GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 # 4

[ThinMan]

"Murder" -- maybe (and yes, that is my personal prediction that the perpetrator of Lauren Giddings' death will be charged with murder, capital murder, in fact, but that is speculation on my part). Everyone who uses the word "murder" is also speculating.

I want to remind everyone that we do NOT know, based on evidence that is public, that Lauren's death was a murder. Homicide, yes, but as several posters have pointed out upthread, there are multiple possible scenarios that support the idea that Lauren's death was manslaughter. IF, and it's a big IF and not my personal guess, the original killing was an accident or in the sudden heat of passion, then the cover-up attempt including the dismemberment, will not elevate the crime to murder status. Right, lawyers?

 

[SmoothOperator]

Regardless if LE have "probable cause" to arrest SM for the murder.. IMO it would be not wise to do with there still being a large chunk of the evidence that has not yet been given been given the results.. I could possibly understand LE going forward with an arrest before all results were in IF SM WERE STILL FREE, WALKING THE STREETS.. BUT HE IS NOT!!!!

So, with him already in custody LE knows they dont have to feel forced into making the arrest with only half the evidence back.. Thus starting the clock ticking in favor of the defense for a "speedy trial"..

So why in the world would they do that when they now have time on their side with SM already in custody.. Why create the complete opposite by charging him and thus giving the defense time on their side.. It's just not smart..

Bessie explained it best in her post upthread which i snipped and quoted below:

Once charged, the clock starts ticking. In a complex case, naturally, LE and the prosecutor will extend their prep time for as long as the law allows to ensure a solid case.

Here's part of your answer. More at the link.
Quote:
(a) Any person accused of a capital offense may enter a demand for speedy trial at the term of court at which the indictment is found or at the next succeeding regular term thereafter; or, by special permission of the court, the defendant may at any subsequent term thereafter demand a speedy trial.

http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-17/chapter-7/article-7/17-7-171/

 

[ThinMan]

Tonight's 6:00 WMAZ news

Despirito -- Can you tell us whether any of the DNA evidence results you have gotten back point to any DNA from McDaniels matches any of the DNA found on her body or in her apartment?

Burns -- I'm not going to say that, just yet.

Despirito -- Is it something you could say in the future?

Burns -- Yes.

Not up yet on the website: www.13wmaz.com/
The above quote is at about 6:07 in the newscast.

Laura Lynch Jones then reports that Burns said he may hold another press conference after the meeting next week with Winters. Further support for the expectation that SMD will be charged with this homicide next week.

 

[SmoothOperator]

Ding.. Ding.. Ding.. We may just have a winner..

Thanks Thinman for that update.. IMO it says it all.. If there is DNA linking SM to Lauren's torso and apt then LE infact have had their man all along..

And it can be argued til the cows come home that doesn't mean anything.. But my bets on that's exactly what it means.. Jmo, tho!!

 

[Colonel Mustard]

"Murder" -- maybe (and yes, that is my personal prediction that the perpetrator of Lauren Giddings' death will be charged with murder, capital murder, in fact, but that is speculation on my part). Everyone who uses the word "murder" is also speculating.

I want to remind everyone that we do NOT know, based on evidence that is public, that Lauren's death was a murder. Homicide, yes, but as several posters have pointed out upthread, there are multiple possible scenarios that support the idea that Lauren's death was manslaughter. IF, and it's a big IF and not my personal guess, the original killing was an accident or in the sudden heat of passion, then the cover-up attempt including the dismemberment, will not elevate the crime to murder status. Right, lawyers?

Correct, but I don't see it playing out that way.

 

[ThinMan]

Correct, but I don't see it playing out that way.

I'm guessing that you mean you don't see it playing out as anything other than murder. Neither do I. We just don't have the evidence or testimony to establish malice aforethought. I'm betting the MPD does, but I'm guessing.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

I'm guessing that you mean you don't see it playing out as anything other than murder. Neither do I. We just don't have the evidence or testimony to establish malice aforethought. I'm betting the MPD does, but I'm guessing.

Yes, exactly. I think a jury would have hard time finding anything less than murder given the horrific details of this crime. Given the fact that Lauren was physically fit and strong, I think that it is highly unlikely that her death occurred accidentally. Even if there was no malice aforethought, if her death occurred during the commission of a felony, (rape, robbery, aggravated assault, etc.) it would still be murder.

 

[tomkat]

:seeya:

I believe he meant ALL the evidence didn't have to be back. However, we, as a community, would expect the evidence thus far would be pointing towards SM if he is the killer. If they actually have the evidence so far showing him to be the killer, then charge him. Then the other evidence can be completed over time.

