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

[Backwoods]

Link, from macon.com, to pdf of the motion about computer evidence as described in post above:

http://media.macon.com/smedia/2013/12/31/14/38/1pSeMK.So.71.pdf#storylink=relast

 

[Backwoods]

Lawyers: McDaniel’s virginity no proof of ‘twisted sexual desire’

...on that late-June day two and a half years ago, investigator MacDonald apparently struck up a conversation with McDaniel. MacDonald asked the recent law school grad if he had a girlfriend.


McDaniel said he didn’t. Then he apparently told MacDonald that he was a Christian and a virgin, and that he intended to remain a virgin until he married.


As innocuous a revelation as it may seem, with McDaniel set to go on trial next month his defense team doesn’t want talk of his virginity being heard by a jury.


That’s because references to McDaniel’s virginity, according to a motion filed by his lawyers this week, may be part of the state’s theory about why he allegedly killed. ...


...In another motion filed Thursday, the attorneys argued that testimony about two hairs investigators found in the refrigerator of an apartment beneath the one where Giddings lived should be excluded....


...Buford and Hogue contend that as of last week “no report has been produced to the defense concerning the two hairs ... which were submitted to the FBI crime lab.” ...

read more at: http://www.macon.com/2014/01/02/2860065/lawyers-mcdaniels-virginity-no.html

 

[Backwoods]

McDaniel wants more evidence thrown out of murder trial

...The defense filed three motions this week, adding to the over 50 filed throughout the past two years.

One of them claims statements McDaniel made to investigators about being a virgin should not be brought up during the trial. ...

...Defense lawyer Franklin Hogue says he believes prosecutors will try to make the connection that McDaniel murdered Giddings because "of some sort of twisted sexual desire for her." He also says he anticipates they will use an FBI behavioral analyst to support this. ...

...Another motion says investigators found two hairs inside the refrigerator of the vacant apartment below Giddings'. Hogue says he has not yet received any reports from forensic tests on the two hairs. He says, with about a month until the trial, receiving any reports now would put the defense at a disadvantage....

...Hogue says introducing evidence of the hairs without testing would also be unfair to McDaniel, because that would require jurors to speculate whether they believe the hairs could have come from Giddings or McDaniel....

...These motions will be discussed during a scheduled hearing January 6th. They're also expected to discuss an internet post allegedly written by McDaniel. Bibb District Attorney David Cooke says the post describes a murder by cutting a victim's throat with a knife. Cooke says he plans to bring in FBI and GBI computer analysts to prove the post was written by McDaniel.

more at: http://www.13wmaz.com/story/news/local/macon/2014/01/02/mcdaniel-motions/4290677/

 

[pearl]

I remember the speculation we had at the beginning of this case over whether there was any worthwhile evidence against SM. From the defense motions, I think I can make an informed opinion that there is plenty. Just my opinion.

 

[Backwoods]

I remember the speculation we had at the beginning of this case over whether there was any worthwhile evidence against SM. From the defense motions, I think I can make an informed opinion that there is plenty. Just my opinion.

ARRgh, I still feel pretty in the dark about what they have. And I have to say, it's driving me kind of nuts.

The defense is pretty much going to challenge any evidence they have any grounds to challenge, I figure -- anything actually presented as evidence, unless it's totally ridiculous, has a "weight" to it and even a lot of "mediocre" evidence can tip the scales. (JMO, too). I've not seen the defense make any challenges that seemed outlandish to me -- and they've won some and lost some.

The hair-from-the-refrigerator thing -- the wait on that seems just ridiculous to me. If the prosecution were gonna test it, they should have tested it already, months ago. IF it's "test-able" (contains DNA), that is. If they've been holding back the results -- knowing them, but "unofficially" only -- well, I don't like that either. Maybe the truth is there is just nothing there to test in a conclusive way.


The "new" computer stuff -- now, that has me wondering. What in the world is it?? And why in the world so late in the game?? There could be a VERY wide range of stories (and "worthwhileness") in the answer to those two questions. And so we wait...

I can hardly stand to think it, but I'm afraid I feel a continuance coming on. Maybe not, though, maybe not.

