GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #15 *appeals denied*

[Backwoods]

Since it is beginning to look like there REALLY is going to be a trial before all that long, I'll pose a question. Kind of an informal poll, if you will:

Do you think Stephen McDaniel will take the witness stand?

I've been pondering this for quite a while, as I'm sure some of the rest of you have. I keep going back and forth (no surprise there, ha!) but right now I'm leaning toward thinking that he will.

 

[bettiepageturner]

Since it is beginning to look like there REALLY is going to be a trial before all that long, I'll pose a question. Kind of an informal poll, if you will:

Do you think Stephen McDaniel will take the witness stand?

I've been pondering this for quite a while, as I'm sure some of the rest of you have. I keep going back and forth (no surprise there, ha!) but right now I'm leaning toward thinking that he will.

I think he will, too. He's always attempted a hands-on approach due to his law-graduate status, as we saw in his lawyers' request to let him leave prison once a week to work on the case with them at the courthouse.

Plus he strikes me as the "could totally defend myself" Ted Bundy variety of... person. Very manipulative, down to every word he spoke since Lauren was last seen. :twocents: I can see him wanting to use this to his advantage at trial.

 

[Backwoods]

I think he will, too. He's always attempted a hands-on approach due to his law-graduate status, as we saw in his lawyers' request to let him leave prison once a week to work on the case with them at the courthouse.

Plus he strikes me as the "could totally defend myself" Ted Bundy variety of... person. Very manipulative, down to every word he spoke since Lauren was last seen. :twocents: I can see him wanting to use this to his advantage at trial.

LOL, I knew someone was gonna mention Ted Bundy!

I won't start making that comparison unless/until he starts firing lawyers and taking over his own case.

He does seem to take a real interest in the process -- but can't say I really fault him for that. I think I would, too, if I was in his place, even if I didn't have a J.D. degree (which I don't).

 

[pearl]

Since it is beginning to look like there REALLY is going to be a trial before all that long, I'll pose a question. Kind of an informal poll, if you will:

Do you think Stephen McDaniel will take the witness stand?

I've been pondering this for quite a while, as I'm sure some of the rest of you have. I keep going back and forth (no surprise there, ha!) but right now I'm leaning toward thinking that he will.

MOO is most definitely yes. Flashback to the tv interview at the beginning. I also think his lawyers will not want him to.

 

[Wondergirl]

Since it is beginning to look like there REALLY is going to be a trial before all that long, I'll pose a question. Kind of an informal poll, if you will:

Do you think Stephen McDaniel will take the witness stand?

I've been pondering this for quite a while, as I'm sure some of the rest of you have. I keep going back and forth (no surprise there, ha!) but right now I'm leaning toward thinking that he will.

Good question. He knows he shouldn't. But, it's all about him. 50/50 bigtime

 

[bessie]

:yes: :yes: :yes:


Regarding the earring, you guys really have no faith in the Bibb County prosector's office, do you? Do you really believe they'd enter just any old earring into evidence without being able to establish that it belonged to Lauren. Or at least, that she owned a very similar pair, which witnesses and/or photography will attest to. That would be risky. Consider if Sonya's suggestion is true, and the earring belonged to his mom, or to his sister. I can just imagine the true owner jumping up in the courtroom screaming, "that's mine! that's mine! I still have the matching piece at home." Pleeeeease tell me they're smarter than that.

BW, I believe DV mentioned the jewelry because there were rumors circulating about a lost piece of jewelry. Maybe he got confused. The family told him an earring was missing, and remembered it as "necklace". Just a thought.

 

[MaconMom]

:yes: :yes: :yes:


Regarding the earring, you guys really have no faith in the Bibb County prosector's office, do you?

After the "Mickey Finn" post, my confidence in them is pretty low.

 

[Backwoods]

:yes: :yes: :yes:


Regarding the earring, you guys really have no faith in the Bibb County prosector's office, do you? Do you really believe they'd enter just any old earring into evidence without being able to establish that it belonged to Lauren. Or at least, that she owned a very similar pair, which witnesses and/or photography will attest to. That would be risky. Consider if Sonya's suggestion is true, and the earring belonged to his mom, or to his sister. I can just imagine the true owner jumping up in the courtroom screaming, "that's mine! that's mine! I still have the matching piece at home." Pleeeeease tell me they're smarter than that.

BW, I believe DV mentioned the jewelry because there were rumors circulating about a lost piece of jewelry. Maybe he got confused. The family told him an earring was missing, and remembered it as "necklace". Just a thought.

The thing is, I'm not so sure that the earring WILL figure into evidence at the trial.

I didn't see the live stream of the part of the hearing that dealt with the evidence from the car, just a few snippets of it. And I know that, after the judge's ruling, the media has picked up on "earring" as something in the car that will be allowed. I take it the judge ruled basically to allow all the car evidence in.

