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: