GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #10

[Backwoods]

New story's up at macon.com:

QUOTE:
"‘A light from the shadows’

"The slaying of Lauren Giddings has raised an almost impossible question. It's one the accused himself has asked, and one that police, lawyers or a trial may never quite answer.
A verdict, should one present itself, may never be enough."




read more at:
http://www.macon.com/2011/08/28/1680624/a-light-from-the-shadows.html

 

[SouthernKate]

And here it is:

http://www.macon.com/2011/08/28/1680624/a-light-from-the-shadows.html

I'm going to take time to read through and look at the pics and offer my thoughts in a bit.

 

[bessie]

The question is this, and the 25-year-old McDaniel -- in his now-notorious sidewalk chat with reporters in the hours after Giddings’ dismembered remains first turned up -- has raised it himself: “Why would anyone do this?”

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2011/08/28/1680624/a-light-from-the-shadows.html#ixzz1WIGvpL9k

In high school he was voted runner-up for "Most Likely to be Famous". Infamous is more like it.
​

 

[tomkat]

[/B] About the part you address directly to me:I am "playing both sides", as you call it, because I am not totally convinced that SM did it, pure and simple, and because if he did do it, and he goes to trial, a jury will be considering "both sides" -- so it seems natural to me, in my own pondering, to look at the strengths and weaknesses of all kinds of theories. I don't see the sense in picking a side and then bending everything through the lens of that viewpoint (unless I was the prosecutor or the defense attorney).

I don't particularly favor a "framing" theory of any kind. (I'm not sure if all the DD stuff in your post was aimed directly at me?? If so --why??) Really, whoever did it, I don't think any "original plan" was to frame anybody --JMO.I don't have a wife; I am female. I don't have young children. No, I wouldn't "take someone in," as you speak of, unless I knew them and trusted them at least somewhat. I don't know SM.

I am not 100 percent sure of anything in this case.

Your last paragraph: Well, again, I don't have a wife, but I do have a daughter who is a few years younger than Lauren was. I cannot imagine the pain of her family. If I were in a similar position as you describe -- again, just can hardly go there in my mind. But as to how I would feel about the cadaver dog hit, I'm pretty sure I would give it weight, and then I would also be thinking about whatever other evidence I knew about that seemed important to me, my own impressions of the people involved, lots of things, I'm sure, would be swirling around in the pain in my heart and mind.

You would definitely want to make damn sure LE had the right person too, I bet. I would!! So you must look at all anges, there are plenty who have been convicted in the recent past that have now been found not guilty. So the real perp walked!!! Not something we want here!! BUT Some people on here get upset if you dont' conform to only their way of thinking, which makes this site miserable sometimes. But I agree with your thinking, however I do think he is guilty, but it's commical (for lack of a better word) to see the defense at work. LE have a tough job, like doctors, they get blamed for everything. I know they are doing their best but I dont feel like they've done good enough, I guess they aren't attorneys, I can't believe they didnt' know about other forums where SOL was posting. I would like to have seen them take the cadavar dogs into MORE apts, LE seems to always find ONE clue/hunch and run it to death, never looking outside the box after that. I would just like to see them cover all bases before trial but whatever is done is done now, people have moved out and no more evidence left in those apts. Not sure what else they may have on file that we dont' know about. They sure didnt' want to discuss anything further when Buford tried to bring up other current evidence or lack thereof, than what was initally found when filing for commitment hearing, makes you think they have NOTHING else...............McD plan may work after all. His methods if caught stated in other forum what he'd do IF HE was caught, and seems to be following through; "blank stares, keeping silent", if he's a true psychopath, this is still part of the game still. My friend said the weightloss is to gain sympathy, McD did mention in othe forum about if having sympathetic jury, and who that frail can do anything, so maybe a jurors will be sympathetic to that......

 

[SouthernKate]

This article just gives more glimpses into Lauren's character and the wonderful nature that she had, humanizing her even more for those of us who never met her, and making it all that much more tragic.

Wonderfully written and leaves me with a feeling of sadness at how much was taken.

And also with questions. What happened to McD to turn him into a murderer? By all accounts, he has been odd, but always deemed as polite. Everyone that knew him from his past seems very surprised that he is capable of this. What changed? Was his outward demeanor toward others just an act?

Interesting tidbit about him being the runner up for most likely to be famous. Famous for all the wrong reasons now.

 

[Givsmetheshivers]

about the bolded: You are thinking, then, that something will yet come in from the FBI to bolster the case? I'm thinking there are still some results not in, but not sure -- uncertain of when the last time was we heard that from LE.

I am 99.9% sure that what LE has from the FBI makes LE and the FBI comfortable with the fact that McD is the right person behind bars.