But heretofore, from the wording of the motions (the ones we got to see) and some earlier media reports, it seemed to me that the defense, in trying to get the car evidence thrown out, was focusing more on the ponchos:

...In another motion, McDaniel's attorneys also requested that any evidence found in McDaniel's car, specifically four rain ponchos be excluded from court. Two ponchos were found inside the glove compartment and two inside the trunk. All of them were in original packaging. McDaniel's defense team stated that evidence is irrelevant....

http://www.41nbc.com/news/local-news/24138-mcdaniel-s-defense-file-motions-to-drop-evidence

Now, it certainly could be that this was a strategy of the defense -- to highlight items (ponchos still in the packaging) it felt had the best shot at getting their motion to exclude the car evidence granted (and perhaps items they are not all that worried about, at that) while not mentioning the "smoking earring", so to speak, which they would not want to draw especial attention to. But I'm not convinced of that, either -- especially without having read all the motions or seen all the hearing discussion of them.

And I do think -- if it's just a random earring and not Lauren's -- that the prosecution MIGHT still put it in, especially if they've determined it doesn't belong to Stephen or his family, etc., and/or if they know who it belongs to and feel certain that person won't pop up at the trial as a witness or gasping out in court, "That's MINE!" They (prosecution) might just say to the jury -- we found this earring -- could be Lauren's. No, it wouldn't be strong evidence, but they still might throw it in, IMO, just kind of as filler.

It was named in the search warrants and I'm sure raised a lot of eyebrows (did mine), so the reporters are well aware of the earring. Maybe that's why they're mentioning it in recent coverage of the trial.

Then again -- it MAY have been specifically discussed at the hearing; I just don't know.

 

[MaconMom]

If the earring belonged to Lauren, wouldn't her DNA be on it? I'm not that familiar with how DNA works but a quick google search shows several cases of where DNA found on earrings has been able to connect them to their owners.

 

[Backwoods]

If the earring belonged to Lauren, wouldn't her DNA be on it? I'm not that familiar with how DNA works but a quick google search shows several cases of where DNA found on earrings has been able to connect them to their owners.

I'd sure think it almost certainly would be -- unless maybe it had been supercleaned or something.

 

[bettiepageturner]

LOL, I knew someone was gonna mention Ted Bundy!

I won't start making that comparison unless/until he starts firing lawyers and taking over his own case.

He does seem to take a real interest in the process -- but can't say I really fault him for that. I think I would, too, if I was in his place, even if I didn't have a J.D. degree (which I don't).

Oh yeah, I wasn't trying to be disparaging towards SM (the comment was more about Ted Bundy than him). Say what you will about him, but he's definitely highly intelligent and law savvy... which makes this upcoming trial a lot scarier. MOO

 

[Backwoods]

I haven't yet had time to read it all (17 pages), but looks like an interesting pdf document at the link:

To testify or not to testify—that is the question: Comparing the advantages and disadvantages of testifying across situations

http://www.apcj.org/documents/5_2_3%20Jones.pdf

I think this study focused some on defendants who had prior convictions and on the risk of having those brought up during cross-examination -- which isn't the case here, AFAIK -- but still looks like some good food for more general thought.

 

[Wondergirl]

Oh yeah, I wasn't trying to be disparaging towards SM (the comment was more about Ted Bundy than him). Say what you will about him, but he's definitely highly intelligent and law savvy... which makes this upcoming trial a lot scarier. MOO

He is also a psychopath and I think it will be clear at trial. Many a lunatic have tried to defend themselves. It is always a lawyers best intertest to hire another to defend them, right? There is a good reason for that. He will dig his own jail grave. There MUST be justice for Lauren, her family and friends.

 

[bessie]

We're not going to bash DV. Regardless of our opinions of him, and his relationship with LG, he's been cleared. As her fiance, he comes under the "victim friendly" rule. So please be careful with your remarks.

Also, please do not respond, and do not chastise other members. Report the post by using the alert feature, or send a pm to a mod.

Thanks.

 

[bessie]

If the earring belonged to Lauren, wouldn't her DNA be on it? I'm not that familiar with how DNA works but a quick google search shows several cases of where DNA found on earrings has been able to connect them to their owners.

Yes, DNA should be on the earring. Whether the quality is sufficient to establish a profile is the question. As you found out, DNA on earrings is used to establish identity in cases of missing persons and disaster victims, and it's also a factor in many criminal cases. One that comes to mind is Rodney Alcala. If I recall correctly, two earrings played into that case. One was identified by the victim's mother, but also matched a pair Alcala owned himself. A second earring was matched through DNA to a different victim. BTW, he was another serial killer who, like Bundy, chose to represent himself, as did Joseph Naso.

