GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 # 2

[angelanalyzes]

http://www.macon.com/2011/06/30/1615815_a1616180/body-found-at-downtown-macon-apartments.html

http://www.macon.com/2011/06/30/1615815/body-found-at-downtown-macon-apartments.html

I really don't think the torso was dumped in the trash, someone commented on my blog and provided these photos and it appears the torso was found at the base of the tree in the photo I posted on my tumblr of the left side of the apartment.

 

[SaMy]

http://www.macon.com/2011/06/30/1615815_a1616180/body-found-at-downtown-macon-apartments.html

http://www.macon.com/2011/06/30/1615815/body-found-at-downtown-macon-apartments.html

I really don't think the torso was dumped in the trash, someone commented on my blog and provided these photos and it appears the torso was found at the base of the tree in the photo I posted on my tumblr of the left side of the apartment.

WHY?!?! Why would you NOT try to hide the torso? Everything was making sense when I thought there was an attempt to hide it but now we're back to all the speculation about why a person would leave only a piece of their victim on display. And this confuses me if it's in fact true that there is potential DNA evidence on the torso.

 

[Darcyline]

Yeah I don't get not hiding it at all. Assuming the person wants to get away with it then it seems like every other choice is better-the wooded area, the trash bins, drive and dump it somewhere, etc. If I was sloppily trying to get rid of a body and panicking I have to think I would at least hide it a little and not just dump it out in the open. Such a bizarre case.

 

[WideOpen]

Thank you angelanalyzes for this info. This crime is horrific enough without the insertion of "held and tortured." I, too, thought it would be too dangerous for the perp to hold her in those apartments due to noise or any other complication that could pop up.
Is your theory that she was killed that Sat night?

I think the theory of her being moved from SM apartment to fridge/downstairs is complicated and messy. Too much chance of being seen or caught and just way too close for comfort. I think LE is covering bases and trying to exclude the building from being the crime scene. Of all the evidence collected I think we would hear of something solid LE would provide to the public to make them feel that they were making progress to ensure the safety of Macon.

This leads me to my next comment that they are looking at automobiles related to LS and SM. This gives me a clue that they might assume there is transportation of a live Lauren or the body of LS.
She said she got a phone call from a police detective about 1 a.m. July 1 -- while police were questioning McDaniel -- and the detective asked whether her son had “a mental problem,” if he was on medication or if he had another vehicle.

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2011/07/15/1632018/mom-asked-mcdaniel-if-relationship.html#ixzz1SBzWOizB

I think this crime would have been terribly hard to clean up. Keeping Lauren alive and taking her to another location for the murder seems like something to consider. Lauren was a tall woman and would her torso even fit in a refrigerator? Was there food in SM fridge when LE checked initially? Maybe SM removed his food or refrigerated items and stored them in the vacant apartment until he disposed of LS and then carted it all back up to his place. Was his refrigerator spotless whilst the rest of his living quarters was like a bachelor pad? SM is a bright guy, he either was covering this up in a frenzy or someone other than SM framed the perfect fall guy. It was mentioned early in the thread that the killer left the body in its location to taunt police-if she was killed in another location I would have to agree.

JMO

 

[Colonel Mustard]

I'll qualify this by saying that I don't practice criminal law in the state of Georgia, but in general, burglary is a specific intent crime. That means that the government has to prove that you broke in with the intent in your mind to commit a felony or a theft. If you broke in only to use the toilet, there is no burglary... even if you saw a diamond necklace or a condom on the dresser and decided to pick it up on the way out.

The law most certainly does work like that.

I did not see where SD admitted to burglary. Looking forward to your link.

The intent can be inferred from the evidence. Otherwise how could you ever prove what is in someone's thoughts. If he testifies that he went in for some other purpose then the court would be required to include a charge that he could be found guilty of the lesser included charge of criminal trespass. It doesn't mean he couldn't be convicted of burglary.

Where the testimony of the accused "if believed, would negate an element of the crime of burglary (entry with intent to commit a felony or theft)," the trial court must give a requested charge on criminal trespass as a lesser included offense of burglary. (Specifically, where the accused admits the unauthorized entry but denies the intent to commit a felony or theft) Huffman v. State, 153 Ga. App. 203 (2) (265 SE2d 603) (1980).