Do I think it has been released to the public? No. I don't think we have seen anything yet. If LE was alone on this case, then I would be a little leary.

I think that if the FBI were not convinced, then LE wouldn't stop investigating other people.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

Court of public opinion does not trump a court of law
-- Charles E. Richardson, for the Editorial Board
http://www.macon.com/2011/08/28/1679245/court-of-public-opinion-does-not.html

 

[bessie]

August 28, 2011

A Light from the Shadows

Giddings was a social superstar, the kind of person folks flock to. She could wear pink in the straight-laced realm of power lawyerdom and pull it off like Reese Witherspoon’s preciously ambitious character in “Legally Blonde.”

McDaniel, an awkward, deep thinker, who took four years of Latin in high school to get a jump-start on the mental gymnastics of law school, is said to have been “a perfect gentleman” as a teen and, in his 2004 graduating class at Parkview High, was voted runner-up “Most Likely to be Famous.”

​

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

the DA's gotta step it up!!!

Good post

I'm curious if the DA will bring in other prosecutors? How does that work? Anybody

 

[SmoothOperator]

Agreed. Smooth's points about the criminal justice system sometimes producing bad results when a celebrity buys "dream team" defense lawyers may generally be true -- and we can all think of such cases -- but I don't think that's what's happening in our town.

Floyd Buford is a very competent lawyer, a good one, but nobody would even call him the best criminal defense lawyer in Macon. So, that general concern surely doesn't apply here.

Just wanted to say I appreciate this above post and to hear this is an actual relief.. I was so dreading that with it having media attn that it could turn into the 3 ring circus we see many of the trials that garner media attn.. So, it is comforting to hear that his disposition is not that of a "showy"one..

With the tiny bit I've seen and few words I've heard from him I really had nothing to go by yet as to what his disposition is..

Thanks again for sharing this info

 

[PsychoMom]

The biggest issue I see them having with the jurors in regards to the dogs is the fact the dogs were not presented the opportunity to search other apartments at the complex. If the dogs had been taken to other apartments, then it might have a bigger bite to a jury.

McD's attorneys will only have to point out, "Hey, every apartment they took these dogs to got a hit. No apartment did NOT have a hit. I wonder if they would have hit at your homes just as easily." Little Juror #4 starts thinking about it. How those dogs just seem to hit on every place they go. Maybe they aren't that reliable. And BAM! You have reasonable doubt.
~
And, someone correct me if I am wrong. Didn't the detective say they had nothing from the FBI connecting McD to the murder? I still haven't slowed down enough to watch the video. I do seem to recall this being stated repeatedly, though.

 

[PsychoMom]

Another question -- Did we ever get a consensus on how many master keys were out there, and who all had them? I have heard various claims, from only 2-3 people had keys, to the complex accidentally gave them out to multiple residents as their own key, to an unknown number of keys given to unknown number of people (thinking about repairmen, service people, various residents, construction crews, etc.). This article peeked my curiosity about the issue.
http://www.41nbc.com/news/local-news/7020-charges-against-mcdaniel-stand-case-heads-to-grand-jury

~snip
Buford also questioned Patterson about the master key. According to Buford, several master keys are in circulation. Patterson confirmed multiple people do have a master key.
....

These are questions a jury will have. I can see too many of these unanswered questions leading to an acquittal.

 

[kimberly clark]

Good post

I'm curious if the DA will bring in other prosecutors? How does that work? Anybody

Mr. Winters has any of the DA's office available to assist him and did, in fact, have Gary Wood at the table with him on Friday for the preliminary hearing.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

McDaniel Commitment Hearing Uncut
http://videos.macon.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=108495641&item_index=1&all=1&sort=NULL

Around 29:00 in this video, Buford questions Patterson about the roommate's testimony
regarding SM talking about how he would commit the perfect murder.
Given the questions Buford asks, it would seem he is aware of the details of this conversation,
or possibly the details of the actual statement the roommate gave to LE.
Buford is very confident in his questioning, and asks very open questions.
"What did he tell you specifically?"
"What did he say was the perfect murder?"
"Did he say how he would overpower them?"

When Patterson answers "With chloroform."
Buford immediately repeats it back to him, like "ok... no problem"
Then, wanders off asking questions about what date/time the conversation took place....
Then, comes back and repeats this chloroform-based murder plan back to him, and asks:
"Did you find in the search of Mr. McDaniel's apartment any chloroform"
Patterson, looking like a whooped puppy, replies "no".

The whole time, Patterson acts like he knows what's coming and knows he's about to have whatever he says refuted.
The whole exchange seems odd to me.