LOL, yes, that makes sense. Thank you.

 

[tomkat]

Tonight's 6:00 WMAZ news

Despirito -- Can you tell us whether any of the DNA evidence results you have gotten back point to any DNA from McDaniels matches any of the DNA found on her body or in her apartment?

Burns -- I'm not going to say that, just yet.

Despirito -- Is it something you could say in the future?

Burns -- Yes.

Not up yet on the website: www.13wmaz.com/
The above quote is at about 6:07 in the newscast.

Laura Lynch Jones then reports that Burns said he may hold another press conference after the meeting next week with Winters. Further support for the expectation that SMD will be charged with this homicide next week.

Didn't realize how crucial the small statements would be behind all that CRUMPLING PAPER. lol. Thanks for that!

 

[ThinMan]

Didn't realize how crucial the small statements would be behind all that CRUMPLING PAPER. lol. Thanks for that!

The statements quoted were not given while Burns was behind the podium shuffling papers into the microphones. They were a stand up interview in what looked like an office hallway.

 

[bessie]

Yes, exactly. I think a jury would have hard time finding anything less than murder given the horrific details of this crime. Given the fact that Lauren was physically fit and strong, I think that it is highly unlikely that her death occurred accidentally. Even if there was no malice aforethought, if her death occurred during the commission of a felony, (rape, robbery, aggravated assault, etc.) it would still be murder.

O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 (2010)
16-5-1. Murder; felony murder

(c) A person also commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.

http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-1/16-5-1/

 

[ThinMan]

Yes, exactly. I think a jury would have hard time finding anything less than murder given the horrific details of this crime. Given the fact that Lauren was physically fit and strong, I think that it is highly unlikely that her death occurred accidentally. Even if there was no malice aforethought, if her death occurred during the commission of a felony, (rape, robbery, aggravated assault, etc.) it would still be murder.

The "horrific details" that are public knowledge occurred AFTER the victim's death (we think) and do not bear on (i.e., are irrelevant to) the criminal intent of the perpetrator. That is, a killing in the sudden heat of passion (not in the commission of a felony) does not become a "murder" just because the perp then cuts up the body of the deceased.

Yes, I think accidental death is not likely (and, in fact, I would bet (guess) that the killing was premeditated). But it is entirely consistent with the known facts that the homicide was a sudden strangling following a rebuffed approach by an unwanted suitor (provided it's not a rape attempt). If that's what occurred, the dismemberment after death would not make the crime murder.

I am NOT suggesting this is most likely manslaughter (I think it's most likely that it's Murder-1), but I think it's important to remember that we do not have ANY evidence about how LG's death occurred. We don't even know, for example, if they have the victim's throat to detect whether strangulation was the cause of death and if so, whether it was by hand or ligature (garrote). We just don't know it's murder at this point.

 

[3doglady]

Tonight's 6:00 WMAZ news

Despirito -- Can you tell us whether any of the DNA evidence results you have gotten back point to any DNA from McDaniels matches any of the DNA found on her body or in her apartment?

Burns -- I'm not going to say that, just yet.

Despirito -- Is it something you could say in the future?

Burns -- Yes.

Not up yet on the website: www.13wmaz.com/
The above quote is at about 6:07 in the newscast.

Laura Lynch Jones then reports that Burns said he may hold another press conference after the meeting next week with Winters. Further support for the expectation that SMD will be charged with this homicide next week.

BBM We know that SM was in LG's apartment when her friends went in to search for her so it would be reasonable to find SM's DNA inside. When Burns answered "yes" I took it to mean: yes, he could answer the question of whether SM's DNA was there or not, in the future.
The video is up now.

 

[southern_comfort]

For those in the criminal law "know"...

What are the practical ramifications of naming a suspect? What are the arguments against doing so (assuming you have some reasonable evidence to support the idea that someone has committed a particular crime)?

 

[ThinMan]

BBM We know that SM was in LG's apartment when her friends went in to search for her so it would be reasonable to find SM's DNA inside. When Burns answered "yes" I took it to mean: yes, he could answer the question of whether SM's DNA was there or not, in the future.

Technically, it could mean only that Burns can (in the future) link SMD to LG's apartment, but I think it is far more likely that it means that (in the future) he expects to be able to link SMD to LG's body by DNA or to be able to tie his DNA into a particular crime scene in LG's apt.

Both Despirito and Burns know that SMD can account for being in LG's apt. She wasn't asking that and Burns wasn't answering that question.

I wish MAZ hadn't cut the video -- incidentally, it's now up on the web at www.13wmaz.com/ -- when they did. Burns has a very self-satisfied slight smile on his face (JMO) when he says "yes" to the last question.

