GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #11

[Oriah]

Not sure what you mean regarding the DNA transfer - do you mind elaborating for me?
All I am saying is many posters on WS do not believe McD is the prep even with the evidence that has been found including the SoL posts, his interview , etc.. So, IMO, IF Lauren's body had NOT been found we would see an entire movement on this site of posters giving theories of what happened to Lauren as a MISSING PERSON. When this case goes to trial at least it will be a murder trial since her body was found. Without a body there is no murder and even with the her body it will be difficult to convict McD UNLESS the FBI returns some hardcore MCD DNA.

Hmmm.
I guess what I am trying to say is that DNA is not only something seen under a microscope- but is also a deposited scent. And that is helpful when certain types of violent crimes are committed, because there is typically a great deal of DNA to sift through. Does that make sense?

The fact that Lauren's body was found, provides for the possibily of any number of DNA profiles. Not just hers.

 

[bessie]

Bess, any chance I get I am on WS on Lauren's case, but I will try to check out Katelyn too. Thanks for the thread.
As for the dogs and further investigation on the McD case - IF Lauren had been a missing person - maybe LE would have investigated more than I thought possible. Even if the dogs had been brought in and hit in McD's apt what good would that do without a body? I do believe that without Lauren's body it would be very difficult to build a case against McD. Even here on the WS posts many posters who have followed this case need more evidence before they can say HE did it... So how much weaker would the case against McD be without Lauren's body? I have doubts he will be convicted with the evidence that has been found, and I would have zero hope if Lauren had been declared a missing person.

Keep in mind that we've seen only the preliminary evidence, and I agree it's sketchy. I feel sure LE has the right guy, but I couldn't vote to convict him on the evidence presented thus far. But we haven't seen the important evidence, like the autopsy report for instance. It might be very strong. Whatever evidence LE has will come to light in due time. Until then, we can't make a valid determination about the weight of the case against McD. So don't lose hope just yet.

As for trying a murder case without a body, it poses a challenge for LE, but not an insurmountable one by any means thanks to advances in forensics. Here's a site that everyone here should find interesting. It's definitely worth a look. The blog owner is a former U.S. prosecutor and a LE consultant who specializes in "no body" cases. He tracks these cases and provides a list of over 300 U.S. cases tried sans a body, the vast majority ending in convictions. He also offers a detailed list of "tips" for investigators and other information on missing persons and "no body" cases. It's good stuff, and a must read for regular "sleuthers".

http://www.nobodymurdercases.com/index.html

 

[bessie]

I am sorry if someone has posted this, but I have not had a chance to read through all of the posts so far. I was thinking about the cadaver dogs.
They may not have "hit" on the saw because they may only pick up the smell after the body is in the putrefication stage. Am I correct in saying that this is not within the first couple of hours or death?

I was thinking more about that and I found this article related to it.
See the paragraph concerning days Four to Seven:
http://www.dartsac.org/BodyDecomp.pdf

Check out the Oesterhelweg "Carpet Squares" study and others at this site.
http://pawsoflife.org/Library/hrd.html

 

[Givsmetheshivers]

That makes sense Bessie. I was in a MD's office and we could smell a lady's diabetic foot ulcer 30 minutes after she left...and I am not a dog with a super sniffer. That diabetic foot ulcer has its own decomposition going on. :crazy:

 

[Sandstorm]

Keep in mind that we've seen only the preliminary evidence, and I agree it's sketchy. I feel sure LE has the right guy, but I couldn't vote to convict him on the evidence presented thus far. But we haven't seen the important evidence, like the autopsy report for instance. It might be very strong. Whatever evidence LE has will come to light in due time. Until then, we can't make a valid determination about the weight of the case against McD. So don't lose hope just yet.

As for trying a murder case without a body, it poses a challenge for LE, but not an insurmountable one by any means thanks to advances in forensics. Here's a site that everyone here should find interesting. It's definitely worth a look. The blog owner is a former U.S. prosecutor and a LE consultant who specializes in "no body" cases. He tracks these cases and provides a list of over 300 U.S. cases tried sans a body, the vast majority ending in convictions. He also offers a detailed list of "tips" for investigators and other information on missing persons and "no body" cases. It's good stuff, and a must read for regular "sleuthers".

http://www.nobodymurdercases.com/index.html

Thank you for the link. Will check it out shortly.
I am hoping there is more DNA evidence that has not been disclosed. As for voting to convict McD now, knowing what has been disclosed about him, yes I could and would vote guilty because I do believe he is the one who committed this unspeakable crime against Lauren. I could not allow him to walk away a free man knowing that he took Lauren's life especially in the manner he did. Plus, I would never want him free in society - he is a totally broken and wired wrong. If he ever got away with this murder, rest assured Lauren's murder would be the beginning of his killing career. I would not want to be responsible for allowing him to go free knowing full well he is guilty and would kill again.