Now... what I really find odd is that at this point Buford simply leaves this issue and moves on to other questions.
If this is Buford's big chance to discover everything he can about the DA's evidence,
then at this point, he has the perfect opportunity to ask:
"Did the toxicology report on the torso detect any evidence of chloroform?"
I can't see any way the judge could have sustained an objection to this question at this point.
Yet he doesn't ask? WHY?

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

McDaniel Commitment Hearing Uncut :waitasec:
http://videos.macon.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=108495641&item_index=1&all=1&sort=NULL

At 39:01, Buford was apparently asking Patterson if something had come back from the FBI.
I'd like to know what that was.
And I'd like to know why they cut it out of the video.

I'd like to know what they cut out after Buford asked for a minute
and before we see him at his table looking through his notes.

AND when we're taken from looking at Buford going through his notes
abruptly into the Judge speaking in mid-sentence.

A rather meticulous transcript of this:

(@39:01 - video was cut/edited - comes in with Buford in mid-question.)
Buford:
...back from Quantico?

Winters: (objection)
Judge:
The State's objection is that the question's irrelevant and immaterial. Do you wish to respond?

Buford:
I do, your honor. I don't mind the District Attorney objecting, but I'd like to finish my question before he objects. What I was going to ask, your honor, was that - Does he have any evidence that's come back from Quantico, which was submitted by the Macon Police Department, that would form the basis for probable cause for the issuance of this warrant? Anything at all?

Winters: (objection)
Judge: (overruled)
Buford:
Thank you, your honor. You may answer the second question. Anything else?

Patterson: (No audible response given - body language is a reluctant 'no')

Buford:
So, what you've testified today is the basis for getting the arrest warrant for this murder case. Is that correct detective?

Patterson: Yes.

Buford: May I have a minute, your honor?
Judge: Of course.
(@40:57 - video is again cut/edited)

(Buford's at his table, looking at his notes)

(@41:05 - video is again cut/edited - comes in with Judge mid-sentence)
Judge: ...redirect.
Winters:
Do you have any evidence from the FBI or the GBI that would help give you probable cause - specifically from the GBI that would help give you probably cause to go forward?

Patterson: Yes.

Winters: (to Judge) That's all I have.
Judge: You may re... cross.

Buford:
What... What probable... May I ask what probably cause - basis for that are you talking about detective?

Winters: (objection)
(back and forth...)

Buford:
As I understand the question, Mr. Winters asked you "(Do) you have other information that formed the basis of probable cause in this case?". Is that the question?

Patterson: Yes.
Buford: Well, what other information would that be detective?

Patterson:
We have... things were discovered on the electronic items that were taken from the Accused's apartment.

Buford: OK. What would that be?
(objection, etc...)

Judge: Does it relate to the charge of murder which is before the court today?
(Patterson asks if he can discuss it with Winters. Judge says no.)
Patterson:
Does it relate to the warrant today? No Does it relate to the case overall? Yes.

Judge:
OK. We're not concerned today with the case overall. We're concerned with the charge of murder. Therefore the objection is sustained and I believe the question's been answered.

Buford:
OK. Well, to make sure I'm just clear... If it doesn't relate, you're saying, to the... to the arrest warrant for murder. But, it does relate to the murder charge which is before the court?

Patterson:
It... It doesn't relate to the... it... it relates to the overall investigation for the murder of Lauren Giddings. Yes. But it doesn't relate to the warrant itself. No.

(Judge decides the question's been answered and brings the hearing to an end)

 

[tomkat]

The biggest issue I see them having with the jurors in regards to the dogs is the fact the dogs were not presented the opportunity to search other apartments at the complex. If the dogs had been taken to other apartments, then it might have a bigger bite to a jury.

McD's attorneys will only have to point out, "Hey, every apartment they took these dogs to got a hit. No apartment did NOT have a hit. I wonder if they would have hit at your homes just as easily." Little Juror #4 starts thinking about it. How those dogs just seem to hit on every place they go. Maybe they aren't that reliable. And BAM! You have reasonable doubt.
~
And, someone correct me if I am wrong. Didn't the detective say they had nothing from the FBI connecting McD to the murder? I still haven't slowed down enough to watch the video. I do seem to recall this being stated repeatedly, though.

MY MOST MEMORABLE memory of that hearing was when Patterson said that the video was what was their first clue to McD and that he was distraught, hmm, distraught over WHAT?.anyone could ask...........and i think they have nothing concrete with his DNA on it or HER dna in his apt or on anything he touched. Same as anthony trial AND we have no cause of death.

Only circumstantial evidence. I cringed each time patterson clammed up or looked disgruntled. I hope they have more coming in from forensics or whereever and more they just aren't sharing for now.