This doesn't mean that he can't be convicted of a burglary just because he says he didn't have the intent, only that the court must charge the jury on the lesser included offense. The jury (or judge in a bench trial) as the ultimate finder of fact, has the right to either believe his testimony or reject it. Keep in mind, though, that this requires a defendant to testify, in order to negate that element of the crime, where they wouldn't otherwise be required to testify.

 

[southern_comfort]

The intent can be inferred from the evidence. Otherwise how could you ever prove what is in someone's thoughts. If he testifies that he went in for some other purpose then the court would be required to include a charge that he could be found guilty of the lesser included charge of criminal trespass. It doesn't mean he couldn't be convicted of burglary.

Where the testimony of the accused "if believed, would negate an element of the crime of burglary (entry with intent to commit a felony or theft)," the trial court must give a requested charge on criminal trespass as a lesser included offense of burglary. (Specifically, where the accused admits the unauthorized entry but denies the intent to commit a felony or theft) Huffman v. State, 153 Ga. App. 203 (2) (265 SE2d 603) (1980).


This doesn't mean that he can't be convicted of a burglary just because he says he didn't have the intent, only that the court must charge the jury on the lesser included offense. The jury (or judge in a bench trial) as the ultimate finder of fact, has the right to either believe his testimony or reject it. Keep in mind, though, that this requires a defendant to testify, in order to negate that element of the crime, where they wouldn't otherwise be required to testify.

This isn't court. I'm not talking about whether he can be convicted of burglary.

This is you saying that SD confessed to burglary. Link please?

 

[WideOpen]

Based on the level of decomposition of the remains, Jones said it didn’t appear as though Giddings had been dead for a long time.
He wouldn’t comment on what tool authorities believe was used to dismember Giddings. Jones would only say that the remains were wrapped in some kind of material.


Read more: http://www.macon.com/2011/07/15/1632018/mom-asked-mcdaniel-if-relationship.html#ixzz1SCGdXhGW

This was new information to me. I would assume a plastic tarp of some kind. What kind of material would SM have access to. Have there been any reports of this anywhere else? There might possibly be quite a bit of evidence found on that material. Scary case.

 

[SmoothOperator]

Does anyone have any thoughts or possibilities of what type material we are talking about that the body was wrapped in.. I first thought of clothes, but dismissed soon thereafter as I don't believe that would have been labeled as "material"..

So, some other ideas I thought of were bed linens.. Which IMO at first glance could be mistaken as "material" especially if the linens had been cut or ripped and it were just a portion of the actual bed linen.. That IMO would easily be labeled as "material".. It also would make sense that after having sent it for FBi testing that Burns corresponding in email with the FBI relayed to him that upon testing this "material" it was found to be infact a particular or specific bed linen.. This
Would further make sense as to what led to then execute another SW on McDs apt where it's been alleged that possibly his bed linens were bagged and taken in as evidence a d sent to FBI for further testing in comparison with the bed linen/"material" that Lauren's torso was wrapped in.. Waiting to see if indeed there is a match found and therefor directly tying a key piece of evidence to McD(by proving the "material" was a bed sheet or atleast part of a bed sheet
And that this bed sheet matched a set of sheets found in McD's apt).. This could be atleast part of what the newest evidence sent off for testing could be as well as it would explain how a piece of evidence within the original 74 pieces sent to FBI was what pointed LE to search and seize more items from McD..

Does that sound plausible? Or does anyone have other opinions on what they believe the "material" is that the torso was wrapped in?

Lastly, I want to be sure I understand correctly.. Her torso was found(I know we now Are uncertain of the exact location)..but the torso was only wrapped in material? Is that correct? It was not even concealed in any type trash bag whatsoever?(I guess I have always just presumed it was in a trash bag..)

 

[southern_comfort]

Does anyone have any thoughts or possibilities of what type material we are talking about that the body was wrapped in.. ~snipped~

I don't think there is any way to know what the material could have been until we are told or it leaks, unless someone snapped pictures of it.

