days before Giddings went missing, Glenda McDaniel said, the night she says Giddings supposedly noted in an e-mail that someone had tried to break into her apartment.

Glenda McDaniel said her son told her that “he had heard a loud noise, got up, got dressed, went out and saw (another apartment resident) standing on Lauren’s balcony” at midnight. Glenda McDaniel says her son claims the man told him he was thinking about cutting the grass.

“There is no grass on the property anywhere near (Lauren’s) apartment. It’s all near the back of the property,” Glenda McDaniel said. “He had no reason to be on her balcony. But Stephen, having been woken up out of the sleep and ... not being a suspicious person, he responded, ‘Well, it won’t bother me because I would sleep through anything.’”

McDaniel’s mother said she’s sure he kicked himself after he realized the man could have been up to no good.

“It was only later, when he started recovering from the shock that his friend was dead, that he started processing that and realized, ‘No. No one cuts the grass at midnight,” she said. “And at that point, (Stephen, in jail) contacted his lawyer and said, ‘I need to talk to you,’” Glenda McDaniel said.
Click to expand...
 
Backwoods said:
I've asked this before -- hate to come across as ignorant about the procedure, and I DID read the documents bessie provided about DNA collection a while back (several threads ago) -- but I am still not completely clear ...can we pretty much assume that a legally-usable DNA sample from SM has been obtained by now for comparison to any DNA found on the remains, hacksaw, etc.?
Click to expand...

Quoting my own post to elaborate a little on my ponderings on this:

I had assumed at one point, for some reason, that someone arrested and charged with murder was required to provide a DNA sample. Naive, huh? Of course, that's not the case, that's not required in many states.

I was just reading a document, though, that states that all 50 states can require a compulsory DNA sample from convicted sex offenders. Is there any possibility that there may be some non-victim DNA to be identified in this case, SM has not provided a legally-usable sample (I'm not talking about some kind of surreptitious sampling* off a drinking glass here), and that the sexual exploitation charges might be pursued first in hopes of a conviction there that might force a compulsory DNA sample?

The document I was just reading is at: http://www.mannixlawfirm.com/PDF/DNAResearch.pdf

*eta: Actually, the surreptitious sampling might be usable in Georgia; this is one of several points I am still trying to research.
 
You will have to forgive the off topic here, but, since the discussion on Lauren's thread has centred around SAR dogs as of late, and given the absolute rarity of an abductor returning the child he took unharmed, I just HAD to share this with you folks.

3 Year Old Kienan Hebert was abducted from his home in Sparwood, BC a week ago. His parents made an emotional plea for the sexual predator POI in the Amber Alert to release the child. The POI returned Kienan to his home in the middle of the night, and then escaped.

Today, Taz the K-9 RCMP dog from Kelowna, B.C. tracked the POI in the intensive manhunt, and was responsible for his apprehension!!!

What a miracle, all the way around. It's a very rare thing for such a positive outcome, and I just had to share it here.

SPARWOOD, B.C. – Hundreds of volunteers and dozens of police officers were involved in the search for missing Sparwood, B.C. toddler last week, but in the end, it was a police dog that led the investigators to Kienan Hebert’s alleged abductor on Tuesday.

Following a massive manhunt, Randall Hopley, the man believed to have snatched Kienan from his home on Wednesday, has been arrested near the B.C.-Alberta border this morning.

7 1/2 year-old police dog Taz from the Kelowna RCMP detachment had been tracking Hopley through the night. Around 10 a.m. this morning, he managed to lead officers to Hopley’s hideaway location in a gravel pit near Crowsnest Pass Lake.

The dog’s handler Corporal Roberts told Global News he was very proud of Taz, as well as a couple of other police dogs involved in the capture.
Click to expand...


Way to go Taz!!!!!
5395965.bin


http://www.vancouversun.com/business/smart-shift/fp/VIDEO+captures+Randall+Hopley/5396578/story.html
 
ThinMan said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomkat
So that means LE still doesnt' have enough evidence.

TK and I are not making judgments about what we haven't seen . . . we're making judgments about LE's motive for undertaking a week-long landfill search at this late date after subjecting over 200 items to forensic analysis.

Nor can we assume that because we haven't seen it, it DOES exist. All of us are left making (hopefully) logical deductions from what we do know about what we don't know (and haven't seen). I think it's is certainly reasonable to conclude, as TK did, that the landfill search means "LE still doesn't have enough evidence."