 

[ThinMan]

Around 29:00 in this video, Buford questions Patterson about the roommate's testimony
regarding SM talking about how he would commit the perfect murder.
Given the questions Buford asks, it would seem he is aware of the details of this conversation,
or possibly the details of the actual statement the roommate gave to LE.
Buford is very confident in his questioning, and asks very open questions.
"What did he tell you specifically?"
"What did he say was the perfect murder?"
"Did he say how he would overpower them?"

When Patterson answers "With chloroform."
Buford immediately repeats it back to him, like "ok... no problem"
Then, wanders off asking questions about what date/time the conversation took place....
Then, comes back and repeats this chloroform-based murder plan back to him, and asks:
"Did you find in the search of Mr. McDaniel's apartment any chloroform"
Patterson, looking like a whooped puppy, replies "no".

The whole time, Patterson acts like he knows what's coming and knows he's about to have whatever he says refuted.
The whole exchange seems odd to me.

Now... what I really find odd is that at this point Buford simply leaves this issue and moves on to other questions.
If this is Buford's big chance to discover everything he can about the DA's evidence,
then at this point, he has the perfect opportunity to ask:
"Did the toxicology report on the torso detect any evidence of chloroform?"
I can't see any way the judge could have sustained an objection to this question at this point.
Yet he doesn't ask? WHY?

Buford doesn't need to find out whether chloroform was used. He knows it was not. OR, he knows that it was used and that it was disposed of prior to the search of SMD's apartment. Either way, there is no point in his asking because he doesn't have anything to learn. If chloroform WAS used in fact, then he certainly doesn't want to ask this question because a positive answer would prove the DA's point -- that the roommate's story about SMD's "plan" was exactly what happened to LG.

Buford has already made his point that the story told by TM (the roommate) 7 years ago is NOT the same scenario that occurred to LG and his primary purpose was to get the magistrate to disregard the TM story as contributing to probable cause to believe SMD did it.

You got to admire Buford for knowing how to quit while he's ahead.

 

[tomkat]

More about what yesterday's hearing didn't provide:

Nothing about any fiber evidence connecting LG with SMD's apt, SMD's car or SMD's clothing. That would not be troubling by itself, because LE only has to convince the magistrate that there is probable cause to believe SMD killed LG.

But, there is that troubling admission from Detective Patterson that nothing other than LG's DNA on the saw from Quantico (the FBI) supports the probable cause. I think this means that all the fiber evidence sent to the FBI came up a total zero.

No mention of the refrigerator from Apt. #1. One might hope that both LG's blood and a bit of SMD's DNA (hair?) might have been found in the fridge. Again, nothing from the FBI, said Patterson.

Thoughts?

The prosecuter seemed not to want to bring up ANYTHING except what was initially filed in regards to this hearing. Stated something about his not being a trial. So it seemed he didnt' want to create any DOUBT to the judge in order to have bond denied and charge SMD. So that would seem to imply that there was NOTHING back yet or nothing found in the fridge. Otherwise would he have stated that more forensics were being tested and are currenlty awaiting the results???

So if more is discovered as they continue the investigation, (how long can they hold SmD? or even if a jury finds this to be enough, SMD could be indicted which means there is what? More Probable cause? More Evidence, circumstanial and otherwise? How is it different than what is happening now?

 

[ThinMan]

<snipped>

A rather meticulous transcript of this:

Wow! Thanks for the transcript, SS~! If you're not careful, we'll make your our Official WS Court Reporter.

The passage you transcribed here is the one I've posted about above in Post # 278:

"I've concluded that he IS talking about the child porn. As I mentioned above the fact that SMD possessed child porn does not make it more likely that he killed LG (thus not relevant to the warrant's probable cause). But, it is likely that some courts might admit the child porn evidence on the theory that it somehow is probative of SMD raping LG. That would make it relevant to the murder, if the final theory LE adopts in the indictment is felony/murder and the underlying felony is rape." For more, refer to #278.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

The detective later testified that McDaniel&#8217;s undergraduate freshman-year roommate at Mercer in 2004-2005, Thaddeus Money, who now lives in South Carolina, told police that McDaniel &#8220;used to talk about the &#8216;zombie invasions&#8217; and how he would commit the &#8216;perfect murder,&#8217; what he would do to cover up the murder.&#8221;

http://www.macon.com/2011/08/27/1679493/judge-rules-that-case-against.html

I wanted to point out that the above underlined statement in this article is incorrect.
If you watch the video of the commitment hearing, at around 28:45,
Detective Patterson testified that TM was SM's roommate during SM's first year of law school
and states he believes this was 2008.
It can be confirmed that TM graduated from Mercer in 2009.

I have notified the Telegraph of this error, so we'll probably see a correction soon.