Back to LG and the earring, I really wish there was a video of the hearing to hear the discussion. If there's no DNA, and no way to firmly establish it belonged to LG, then I'll be surprised if it's presented even as minor circumstantial evidence. JMO

 

[Backwoods]

Yes, DNA should be on the earring. Whether the quality is sufficient to establish a profile is the question. As you found out, DNA on earrings is used to establish identity in cases of missing persons and disaster victims, and it's also a factor in many criminal cases. One that comes to mind is Rodney Alcala. If I recall correctly, two earrings played into that case. One was identified by the victim's mother, but also matched a pair Alcala owned himself. A second earring was matched through DNA to a different victim. BTW, he was another serial killer who, like Bundy, chose to represent himself, as did Joseph Naso.

Back to LG and the earring, I really wish there was a video of the hearing to hear the discussion. If there's no DNA, and no way to firmly establish it belonged to LG, then I'll be surprised if it's presented even as minor circumstantial evidence. JMO

bbm: Me, too, bessie. There are a lot of things I just got snippets of and don't feel real comfortable discussing because I didn't get the "whole picture".

I emailed WMAZ a few days ago asking if they could please make the hearing video available somehow, but I didn't receive any reply. (They did post their version of the "interrogation clip" part of the hearing around that time, so maybe that was my answer.) Anybody else wanna email 'em?

Coverage on the hearing WAS better this time, but there are still frustrating gaps.

And I wish we would hear more about the decision on HRD dogs that I mentioned earlier. I am positive I SAW the coverage on WMAZ, DA Cooke was on there talking about the "why" of it. But I have not seen The Telegraph or anyone else cover it. I think the decision was reached BEFORE the hearing, so it wouldn't, probably, have come up at the hearing.

 

[Backwoods]

Agnes Scott Set to Host First Lauren T. Giddings Memorial 5k

The athletic department at Agnes Scott College will host a 5k run on April 5, 2014 in honor

Agnes Scott alumna Lauren Giddings. The race will begin on campus at 9 a.m., will run through the Oakhurst neighborhood and finish on the Agnes Scott track. ...​

more at: http://athletics.agnesscott.edu/sports/sball/2013-14/releases/20131220ydmhg2

 

[Backwoods]

In a "farewell" piece on the retiring Judge Brown, The Telegraph/macon.com quotes him a bit more on Lauren's case:

Brown wraps up 18 years as judge

...One prominent case moving from Brown to Simms is that of Stephen McDaniel, who is accused of killing a fellow law student.


“It dawned on me that this could be one of those cases where whoever handles it could be dealing with it five, seven, 10 years from now,” Brown said, “and I’m not going to be around that long.” ...

more at: http://www.macon.com/2013/12/30/2856022/brown-wraps-up-18-years-as-judge.html

 

[Backwoods]

Some further thoughts from/on Judge Brown, from the same link:

...Though he’s stepping down from the bench, Brown, 72, isn’t done with law. He plans to start working in civil law for the Anderson, Walker & Reichert firm, though a start date hasn’t been set.

Brown’s term expires in 2016, but he considered not running for re-election last time, he said. He said he’s in good health, but he just got weary of the job. ...

...As an attorney he will, in a way, have more power -- the power to reject a case that isn’t a good fit.

“Here, you don’t have that option. The law is a fascinating business, but it can be cruel and brutal,” Brown said.

Sometimes that meant that “you have to do things that are outside your wisdom range, where you don’t know what you’re doing is right, and if you don’t know what you’re doing is going to harm somebody, it’s really difficult. There’s no way to avoid that. That’s just the game we play.” ...

http://www.macon.com/2013/12/30/2856022/brown-wraps-up-18-years-as-judge.html

 

[Backwoods]

Interesting developments afoot -- a bit hard to tell just what is going on!

McDaniel attorneys file motion to exclude computer evidence

Stephen McDaniel’s defense attorneys filed a motion Tuesday in Bibb County Superior Court to exclude evidence seized from the murder suspect’s computer and storage devices. ...

...According to the court filing, soon after Giddings’ 2011 death, defense attorneys didn’t get any reports indicating “that there was any evidence of any relevance seized from these storage devices, other than some photographs of Lauren Giddings alleged to have been taken from her computer” and stored on the computer of McDaniel, a law school classmate. ...

...Hogue and Buford say that an initial GBI report written by a computer analyst didn’t reveal any evidence related to murder or to Giddings. Investigators looked on the computer’s hard drive and searched McDaniel’s web-browsing history.

However, the attorneys said in the document that the defense was given information Friday that McDaniel’s hard drive contained “a number of potentially incriminating matters.” They said a court would still need to determine if it was McDaniel who created the computer files....

...“We have no idea why it took so long,” Buford said. “This case has been going on for a long time. We’re not blaming the prosecution. Once they became aware of it, they turned it over.” ...

...(District Attorney) Cooke, who took office a year ago, said he didn’t know why some of the material wasn’t previously considered to be important in 2011. ...

...The motion doesn’t cover child that was discovered on McDaniel’s computer. McDaniel was charged in a separate indictment for the , which already has been ruled inadmissible in the murder case.

more at: http://www.macon.com/2013/12/31/2857179/mcdaniel-attorneys-file-motion.html