GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 # 6

[Sandstorm]

I'm with you, SS. The mom doesn't see how damning his stories are, because she's gulping down everything he says in her desire to believe him. My questions re: the hacksaw:

1) If he knew so much about blades - and we know that he enjoyed collecting them - wouldn't you think that he would know the difference between a blade used for cutting wood and a hacksaw?

2) Also, wouldn't you think that on a student's income, that if he was going to cut one branch, that he'd purchase a little $6 saw with a curved blade and wooden handle, rather than spending $18 - $30+ on a Stanley hacksaw?

3) On that same student's income, wouldn't you think that he would take that darn defective hacksaw back to the store to get his money back, rather than chucking it into the garbage? He was frugal enough to keep the sleeve it went into.

4) I'd like to know if the receipts/video record show that the hacksaw was purchased "months ago." If so, I see premeditation. If not, I see more lies.

JMO!

Even if he did buy a hacksaw in April to cut tree limbs, whose to say he didn't purchase another one?

The mother's statement is foolish, and I really wish she'd stop talking. The hacksaw wrapper found in his apartment left doubt about whether McD purchased it. Some members here have speculated that the "real killer" might've planted it. While I'm confident LE knows the truth, Mrs. McD now has confirmed for the public that her son did, in fact, purchase a hacksaw. Regardless of what she claims was the purpose, she has helped to dispel the suspicion that he was set up.

The Tale of the Hacksaw:

What a tale she weaves when Mrs. McDaniel's explains the Hacksaw:

1. Yes it is true, my son bought the hacksaw to cut the tree
2. However, he threw it away months ago
3, The real killer took it from the trash
4. The real killer used the hacksaw to frame my son (i.e., the RK killed Lauren then put it back in the storage room)
5. My son has been framed

My guess is the reason McD grew to live a life in which he could get away with anything is because of this very type of manipulation from his Mom.
She is jumping into the situation that she really knows nothing about except what her son has told her. I would say this is how his while life has been while growing up in that family.
I bet that his Mom took his word when he was growing up and never questioned him. She sided with him which is a huge mistake because Mcd has never had to be ACCOUNTABLE for his actions. I have seen parents do this over and over with their children.

"I didnt do it" says the child.
"OK that's good, I didnt think you did." says the parent.

The parent never questions or talks with their child or the other child involved to find out the TRUTH of what really happened when the incident occurred, be it an accident or play confrontation.

So what does the child grow up thinking?
" I CAN DO WHAT EVER I WANT TO DO WITHOUT REGARD FOR ANYONE ELSE."

I really do believe that we are witnessing the parental roles that have been happening for the past 25 years in the McDaniel household.
Where is Dad?
Silent.
Where is Mom?
Trying her best to take control of the situation and convince the rest of the world that she knows the truth.
Where is the son?
Caught in the lies that he has always been able to get away with all of his life....
until now.

IMO, in a nutshell, what I have attempted to explain here is the very reason Lauren is no longer with us and why McD is where he is today.

Glenda McDaniel says her son, Stephen, admits buying the hacksaw that authorities found traces of slain-and-dismembered Mercer University law graduate Lauren Giddings’ DNA on.

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.

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2011/08/06/1656682/accused-murderes-mom-says-her.html#ixzz1UGzBLbnE

 

[SmoothOperator]

Just as Knox just stated ^above^.. No matter what MM's rep has been in some way impacted... and due to this, is this not the crux of all slander and libelous lawsuits(along with of course that it'll obviously easily be proven that these allegations are 100+% FALSE)..

I mean really.. This has got to be a slam dunk slander/libelous lawsuit if I've ever seen one.. Don't see their being any money to be won thru waging what is always an expensive battle with any lawsuit.. But just for the sheer principle alone would one not file such a suit??