 

[angelanalyzes]

The "oh please!" look was about serial killer rumor, which all by its little lonesome has made news. I did not see that as related to SM alone. The rumor of serial killers has taken on a life of its own and that is what bothered him. I don't think it is a serial killer. I think it is someone who knew LG. I am simply not convinced by funny hair and clothes and awkward public speaking that SM did it. At least, I am not convinced yet. I want to hear they have proof. Why? Because I want to know the right person is in jail. I want the killer off the streets whether it is SM or Donny Osmond. (Sorry, tried to pick someone random and he seemed the least likely killer in my mind)

As for in the Fox special. I did not see ANY eye rolling. I saw a man looking all around, most likely at people standing off to the side. As a former teacher, child & adolescent therapist, and a mom, I have seen more than my share of eye rolling.

I get a different impression all around.
I don't lean toward McDaniel as the suspect due to any kind of hair style or mannerisms, it's the opportunity he had and other facets of his personality along with police interest and circumstances of the crime that have me leaning toward him, not to mention the fact that he creepy crawled other people's apartments.
I actually like the way he looks, I could imagine finding him puppy-dog cute and asking him on a date, and some of the photos I've seen make him seem very gentle and sweet. But that doesn't mean anything unfortunately. :twocents:

 

[MaconMom]

Tonight's 6:00 WMAZ news

Despirito -- Can you tell us whether any of the DNA evidence results you have gotten back point to any DNA from McDaniels matches any of the DNA found on her body or in her apartment?

Burns -- I'm not going to say that, just yet.

Despirito -- Is it something you could say in the future?

Burns -- Yes.

Not up yet on the website: www.13wmaz.com/
The above quote is at about 6:07 in the newscast.

Laura Lynch Jones then reports that Burns said he may hold another press conference after the meeting next week with Winters. Further support for the expectation that SMD will be charged with this homicide next week.

Notice how he takes a few seconds to answer Despirito's first question. He knows good and well that he can't say "yes" to that question at this point in time, so why did he have to think about it? It's almost like he wants to insinuate SMD is guilty without coming out and saying it. He also appears to have a small smirk at the end of the clip, IMO. But, he seems to have odd facial expressions so it may not mean anything. Someone mentioned the word "smug" earlier and that's how he comes across to me. Again JMO.

 

[ThinMan]

I've listened to this interview again; now that it's up on the web and I think I missed a couple of words in my original transcription. I'll insert them in all CAPS in the quoted text below; I'll put one word to delete in [brackets]:

Tonight's 6:00 WMAZ news

Despirito -- Can you tell us [whether] IF any of the [DNA] evidence results you have gotten back point to any DNA from McDaniels [matches any of the DNA found on OR IN her body or ANYWHERE in her apartment?

Burns -- UMMM, I'm not going to say that, [just] RIGHT yet.

Despirito -- Is it something you THINK YOU could say in the future?

Burns -- Yes.

That's as close to a verbatim transcript as I can get it. View the website yourself and see whether you think Burns is only saying that in the future he expects to be able to prove that SMD was merely in LG's apartment. That's literally a possible meaning, but not very likely. When he says the final "yes" he looks like the cat that swallowed the canary.

 

[bessie]

I've listened to this interview again; now that it's up on the web and I think I missed a couple of words in my original transcription. I'll insert them in all CAPS in the quoted text below; I'll put one word to delete in [brackets]:



That's as close to a verbatim transcript as I can get it. View the website yourself and see whether you think Burns is only saying that in the future he expects to be able to prove that SMD was merely in LG's apartment. That's literally a possible meaning, but not very likely. When he says the final "yes" he looks like the bird that swallowed the canary.

Bird that swallowed the canary, maybe, but he states an unequivocal "yes". And no, I don't think he simply refers to the incidental presence of McD's DNA in LG's apartment.

 

[3doglady]

I've listened to this interview again; now that it's up on the web and I think I missed a couple of words in my original transcription. I'll insert them in all CAPS in the quoted text below; I'll put one word to delete in [brackets]:



That's as close to a verbatim transcript as I can get it. View the website yourself and see whether you think Burns is only saying that in the future he expects to be able to prove that SMD was merely in LG's apartment. That's literally a possible meaning, but not very likely. When he says the final "yes" he looks like the bird that swallowed the canary.

I agree that he did have a self satisfied smirk on his face at the end, which seems in contrast to the frustrated body language in the presser. I also think Burns really thinks SM killed her so maybe his frustration is just that he can't make an arrest until all the forensics are in writing. Personally I just have a hard time imagining SM being that aggressive. I hope that if SM is charged LE has indisputable forensic evidence to prove it.