I wouldn't assume they are using the word "material" as a synonym for "fabric". I would think they are using it in the broader sense, and that "material" could be anything -- fabric, plastic.... really anything that you could wrap around something else.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

This isn't court. I'm not talking about whether he can be convicted of burglary.

This is you saying that SD confessed to burglary. Link please?

http://www.newscentralga.com/news/l...Prosecution-for-McDaniels-Case-125600708.html

"At this first appearance hearing, District Attorney Greg Winters said McDaniel had admitted to police in a voluntary statement that he had walked into other student's apartments and taken items."


Call it whatever you want - the police are calling it burglary and he's admitted that he went into the apartments and took things. BTW, I was only responding to your post discussing the burden of proof in a burglary case.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

http://www.macon.com/2011/06/30/1615815_a1616180/body-found-at-downtown-macon-apartments.html

http://www.macon.com/2011/06/30/1615815/body-found-at-downtown-macon-apartments.html

I really don't think the torso was dumped in the trash, someone commented on my blog and provided these photos and it appears the torso was found at the base of the tree in the photo I posted on my tumblr of the left side of the apartment.

Do you have any local law enforcement contacts?

 

[WideOpen]

Does anyone have any thoughts or possibilities of what type material we are talking about that the body was wrapped in.. I first thought of clothes, but dismissed soon thereafter as I don't believe that would have been labeled as "material"..

The material could be a curtain, slip cover, shower curtain.
I think I read speculation about investigators taking out linens or bed sheets. I dont have a link at the moment. I think this could be a very important piece of evidence.
JMO

 

[southern_comfort]

http://www.newscentralga.com/news/l...Prosecution-for-McDaniels-Case-125600708.html

"At this first appearance hearing, District Attorney Greg Winters said McDaniel had admitted to police in a voluntary statement that he had walked into other student's apartments and taken items."


Call it whatever you want - the police are calling it burglary and he's admitted that he went into the apartments and took things. BTW, I was only responding to your post discussing the burden of proof in a burglary case.

I'm responding to your post above where you seem appalled that SD's lawyer is saying he is not guilty of burglary because SD has already confessed to to burglary.

I'll just conclude that there is no link to support what you said. Thanks.

 

[SmoothOperator]

Thanks for your thoughts southern comfort.. Upon your now bringing up the point that "material" very likely could be in much broader terms than what I was thinking.. I think you are correct it could mean other non-fabric items..

This is why I like to put it out there and ask.. Yea, you're also correct that most likely none of is will have a clue what the material is unless LE leaks, states, or later testifies to what that material was.. But nonetheless it is an example of something that I find worthy of discussion and extremely relevant.. And just as I , personally was thinking along much more narrow lines of what material could be, you correctly pointed out that the possibilities were infact much much broader..

I do wonder tho still if possibly it were something similar to the situation I detailed of it being found that it was a bed linen, thus the reason that led to FBI contacting Burns of this info and his executing another search and seizure on McD's apt.. Possibly taking for testing McD's bed linens.. IMO that's plausible and would make sense with what we do know... That something from the originAl 74 pieces of evidence being tested.. Something found during that testing led them back to McD's to search and seize more of his property..

 

[PDUBBY]

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/local/article/135641/175/Owners-at-Giddings-Complex-Beefing-Up-Security



Interesting that his attorney claims he is not guilty of murder OR burglary. Really??? Why in the world would he lump those two claims into one sentence when the world already knows McD admitted to the burglaries. Hasn't he even investigated the statements his client made to the police before his arrest? Or maybe he has and depending on the circumstances surrounding the questioning, he thinks he could get McD's statements supressed. Just seems like a really bold move to make that claim given what we already know.

Any of the local attorneys have any knowledge of Buford's reputation as a criminal defense lawyer?

Because that's what defense attorneys do. His client could have been caught in the apartments with the possessions in his pockets, confessed to the police, and be wearing a t-shirt that says "I did it, yeah both things you're thinking about" and Buford would still be saying there is no evidence. Defense attorneys are not interested in truth, only a defense that can get them reasonable doubt.

 

[southern_comfort]

Thanks for your thoughts southern comfort.. Upon your now bringing up the point that "material" very likely could be in much broader terms than what I was thinking.. I think you are correct it could mean other non-fabric items..