** an added after thought.. Say if the MM were to IMMEDIATELY File a slander/libel suit against McD(and who knows maybe even mom as well, since she is the one spreading it thru the media).. But if MM were to move forward with that suit now and case was brought before a court with him easily winning.. Would not or could not the evidence from the outcome of the slander/libel suit be brought in as evidence in the murder trial??.. What I mean is if MM were to have the court rule in his favor, essentially proving thru a court of law that SM's fabricated account and allegations against MM are purely FALSE.. therefor could not that ruling be brought in by the state to further disprove his defense of MM as killer??

Anyone know or am I way off base with this??

 

[cluciano63]

Just as Knox just stated ^above^.. No matter what MM's rep has been in some way impacted... and due to this, is this not the crux of all slander and libelous lawsuits(along with of course that it'll obviously easily be proven that these allegations are 100+% FALSE)..

I mean really.. This has got to be a slam dunk slander/libelous lawsuit if I've ever seen one.. Don't see their being any money to be won thru waging what is always an expensive battle with any lawsuit.. But just for the sheer principle alone would one not file such a suit??

** an added after thought.. Say if the MM were to IMMEDIATELY File a slander/libel suit against McD(and who knows maybe even mom as well, since she is the one spreading it thru the media).. But if MM were to move forward with that suit now and case was brought before a court with him easily winning.. Would not or could not the evidence from the outcome of the slander/libel suit be brought in as evidence in the murder trial??.. What I mean is if MM were to have the court rule in his favor, essentially proving thru a court of law that SM's fabricated account and allegations against MM are purely FALSE.. therefor could not that ruling be brought in by the state to further disprove his defense of MM as killer??

Anyone know or am I way off base with this??

Not to keep citing the Anthony case, but I would think that a civil suit would have to wait in line, until after the criminal suit...i.e. Zeneida G.

 

[PDUBBY]

Just as Knox just stated ^above^.. No matter what MM's rep has been in some way impacted... and due to this, is this not the crux of all slander and libelous lawsuits(along with of course that it'll obviously easily be proven that these allegations are 100+% FALSE)..

I mean really.. This has got to be a slam dunk slander/libelous lawsuit if I've ever seen one.. Don't see their being any money to be won thru waging what is always an expensive battle with any lawsuit.. But just for the sheer principle alone would one not file such a suit??

** an added after thought.. Say if the MM were to IMMEDIATELY File a slander/libel suit against McD(and who knows maybe even mom as well, since she is the one spreading it thru the media).. But if MM were to move forward with that suit now and case was brought before a court with him easily winning.. Would not or could not the evidence from the outcome of the slander/libel suit be brought in as evidence in the murder trial??.. What I mean is if MM were to have the court rule in his favor, essentially proving thru a court of law that SM's fabricated account and allegations against MM are purely FALSE.. therefor could not that ruling be brought in by the state to further disprove his defense of MM as killer??

Anyone know or am I way off base with this??

If they were both civil cases, you would be correct. It's called res judicata. However, the burden of proof is completely different in a criminal case so I don't think that could be used to prove anything in the murder trial.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

I don't know I agree that MM's reputation/image has been affected.
I think any sensible person would see through these ridiculous accusations.

And I feel pretty confident that once they have the commitment hearing,
there will be enough evidence made public there will be no "reasonable" doubt left for anyone.

 

[McMunn]

Just as Knox just stated ^above^.. No matter what MM's rep has been in some way impacted... and due to this, is this not the crux of all slander and libelous lawsuits(along with of course that it'll obviously easily be proven that these allegations are 100+% FALSE)..

I mean really.. This has got to be a slam dunk slander/libelous lawsuit if I've ever seen one.. Don't see their being any money to be won thru waging what is always an expensive battle with any lawsuit.. But just for the sheer principle alone would one not file such a suit??

** an added after thought.. Say if the MM were to IMMEDIATELY File a slander/libel suit against McD(and who knows maybe even mom as well, since she is the one spreading it thru the media).. But if MM were to move forward with that suit now and case was brought before a court with him easily winning.. Would not or could not the evidence from the outcome of the slander/libel suit be brought in as evidence in the murder trial??.. What I mean is if MM were to have the court rule in his favor, essentially proving thru a court of law that SM's fabricated account and allegations against MM are purely FALSE.. therefor could not that ruling be brought in by the state to further disprove his defense of MM as killer??