 

[Backwoods]

Curious about this quote related to the hairs/refrigerator:

...The hairs were found stuck to an inside wall of the refrigerator, the motion notes. The man who lived there had recently moved out, and he told investigators that “things appeared to him to have been moved around inside the refrigerator since he vacated the apartment. ...”

http://www.macon.com/2014/01/02/2860065/lawyers-mcdaniels-virginity-no.html

bbm: I remember earlier coverage saying that the refrigerator was "pristine" except for the hairs. So -- what is the in-the-process-of-moving-out tenant meaning by "things" appearing to have been moved around in the fridge? Did he still have food in there? Or is he referring to shelves and such?

And at what point did he (the tenant) see the inside of the refrigerator? After LE did their inspection and luminol testing and such, or before? Because, certainly if food was in there, it probably would've gotten moved around in the LE process, and possibly shelving, too.

 

[MaconMom]

New article up: Killing was a sex-fantasy crime

http://www.macon.com/2014/01/03/2861379/fbi-giddings-slaying-a-sex-fantasy.html

 

[Backwoods]

News of the FBI analyst is hitting the local airwaves, as well:

FBI Analyst: Giddings' killer had sexual motive

...The agent, Robert J. Morton, who did not investigate the case, says his report was based on his knowledge of the crime, reports from investigators, and his experience handling murder cases. ...


...He says her killer was the same person who went into her apartment without permission two nights before she went missing. He says a few days later, that person either tricked Giddings into opening the door of her apartment or used a key to get in, then took her out of her apartment to a second location. ...

...and WMAZ also got a "second opinion":

13WMAZ reached out to David Faigman, a Distinguished Professor of Law at Hastings College of the Law in California. After reading the FBI report, Faigman says, "They are wild speculations .... If I were teaching a class on 'junk science' in the courtroom, this would be Exhibit A."

more at: http://www.13wmaz.com/story/news/local/macon/2014/01/03/giddings-behavior-report/4305755/


WMAZ also is providing a pdf copy of the motion to exclude Morton's testimony at this link: http://download.gannett.edgesuite.net/wmaz/docs/fbi-mcdaniel.pdf

ETA: The motion in the pdf incorporates the analyst's report as background, and the analyst's report includes Lauren's autopsy report -- so warning: graphic.

 

[Backwoods]

A little snippet from the bottom of the most recent update to the Telegraph story MaconMom posted (not sure whether it was in the earlier version):

...A pretrial-motions hearing is set for Monday before Bibb County Superior Court Judge Howard Simms.


Arguments on a number of fronts will be heard, including possible new evidence discovered by the GBI on one of McDaniel’s laptop computers. But first, prosecutors will have to fend off a defense claim that a warrant used to seize the computer was invalid....

http://www.macon.com/2014/01/03/2861379/fbi-giddings-slaying-a-sex-fantasy.html

Regarding the second paragraph, bbm: I thought they had already dealt with all the motions regarding searches and seizures from SM's apartment? And I thought all those motions were denied. I may, however, have been wrong about that and some are still pending.

BUT -- if those have been dealt with already -- MAYBE, MAYBE (totally a guess) this laptop came from the DeKalb County search that I posted of hearing about (but never seeing a print account regarding) during the most recent hearing. What I heard (and I did not hear all) was that there was a warrant approved by a Bibb County judge for a search in DeKalb County -- seemed like jurisdiction may have been a sticking point, I'm not sure.

Anyhow, this brings me to a question: Any of you know of SM family members, etc., that reside in DeKalb County? (Stephen's parents, I'm pretty sure, live in Gwinnett Co., or did the last I knew.)

 

[Backwoods]

Some details in Morton’s report had, until Friday, never been made public, including the revelation that Giddings, in the days before she was last seen on June 25, 2011, “had complained to friends that someone had been in her apartment without her permission.” ...

...He notes that Giddings, already concerned about her safety, “would have been extremely cautious in opening her door to a stranger. ... It appears the offender was able to either trick the victim into opening the door because the offender was known to the victim and/or entered utilizing a key.”

http://www.macon.com/2014/01/03/2861379/fbi-giddings-slaying-a-sex-fantasy.html

...And yet Lauren was still leaving a spare key not all-that-well hidden on her balcony...??