Oh, they'll try SMD with whatever evidence they have or can find, but I think it's very reasonable to conclude that WInters does not currently have a very strong case against SMD. I don't like it either, but one shouldn't deny the logic that supports TK's conclusion.
Click to expand...
I have the utmost respect for your and tomkat's opinions, ThinMan, and I apologize if I implied that I did not. Our interpretations of the landfill search differ by a matter of degrees. That's what it boils down to, really, and I'd be silly to argue with you. We'll just have to wait and see. In the meantime, have a cupcake. :cupcake:
 
ITA and to each their own of how their viewpoint is to the case and all of it's many intricate details it entails.. There is nothing to argue and I certainly don't think anyone's objective is to put down one's viewpoint drastically differing from their own, nor to attempt to sway or change that PERSON's viewpoint of how they choose to look at the case and all that the case entails..

I believe it's wise to wait to see the evidence laid out at the appropriate time and appropriate place, during the trial and in a court of law.. It's at that time when we are privy to knowing and seeing the evidence against Stephen McDaniel is when IMO is the ONLY TIME when anyone can appropriately and/or accurately state that the evidence is strong or whether it is weak and lacking.. Until that appropriate time none of us can do anything but make assumptions, guesses, or theorize on what is their opinion.. All with nothing to base it on or back it up until that appropriate time in a court of law when it goes to trial..

But everyone is certainly entitled to their own view points, opinions, and theories given the tiny bit that we know at this point(how it should remain until the trial).. We don't all have to have the same or even similar viewpoint, outlook, take on what very little we know at this time.. It's what makes WS great ;)
 
Knox said:
I don't imagine many murder weapons have DNA from the perp on them.

Buford can say a multitude of things to point suspicion away from McD. It doesn't change the fact that McD bought a hacksaw, had packaging from a hacksaw in his apartment, Lauren was dismembered and her DNA was found on a hacksaw. The SODDI story is so weak, it's laughable. Buford can try to sell that to a jury, but will they believe him? Did we?

Let's re-visit the details ...
-and-

Click to expand...

I agree that the story GM told was unbelievable, but more evidence than hack saw packaging is needed to convict. Just because GM told the media a story doesn't mean Buford will use that as a defense. If LE has other evidence that would make the package valuable evidence but without other evidence the package alone has little value. I've seen juries buy SODDI stories a lot weaker than the one GM told. Look at Casey Anthony walking free. Who would have thought that?
 
Backwoods said:
Quoting my own post to elaborate a little on my ponderings on this:

I had assumed at one point, for some reason, that someone arrested and charged with murder was required to provide a DNA sample. Naive, huh? Of course, that's not the case, that's not required in many states.

I was just reading a document, though, that states that all 50 states can require a compulsory DNA sample from convicted sex offenders. Is there any possibility that there may be some non-victim DNA to be identified in this case, SM has not provided a legally-usable sample (I'm not talking about some kind of surreptitious sampling* off a drinking glass here), and that the sexual exploitation charges might be pursued first in hopes of a conviction there that might force a compulsory DNA sample?

The document I was just reading is at: http://www.mannixlawfirm.com/PDF/DNAResearch.pdf

*eta: Actually, the surreptitious sampling might be usable in Georgia; this is one of several points I am still trying to research.
Click to expand...

Quoting myself yet again to add a little more about my eta in the above post, for anyone who was interested: Don't know about any Georgia-specific statutes regarding surreptitious DNA sampling, but it does seem that it is fairly widely practiced and upheld by courts. Here's a link to an interesting article from The New York Times that addresses the practice and its treatment by courts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/science/03dna.html?pagewanted=all

Another interesting look at the practice is at this link: http://www.officer.com/article/10232805/lying-for-dna

In short, I'm guessing that LE has an "abandoned DNA" sample from SM that they most likely would do OK with in court, if there is evidence to match it to.
 
It just really saddens me to read about the new landfill searches. Each day so far, nothing has been found. I want to hold out hope that they will find something and it isn't fruitless. I just can't imagine that family's pain..not knowing where most of Lauren's remains are...

Here's hoping that the rest of the week yields some positive results...anything at this point that would add more evidence to the case against McD. I'm a little nervous that what they have so far just isn't enough.
 
Backwoods said:
about the bolding: I basically agree, Oriah, but I am just thinking of the intense scrutiny focused on this search already, wondering if word (or at least rumor) may leak out.
Click to expand...

I agree Backwoods- no doubt rumor will. :(

I'm actually surprised they haven't closed helicopter airspace over and surrounding the search area.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 115 more.
Total: 293 (members: 116, guests: 177)

Online statistics

Members online
116
Guests online
177
Total visitors
293
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,168
Messages
18,250,382
Members
234,549
Latest member
raymehay
Back
Top