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

Hmmm.
I guess what I am trying to say is that DNA is not only something seen under a microscope- but is also a deposited scent. And that is helpful when certain types of violent crimes are committed, because there is typically a great deal of DNA to sift through. Does that make sense?

The fact that Lauren's body was found, provides for the possibily of any number of DNA profiles. Not just hers.

Maybe...

I am confused, however, because I understood that if a dog was following what we refer to as "my scent," they are following not my DNA per se, but lots of the usual things that we think of giving us odors - soap, sweat, hormones, deodorant/perfume/cologne, laundry products, chemicals that I have worked around that day, my cat, food, drugs, etc. Obviously some of those elements are DNA-dependent, but they aren't the actual base pairs. :waitasec: ....sigh, sorry I don't even know if I'm explaining my confusion clearly. :waitasec:

 

[sarx]

Wow, I go away for the wknd and come back and find myself all confused!

So, exactly how many dogs worked this case? Are those shots of the shepherd the same dog, cuz it looks like they may be two different dogs?

And I am with Oriah, the ball in the mouth makes me very very uncomfortable.

Actually there are a whole lot of things that are making me uncomfortable about this.

 

[sarx]

Maybe...

I am confused, however, because I understood that if a dog was following what we refer to as "my scent," they are following not my DNA per se, but lots of the usual things that we think of giving us odors - soap, sweat, hormones, deodorant/perfume/cologne, laundry products, chemicals that I have worked around that day, my cat, food, drugs, etc. Obviously some of those elements are DNA-dependent, but they aren't the actual base pairs. :waitasec: ....sigh, sorry I don't even know if I'm explaining my confusion clearly. :waitasec:

I think what Oriah was trying to say (and feel free to correct me Oriah) is that they are not trained on DNA (well, in a round about way they are, but that just makes it more confusing), but that what they do sniff out will be trace that may include DNA samples. Does that help or make it worse?

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

I think what Oriah was trying to say (and feel free to correct me Oriah) is that they are not trained on DNA (well, in a round about way they are, but that just makes it more confusing), but that what they do sniff out will be trace that may include DNA samples. Does that help or make it worse?

Yes, it helps. Was I basically right about what they smell - or am I way off?

 

[bessie]

Wow, I go away for the wknd and come back and find myself all confused!

So, exactly how many dogs worked this case? Are those shots of the shepherd the same dog, cuz it looks like they may be two different dogs?

And I am with Oriah, the ball in the mouth makes me very very uncomfortable.

Actually there are a whole lot of things that are making me uncomfortable about this.

The five images from the apartment complex are the same dog.

 

[SmoothOperator]

Ok for those of us not in the know of all things re: search dogs.. When someone has a chance will you explain a little to us about what these areas of concern are with the dog(s) that were used here in this case.. What is "wrong" or was done "wrong" in the cadaver/HRD dog's searching for areas that human remains had been in direct contact?

Because how I understood it to be used as an investigative tool and not going to be likely used as evidence In the actual trial.. I understood it to be that it had already served it's purpose in aiding in the beginning stages of this investigation and that was its main purpose.. It pointed them a direction of where to further search and investigate with other means and technologies.. And that's what it did.. So I guess I don't understand why what has already served it's purpose, as in it obviously worked and led the investigators to areas that were further tested and led to their indeed being found human DNA OF a deceased person to be found in areas they were led to by the dog search.. So, if the dog alerted to areas positively.. Which then naturally led to investigators further testing areas and items located in those areas alerted on by the dog.. And those FBI criminal lab tests showed that indeed there was found to be DNA of the deceased, Lauren..well.. I'm just not understanding??

Because that to me shows the dogs accurately did their job.. Infact I don't think there could be any more valid proof that a HRD dog did their job and did it well.. Than for FBI lab results to prove that items in that area the dog alerted were found to to absolutely have human remains present..

I don't understand the big problem when it's alerts are validated in such a direct way..
Jmo, tho..

 

[sarx]

The very short answer is that when evidence comes into play, then the means by which that evidence was found, how it was handled, etc all comes under scrutiny and the defense will look for a way to tear it apart so as to get that evidence thrown out.

Dogs come under intense scrutiny, in part I think because they can't testify themselves. It is a constant battle in the courts in terms of admissibility.

I can't speak as to what will happen in Georgia, but out here on the west coast these findings/the dogs and handlers would be ripped to shreds. Does it mean that the dog didn't find something? Nope, but in the court that's not the only thing that counts.

 

[sarx]

Not sure if that made any sense or not. I'm beat, I'll check back in hopefully in the morning and see if I can better use my words, lol.

 

[bessie]

Not sure if that made any sense or not. I'm beat, I'll check back in hopefully in the morning and see if I can better use my words, lol.

It makes perfect sense. We're all familiar with Fourth Amendment issues and protection from illegal search and seizure. I'm just not sure many of us are familiar with these issues in regard to search dogs. Any light you and Oriah can shed on the subject will be greatly appreciated.