I dunno. I think I'm going to need to hear the testimony of the "friends" Lauren noted concerns to. Morton wasn't part of the investigation -- maybe he was taking the "Macon hoodlums" thing in Lauren's last email as complaints to "friends" (plural)...?

(She sure MAY have mentioned concerns to others, not saying she didn't -- but this is just the first breath of it I've heard. Certainly, if she did, it may just have been very closely guarded info. She'd been away for a number of days -- she could have even asked on her return, not in a particularly accusing way, "Hey, did any of you guys go in my apartment while I was gone, with the spare key? Because it seems like someone's been in there, I left such-and-such in one place and it's been moved" or "I can't find such-and-such.")

 

[pearl]

Thanks much for the updates, Backwoods.

 

[Sandstorm]

According to the FBI report, which cites Giddings’ autopsy, there were “saw kerf striations” on bones in her arms and legs, which her killer presumably amputated.

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2014/01/03/2861379/fbi-giddings-slaying-a-sex-fantasy.html#storylink=cpy

Here is an interesting report on saw kerfs:
Statistical analysis of kerf mark measurements in bone
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033513/

 

[Backwoods]

According to the FBI report, which cites Giddings’ autopsy, there were “saw kerf striations” on bones in her arms and legs, which her killer presumably amputated.

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2014/01/03/2861379/fbi-giddings-slaying-a-sex-fantasy.html#storylink=cpy

Here is an interesting report on saw kerfs:
Statistical analysis of kerf mark measurements in bone
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033513/

That is an interesting link, Sandstorm. Wow, is it ever technical! Can't say I was able to comprehend it completely but think I got the general idea, anyhow.

When I opened the pdf that WMAZ provided of the motion to exclude Morton's testimony and started reading, I just wasn't expecting to come face to face with the autopsy report.

It sort of stunned me for a moment. After all this time ... so many questions answered. And -- though of course we have known almost since the first that Lauren was dismembered -- even in the clinical language of an autopsy report, some of it, the "hows" of the dismembering, was pretty rough reading.

The report would seem to lay to rest some things that were rumored early on, though. (Thank heavens, because what WAS done is already way beyond awful, awful.):

(1)The dismemberment was not done in such a manner as to "remove" the genitalia, for one. I imagine the most basic part (the part that probably first comes to many people's minds when they hear about "rape kit" testing) of a rape kit assessment was able to be done.

(2) The autopsy says nothing about organs removed, "slices" (pardon the term, I cannot think of a better way to say it) of her removed -- nor about multiple stab wounds. (I remember once hearing a story that there were 70-plus stab wounds.)

The report does talk about some incision marks adjacent to some of the actual dismembering cuts. I guess maybe those might be some type of "false start" or hesitation marks (much like mentioned in your link, except on flesh instead of bone). But it crossed my mind that maybe the perp sort of made shallow cuts to "lay out" the pattern for dismembering -- and I wondered if the one separate cut described, I think on her lower chest, might have been such a "mark" for possible further reduction of the torso (that never was done). Ugh. Sorry -- I am just trying to figure some things out. That chest wound could also have been a threatening/controlling move, too, though, or torture (please no), even happened in a struggle... I guess it could be several different things. I'm hoping it was post-mortem, though, at any rate, and it seems that they would have been able to tell ... and maybe would have described it differently if it seemed not to be, I'm not sure.

Just last night, I was thinking about Lauren's case and was making a little mental list of questions I sure would like to know the answers to -- not the big, overarching questions, but little details that have just had me wondering for a long time -- was even thinking of posting it and asking others if they had ones to add. Anyhow, one on my list was: Were the shorts found on Lauren's remains her own or not? The autopsy report says:

The torso was clad only in pink-tone "Champion" brand shorts, size large.

Though of course I still don't know for sure, with that, I am thinking the shorts were probably Lauren's own.



Cause of death: undetermined homicidal violence.