Anyone know or am I way off base with this??

Excellent thought, Smooth! I bet that Colonel Mustard could answer this one.

 

[pearl]

Hey, Knox, do you think that little smile and look toward Winters was a joke passing between them? "'What role did the media have in this case?' Well, it gave us an 11+ minute interview with the perp!" And that video just keeps on giving.

Do ya'll think SM's video interview will be allowed at trial? I'm thinking of the Casey Anthony jail video of when she learned of Caylee's body being found that wasn't allowed as evidence at her trial.

 

[SmoothOperator]

I hate to inform Mrs. McDaniel that...

A) Her dogging of LE as if they did something "wrong", nefarious, or illegal by threatening her son that they would seek the death penalty for the murderof Lauren.. They did NOTHING wrong, illegal, or nefarious here..

And..

B) I hate to tell her that not only was it not wrong what they said to her son, but it was no idle threat, either!! .. It is a written in stone fact that for what he is charged with, Felony Murder can absolutely without a shadow of a doubt be penalized with a death sentence..

She really, really needs to shut her pie hole.. As I have said I have sympathy for this woman(tho to be completely honest it is waning).. I full well realize no mother wants to be faced with the truth that their son brutally slaughtered and desecrated a beautiful human being with a bright&successful future ahead of her.. But honestly, as I said that sympathy is waning because of her actions, behaviors, and entire attitude(again I fully realize the extrem difficulty this woman is presently enduring).. But that in no way IMO excuses her lashing out and dragging into the hellish nightmare a completely innocent bystander who is in no way involved whatsoever.. But rather has the misfortune of being a fellow law student and neighbor to SM, her son.. Wrong place at the wrong time.. And that's it!!! For yer to take an innocent bystander who without her blabbing incessantly to the media of the bold faced obvious lies spewing from her son's mouth.. Without her having done so this innocent person is able to go on about his innocent life.. Itis her directly(just as well as her son directly) the two of them IMO are responsible for the suffering this innocent man is now enduring..

Look I get it!! Misery loves company!!! And she full well knows she's within the very depths of misery at this point and what I see happening is her behaving in an extremely reckless, careless, and with absolutely no regard for an innocent PERSON's well being she is dragging others into those depths of misery that she, herself is in.. Tho I may understand the reasons behind these behaviors and actions of Mrs. McDaniel.. It still however IMO does in no way whatsoever excuse her behavior amd actions.. Which as I said earlier IMO deserve to have legal action immediately taken against her for choosing to willingly continue these reckless, careless, and with no regard for innocent bystanders.. Behaviors and actions for which she is presently wreaking havoc on this innocent young man's entire life as well as his future..

I'm sorry that, IMO is not ok.. It is not excusable.. And it should be put to a halt immediately with whatever steps necessary in order for her to have that pie hole sealed SHUT!!

Jmo, tho!!

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

Excellent thought, Smooth! I bet that Colonel Mustard could answer this one.

I'd be interested to hear his take on this as well.

I'm wondering, for slander, wouldn't you have to show that this was the intent?
In this case, couldn't it be argued this isn't the case?
Again... I have no legal background, so I'm just guessing and asking out of curiosity

 

[Knox]

I don't know I agree that MM's reputation/image has been affected.
I think any sensible person would see through these ridiculous accusations.

And I feel pretty confident that once they have the commitment hearing,
there will be enough evidence made public there will be no "reasonable" doubt left for anyone.

I don't know that MM would agree with you on that? JMO

I said I don't believe the story, but there are some out there in comment-land giving it legs.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

I don't know that MM would agree with you on that? JMO

I said I don't believe the story, but there are some out there in comment-land giving it legs.