This is why I like to put it out there and ask.. Yea, you're also correct that most likely none of is will have a clue what the material is unless LE leaks, states, or later testifies to what that material was.. But nonetheless it is an example of something that I find worthy of discussion and extremely relevant.. And just as I , personally was thinking along much more narrow lines of what material could be, you correctly pointed out that the possibilities were infact much much broader..

I do wonder tho still if possibly it were something similar to the situation I detailed of it being found that it was a bed linen, thus the reason that led to FBI contacting Burns of this info and his executing another search and seizure on McD's apt.. Possibly taking for testing McD's bed linens.. IMO that's plausible and would make sense with what we do know... That something from the originAl 74 pieces of evidence being tested.. Something found during that testing led them back to McD's to search and seize more of his property..

Somewhere it was reported that "soft" items were removed by LE from SD's apartment. Maybe bed linens or blankets, certainly.

Even if they can't find LG's DNA on relevant items belonging to SD, or SD's DNA on the material wrapped around the torso, then perhaps finding coordinating items in SD's possession (like a pillowcase matching a sheet that held the torso, or even fiber from it) could add evidentiary value. (Just speculation).

 

[southern_comfort]

Because that's what defense attorneys do. His client could have been caught in the apartments with the possessions in his pockets, confessed to the police, and be wearing a t-shirt that says "I did it, yeah both things you're thinking about" and Buford would still be saying there is no evidence. Defense attorneys are not interested in truth, only a defense that can get them reasonable doubt.

I thanked you for this post...

But want to point out again that SD wasn't caught this way. Not even remotely close. Confessing that you were in someone's apartment without their permission and that you left with items that belong to them is not confessing to burglary. Maybe SD's attorney can get SD's admissions in this regard thrown out somehow (and he should, if he can).... but he doesn't even need to.

All he needs to supply is a reasonable explanation for SD to have entered the apartments that doesn't involve theft or committing a felony.

 

[Knox]

Sorry guys I didn't even post the link to the quote.. Thanks for reminding me

Here's the quote again followed by the actual link this time:

IMO, perhaps the reason for returning and taking the refrigerator.

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

Based on the level of decomposition of the remains, Jones said it didn’t appear as though Giddings had been dead for a long time.
He wouldn’t comment on what tool authorities believe was used to dismember Giddings. Jones would only say that the remains were wrapped in some kind of material.


Read more: http://www.macon.com/2011/07/15/1632018/mom-asked-mcdaniel-if-relationship.html#ixzz1SCGdXhGW

This was new information to me. I would assume a plastic tarp of some kind. What kind of material would SM have access to. Have there been any reports of this anywhere else? There might possibly be quite a bit of evidence found on that material. Scary case.

Well, that would also slow decomp rate, I believe. Thanks for the update.

RE: the fact that the torso was not in the trash, but "on display" (just my interpretation, JMI!) at the base of the tree - I thought that in earlier discussions of the remains, a lot of people were speculating about the possibility that the killer was playing a game with investigators, or that it was fulfilling some other need for him. Maybe I am wrong - and if so, please correct me - but my impression is that the more utilitarian view of the disposal was a more recent development in the threads.

I also have some thoughts about SM's mother's questions about the possibility of a romantic relationship between him and LG. In the link above (in the quoted part of my post), the article specifies that she inquired about the possibility of romance with LG "or any other woman."

Here's the theme of conversations that I have had with each of my aunts during my time in grad school:

Me: [Talking about a guy in my lab, my department, my apartment complex.]
Aunt: Oh, is he cuuuute?
Me: Uh, I guess. /shrug
Aunt: He sounds like a nice guy! Why don't you go out with him sometime!
Me: Cuz I got no time!

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Because that's what defense attorneys do. His client could have been caught in the apartments with the possessions in his pockets, confessed to the police, and be wearing a t-shirt that says "I did it, yeah both things you're thinking about" and Buford would still be saying there is no evidence. Defense attorneys are not interested in truth, only a defense that can get them reasonable doubt.

I understand that. My initial point was that I didn't understand why he would lump the denial of the murder in with the denial of the burglaries. It obviously casts a cloud of doubt on his denial of the murder charge if he has previously admitted to the act for which he was charged with burglary. That's all.