 

[bessie]

I started reading in here earlier, but I had to run off to mod another thread. I did read the motion and Morton's report, and was relieved to see that the rumors apparently are untrue. Not that the reality is much better.

Morton's analysis was less detailed than I expected, and carried no surprises. I've always assumed McD creeped around in LG's apartment prior to that Saturday evening, and I still wonder if he planted a camera inside.

Thanks, Sandstorm, that is an interesting link. Technical, though, like BW said. I'll have to tackle it in the morning.

'Nite fftobed:

 

[Backwoods]

If anybody's around and about here anytime soon, you might be able to go to 13WMAZ's home page at http://www.13wmaz.com/ and view the segment from the late news -- there are telephone interview clips from that professor from whom they got the "second opinion" about the profile. Don't know how long it will be up on the home page -- and, so far with the station's new web site, I have not found any way to access these front-page audio/video clips after they are removed from the front.

I have some problems with the profile, myself. Not gonna get into that tonight, because I am afraid I will just come across as a naysayer. But it's really not that! I honestly think, in the form in which it is quoted in the motion anyhow, it has some flaws -- maybe it was based on incomplete info (and maybe it will be modified by the time it hits trial, if it does) but some things just don't seem to jive, IMO. I see why the defense has problems with it going in (and agree with some of their reasoning) but I think the prosecution might end up having some problems with it, as well.

 

[Backwoods]

Of interest to me is that we are hearing about the hairs found in the downstairs refrigerator -- through a defense motion to exclude them as evidence because the defense has not received any forensic report about them -- but we are not hearing about the hairs found on Lauren's torso during her autopsy.

Remember, we learned about both sets of hairs about a year ago:

...The lawyers for Stephen McDaniel are asking for more time to prepare pretrial motions, partly because they’re still awaiting the evidence. Among the items are test results from strands of hair ....

...The hairs were found during Giddings’ autopsy and, later, in a refrigerator that detectives seized from the apartment beneath hers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...96a52fc-5997-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_blog.html

So ... I wonder if this means that the defense now HAS received forensic results regarding the hairs found during the autopsy...?

Also, I noted that the autopsy report contained within the FBI analysis does not mention the finding of hairs. But I don't know that such findings would usually be included in the basic autopsy report -- maybe things like that are handled through some kind of addendum to the basic report or in some other way? Anyone know?

 

[GeorgiaSunshine]

Of interest to me is that we are hearing about the hairs found in the downstairs refrigerator -- through a defense motion to exclude them as evidence because the defense has not received any forensic report about them -- but we are not hearing about the hairs found on Lauren's torso during her autopsy.

Remember, we learned about both sets of hairs about a year ago:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...96a52fc-5997-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_blog.html

So ... I wonder if this means that the defense now HAS received forensic results regarding the hairs found during the autopsy...?

Also, I noted that the autopsy report contained within the FBI analysis does not mention the finding of hairs. But I don't know that such findings would usually be included in the basic autopsy report -- maybe things like that are handled through some kind of addendum to the basic report or in some other way? Anyone know?

I also believe not everything is contained in this autopsy report. Again, this is a large, high-profile case with a lot at stake. Why would the prosecution want to show everything to the media? Again remember, they do not want an Anthony trial on their hands. IMO

 

[Backwoods]

I also believe not everything is contained in this autopsy report. Again, this is a large, high-profile case with a lot at stake. Why would the prosecution want to show everything to the media? Again remember, they do not want an Anthony trial on their hands. IMO

I have to think that the report is pretty complete as far as it concerns "the basics" -- the conditions of the body, damage to the body -- because this was the report the FBI analyst considered, presumably, so it would need to reflect the basics accurately to be helpful. (If there are addenda or supplemental reports regarding such things as hairs ON the body, fibers, etc., I guess the analyst would have access to those, too, though.)

The defense would have had the autopsy report for a long time, by now, and neither the prosecution nor the defense "released" it to the media, exactly. We (the public) are just seeing it now, very close to the set trial date, because of the analyst's report containing it. The analyst's report was included as background to support the motion the defense made to have the analysis/analyst's testimony excluded as evidence, and the motion, once filed, became public record. In preparing to offer the analyst's report as evidence, the prosecution would have known that was likely to happen, IMO.