True. But those people in "comment-land" are obviously more ignorant of the facts that even we currently are.
And I wouldn't consider these people to be "sensible" eace:

 

[PDUBBY]

I don't know I agree that MM's reputation/image has been affected.
I think any sensible person would see through these ridiculous accusations.

And I feel pretty confident that once they have the commitment hearing,
there will be enough evidence made public there will be no "reasonable" doubt left for anyone.

GA recognizes per se defamation for false accusations of crimes (which means you don't have to prove an injury to reputation- it is assumed).

 

[PDUBBY]

I'd be interested to hear his take on this as well.

I'm wondering, for slander, wouldn't you have to show that this was the intent?
In this case, couldn't it be argued this isn't the case?
Again... I have no legal background, so I'm just guessing and asking out of curiosity

Not intent, just negligence on the speaker's part. Here are the elements (you can see them on http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/georgia-defamation-law):

1. a false statement about the plaintiff;
2. communication of the statement to a third party in the absence of a special privilege to do so;
3. fault of the defendant amounting at least to negligence; and
4. harm to the plaintiff, unless the statement amounts to per se defamation. See Smith v. Stewart, 660 S.E.2d 822, 828 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).

 

[Knox]

True. But those people in "comment-land" are obviously more ignorant of the facts that even we currently are.
And I wouldn't consider these people to be "sensible" eace:

I'll agree to disagree with you on damage to his reputation thus far. :lamb:

 

[Indy Anna]

Next time you pass a Bradford Pear tree, make it a point to look at how small the limbs are. Doesn't matter how tall or how old the tree is. (Most don't live past 30 years anyway). Bradford Pears have small limbs. Unless you had to cut down the whole tree by the main trunk, a hacksaw would work just fine. I just cut a bunch of limbs off of the Bradford Pear that is too close to my driveway not long ago. The only reason a hacksaw would bend and twist is if you aren't holding it correctly and putting consistent pressure on what you are cutting. If he can't operate a hacksaw properly to cut a tree limb then he would have no more physical strength than an 8 year old kid, IMO. His ridiculous stories will surely be the cause of his demise.

I'm wondering if that's part of his defense; he wasn't strong enough to cut a measly broken limb off a pear tree, so he would surely not be strong enough to dismember a body.

 

[Pig]

PDUBBY was correct about the standard of proof being different, smooth. Even if this MM were to win in a slander suit, the standard of proof in a civil suit is a preponderance of the evidence standard v. in a criminal suit where it is beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard in a criminal case is much more stringent, so theoretically it would require more proof.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

Not intent, just negligence on the speaker's part. Here are the elements (you can see them on http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/georgia-defamation-law):

1. a false statement about the plaintiff;
2. communication of the statement to a third party in the absence of a special privilege to do so;
3. fault of the defendant amounting at least to negligence; and
4. harm to the plaintiff, unless the statement amounts to per se defamation. See Smith v. Stewart, 660 S.E.2d 822, 828 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).

Well, this certainly would fall under Defamation Per Se, seeing as she's accused him of murder.

Georgia recognizes that certain statements constitute defamation per se. These statements are so egregious that they will always be considered defamatory and are assumed to harm the plaintiff's reputation, without further need to prove that harm. Under Georgia statutes, a statement is defamatory per se if it:

* charges another person with a crime punishable by law;
* charges another person “with having some contagious disorder or with being guilty of some debasing act which may exclude him from society;” or
* refers to the trade, office, or profession of another person, and is calculated to injure him.

See Ga. Code Ann. §51-5-4.

 

[Knox]

I apologize if this has been posted and discussed already, but I missed this story and video.

Golba calls the area where the bin is located, "in McDaniel's comfort zone."

He says, "From everything we've done, we believe the probability of her being put in that dumpster is much greater."

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/article/138507/175/Lauren-Giddings-Family-Continues-to-Search-for-Remains

 

[currcat]

PDUBBY was correct about the standard of proof being different, smooth. Even if this MM were to win in a slander suit, the standard of proof in a civil suit is a preponderance of the evidence standard v. in a criminal suit where it is beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard in a criminal case is much more stringent, so theoretically it would require more proof.