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

:raincloud: Wishing a safe, dry-ish day to all the "Northeastern" sleuthers. My mom is a local emergency management coordinator, & she's been getting warnings about flooding in our area. I had to stop at the front door to the biomed research bldg this morning to carry my stuff into lab before I parked because I didn't want my bookbag to get waterlogged...bad enough that I am! Take care & be safe! :raincloud:

 

[bessie]

What a mess, Jane. T.S. Lee dumped tons of rain on us over Labor Day weekend. This new storm is stronger. Prayers for everyone to remain safe and dry. rayer:

 

[oldercitizen]

Ok for those of us not in the know of all things re: search dogs.. When someone has a chance will you explain a little to us about what these areas of concern are with the dog(s) that were used here in this case.. What is "wrong" or was done "wrong" in the cadaver/HRD dog's searching for areas that human remains had been in direct contact?

Because how I understood it to be used as an investigative tool and not going to be likely used as evidence In the actual trial.. I understood it to be that it had already served it's purpose in aiding in the beginning stages of this investigation and that was its main purpose.. It pointed them a direction of where to further search and investigate with other means and technologies.. And that's what it did.. So I guess I don't understand why what has already served it's purpose, as in it obviously worked and led the investigators to areas that were further tested and led to their indeed being found human DNA OF a deceased person to be found in areas they were led to by the dog search.. So, if the dog alerted to areas positively.. Which then naturally led to investigators further testing areas and items located in those areas alerted on by the dog.. And those FBI criminal lab tests showed that indeed there was found to be DNA of the deceased, Lauren..well.. I'm just not understanding??

Because that to me shows the dogs accurately did their job.. Infact I don't think there could be any more valid proof that a HRD dog did their job and did it well.. Than for FBI lab results to prove that items in that area the dog alerted were found to to absolutely have human remains present..

I don't understand the big problem when it's alerts are validated in such a direct way..
Jmo, tho..

I agree with your opinion, thats just my opinion though. What would or could have been interesting would be if they had brought in a SAR dog to see if SM left a trail of his own to the trash container at the law building that the HR dog got a hit on. Now that would take some explaining on SM part, IMO.

 

[Oriah]

It makes perfect sense. We're all familiar with Fourth Amendment issues and protection from illegal search and seizure. I'm just not sure many of us are familiar with these issues in regard to search dogs. Any light you and Oriah can shed on the subject will be greatly appreciated.

Here's the thing. If a search dog(s) alert is in question- and in the advent of a search and/or seizure- the K9 handler is accountable because as sarx pointed out, dogs cannot speak for themselves. (Well, they can, but ya gotta know how to speak dog. )

'Speaking' for your dog in court- whether it's to obtain a search warrant or otherwise- means proving that your dog has a verifiable history based on consistancy of specific alerts and accurate hits. If you can't prove that for whatever reason- such as not enough history on the dog, history of inaccurate or non-holding alerts, etc ... then you are kinda SOL and your dogs' 'testimony' (aka, yours) will be useless. Which is why standardization and history alert is so valuable. Because it is impossible to establish a mean without.

And it's kind of a huge shame- because as sarx also pointed out, it doesn't mean the dog didn't 'find' what it was supposed to find. It just means the dog and handler will likely not be useful to prosecution in testimony, should a case that is heavily based on dog hits go to court. And therein lays the discerning of illegal search and/or seizure.

Does that make any sense?

 

[bessie]

I agree with your opinion, thats just my opinion though. What would or could have been interesting would be if they had brought in a SAR dog to see if SM left a trail of his own to the trash container at the law building that the HR dog got a hit on. Now that would take some explaining on SM part, IMO.

It would have made sense to have a dog track McD's scent. I wonder, however, if any evidence it led to would be inadmissible because he hadn't been charged with the crime at the time. Would it be considered a "rush to judgment"? On the surface, it doesn't seem to be any different than doing a background check or "sniffing" around and asking people questions about a suspect. But I'm not sure, and Sarx has me thinking a lot about this aspect. Does the law require LE to obtain consent from the subject of a canine search? Are there legal limitations on using dogs to trace a POI's footsteps? If so, what are they? Looks like it's time to do some research. nline:

 

[Oriah]

Hmmm... Does this help answer your question, bessie?

http://www.masscops.com/f105/search-seizure-trained-dog-k9-controlled-substances-firearms-62764/
1. The governing law. The motion judge measured the affidavit under the standard of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-156, 171-172 (1978). In that decision the United States Supreme Court prescribed a process by which a defendant could challenge the validity of an affidavit supporting a search warrant and generating evidence against him. First, he must make a substantial preliminary showing that the affidavit contained one or more false statements made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth and providing information necessary to the finding of probable cause. That initial showing, by papers or otherwise, entitles the defendant to an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 171-172. If, at the evidentiary hearing, the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the intentionally or recklessly false statements proved necessary to the finding of probable cause and the issuance of the warrant, the warrant becomes void and the products of the search excluded from trial as violative of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Id. at 155-156.



What a mess, huh?