I don't feel that the autopsy report's becoming public, especially at this late point, will hurt the prosecution's case, but that's JMO.

ETA: Results from "rape kit" assessment might be reported separately, maybe? (Just guessing.) I believe I read somewhere recently that transferred hairs are the most common forensic finding from that type of testing -- don't have a link for that right off, but if I have time later I will try to find it.

 

[bettiepageturner]

Wow, was not expecting that autopsy report to be there.. Made me curious about the Zaxby's thing again and whether or not that was able to be used to help determine TOD.

For anyone like me who's not well versed in BAC readings, the .11 doesn't put her anywhere near the range of legal intoxication unless she was nearing 220+ pounds, though if she had been pulled over she might've run into some problems.

Warning: graphic speculation.
I'm not necessarily relieved that there wasn't penetrative sexual assault. Either way Lauren's last moments were absolutely terrifying (based on the defense wounds), but at least if the motive had appeared "routinely" sexual she may have had hope that he would let her live afterwards. But as the report implies, for killers like this, the depraved violence and sadistic control are what make up the sexual act. They've often been unable to perform during the actual interaction with the victim (their escalating desires having prevented standard release for a while now) and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case here. SM was a fetishist (MOO, I guess?). Fetishists of this variety use objects as a stand-in, and keep them around as reminders. I would bet her clothing that was found in his apartment served its purpose as a fantasy object prior to the act, as well as afterwards assuming he couldn't keep anything else.

I don't know how the condoms play in, and I don't want to speculate very hard on it. I don't even want to google what I'd have to google to read theories or explanations of such a paraphilia. How is it possible that even one person on earth had something miswired, or underwent some sort of trauma, such that what resulted was a linkage between arousal and dismemberment? We saw it again very recently with AS in Jessica's case. Is it a need for absolute control, to have so much power over someone that they're able to make that happen to them? Growing up in a severely controlled environment and seeking to do the same to someone once free from it themselves?

I feel so sick to even type any of that. I can't let go of the idea that if we just understood more we could catch these things and prevent them. Sadly with psychopathy comes manipulation and pathological lying (as well as general apathy about the severity of the act), so we rarely get to hear the whole story firsthand.

Sorry for the long and distracting post.. You guys posting pretrial updates are awesome!

 

[Backwoods]

Of interest to me is that we are hearing about the hairs found in the downstairs refrigerator -- through a defense motion to exclude them as evidence because the defense has not received any forensic report about them -- but we are not hearing about the hairs found on Lauren's torso during her autopsy.

Remember, we learned about both sets of hairs about a year ago:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...96a52fc-5997-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_blog.html

So ... I wonder if this means that the defense now HAS received forensic results regarding the hairs found during the autopsy...?

Also, I noted that the autopsy report contained within the FBI analysis does not mention the finding of hairs. But I don't know that such findings would usually be included in the basic autopsy report -- maybe things like that are handled through some kind of addendum to the basic report or in some other way? Anyone know?

Quoting my own post to follow up:

I could not find the link where I read that transferred hair is the most common forensic finding from a "rape kit".

I did, however, find the article linked below, which speaks of crime scenes in general:

...Arthur J. Eisenberg, a forensic science commissioner ... is a DNA expert and a co-director of the University of North Texas Center for Human Identification in Fort Worth. ...

Hair is the most common evidence found at crime scenes, Eisenberg said. “It is often abundant in sample,” he said.

But it has been established in recent years that it is impossible to “match” a hair under the microscope to a specific person.

Only DNA analysis can match hair to a specific person, Eisenberg said.

more at: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/08/11/5071996/forensic-science-commission-to.html

The article, as the quote indicates, stresses that visual identification of hair and/or comparison under a microscope is not considered reliable.

But, with hair being so commonly left by the perp at crime scenes, I think we reasonably can hope that whoever killed Lauren left some hair behind at the crime scene/s and/or on her remains -- and we will just have to hope that, if he did, the sample was such that DNA could be obtained.