Yes, the standards are very different, but I think what I understand the original question to have been, was:

If, MM were to file and win a civil defamation suit, couldn't the evidence of that finding/ruling be presented to a jury in the criminal case if and when SM's defense were to point in the direction of MM as the actual perp.

I could be wrong, but thats what I understood the question to be.

And as someone else posted upthread, I too believe the civil case would be postponed until AFTER the criminal case had been tried... or at least the defense would make every effort to have that case put off! JMO

 

[bessie]

The Tale of the Hacksaw:

What a tale she weaves when Mrs. McDaniel's explains the Hacksaw:

1. Yes it is true, my son bought the hacksaw to cut the tree
2. However, he threw it away months ago
3, The real killer took it from the trash
4. The real killer used the hacksaw to frame my son (i.e., the RK killed Lauren then put it back in the storage room)
5. My son has been framed

My guess is the reason McD grew to live a life in which he could get away with anything is because of this very type of manipulation from his Mom.
She is jumping into the situation that she really knows nothing about except what her son has told her. I would say this is how his while life has been while growing up in that family.
I bet that his Mom took his word when he was growing up and never questioned him. She sided with him which is a huge mistake because Mcd has never had to be ACCOUNTABLE for his actions. I have seen parents do this over and over with their children.

"I didnt do it" says the child.
"OK that's good, I didnt think you did." says the parent.

The parent never questions or talks with their child or the other child involved to find out the TRUTH of what really happened when the incident occurred, be it an accident or play confrontation.

So what does the child grow up thinking?
" I CAN DO WHAT EVER I WANT TO DO WITHOUT REGARD FOR ANYONE ELSE."

I really do believe that we are witnessing the parental roles that have been happening for the past 25 years in the McDaniel household.
Where is Dad?
Silent.
Where is Mom?
Trying her best to take control of the situation and convince the rest of the world that she knows the truth.
Where is the son?
Caught in the lies that he has always been able to get away with all of his life....
until now.

IMO, in a nutshell, what I have attempted to explain here is the very reason Lauren is no longer with us and why McD is where he is today.

Glenda McDaniel says her son, Stephen, admits buying the hacksaw that authorities found traces of slain-and-dismembered Mercer University law graduate Lauren Giddings’ DNA on.

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.

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2011/08/06/1656682/accused-murderes-mom-says-her.html#ixzz1UGzBLbnE

I'm inclined somewhat to agree with your post. I take exception, however, with the quoted lines from the news article. Beside the fact that the first statement ends in a preposition (a personal peeve, especially in a published work), it is misleading. Mrs. McD does not admit her son purchased the saw on which LG's DNA was found.

Authorities also found hacksaw packaging for a saw made by Stanley Tools in his apartment, according to Stephen McDaniel’s arrest warrant...

She said he bought the saw to cut and remove a fallen Bradford pear-tree limb at the Georgia Avenue complex after April thunderstorms spawned tornadoes as they swept through Macon.

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2011/08/06/1656682/accused-murderes-mom-says-her.html#ixzz1UHERRVeJ

​

Per Mrs. McD, her son purchased the hacksaw that went with the packaging found in his apartment. It has not been established if the saw he bought after the storm is the one apparently used in the crime.

As for the second line in the article, it's also poorly written and misleading. The sentence infers McD told his mother that the MM took the saw from the garbage. Yet, later in the article, we learn Mrs. McD merely speculated about the MM taking the saw from the trash.

She contends the worker could also have plucked from the garbage the hacksaw McDaniel had bought in the spring at a nearby Walmart.

​

There's a difference between "could have" and "must have". Those subtle differences will be overlooked by the general reading public, twelve of whom will be jurors if the case goes to trial. Additionally, this is not a direct quote, so we can't be certain what Mrs. McD actually said. Mrs. McD is doing her son no favors by talking, but rather is serving to impede justice. As long as she continues to speak, her words will be twisted by reporters, and the waters further muddied.