Page 5 of 28 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 676

Thread: GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #4

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Macon, GA
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by southern_comfort View Post
    So now authorities have to have an "airtight case" before they can arrest and charge someone? What happened to the probable cause standard?

    IMO, the only thing we know for certain is that there is no "smoking gun", and if they don't charge SM before he gets out next Thursday, they not only don't have a smoking gun, but they don't even have probable cause. That is not a particularly high standard.

    I wonder if luminol reacts to raw hamburger juice. Does anyone know if they brought the refrigerator back to the vacant apartment?
    I haven't read or seen anything about them bringing it back. I remember when they initially took it that the FBI said it would be gone 3 to 6 months. I could be wrong - but I believe that was in an interview with Boni Bush, the apartments' co-owner. I think they told her to expect it to be gone that long.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to SouthernKate For This Useful Post:


  3. #102
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    He started out by reading the line from the FBI, something like:

    "This process takes time, if you want it done well. There is no guarantee how long it will take."
    *snipped*

    Emphasis is mine.

    I think this snippet from the FBI to MPD is telling. The part I have bolded sounds a bit antagonistic and sarcastic. It tells me there has been some back and forth between MPD and the FBI on how long this is taking. (It actually reminds me of something I would love to say to my clients at work who press strongly for results in a time-consuming venture: "I can give it to you now, but it will either be wrong or incomplete. If that's OK with you, here you go.")

    I think Burns is not only frustrated by the rumors from one side, but from the delay from the FBI on the other. The initial indications that results would be available quickly tells me that that was his (mistaken or misled) impression. He also used the phrase "I am not at liberty to say," suggesting that someone else (presumably the FBI, since he is the head of the local investigation) is preventing him from releasing the contents of the communications he has had regarding the "pieces of evidence that have been sent."

    I am speculating that there are two (probably related) factors at work - actual lab delays (as indicated in the email), but also investigative holds on the preliminary findings while the investigative arm of the FBI resolves whatever concerns/questions they have with sharing the results.

  4. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to NotALawyer For This Useful Post:


  5. #103
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    greater Orlando area
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by PlainJaneDoe View Post
    So yesterday I learned that sewers are not necessarily where the poo goes in the case of the running. Are they in the case of the searching?
    In terms of...digested human remains? No way they are going to be able to sift through that and figure out whose is whose...lol
    "Deep in each man is the knowledge that something knows of his existence. Something knows, and cannot be fled or hid from." - Cormac McCarthy

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to angelanalyzes For This Useful Post:


  7. #104
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernKate View Post
    I haven't read or seen anything about them bringing it back. I remember when they initially took it that the FBI said it would be gone 3 to 6 months. I could be wrong - but I believe that was in an interview with Boni Bush, the apartments' co-owner. I think they told her to expect it to be gone that long.
    Um, I would totally be buying a new refrigerator regardless of when it's returned.

  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to NotALawyer For This Useful Post:


  9. #105
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,760
    "QUote" some of the results will be provided soon so that McD can be charged or released. "

    Surely the authorities can stall, but McD"s release has nothing to do with murder......he's only charged with Burglary.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tomkat For This Useful Post:


  11. #106
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by southern_comfort View Post
    So now authorities have to have an "airtight case" before they can arrest and charge someone? What happened to the probable cause standard?

    IMO, the only thing we know for certain is that there is no "smoking gun", and if they don't charge SM before he gets out next Thursday, they not only don't have a smoking gun, but they don't even have probable cause. That is not a particularly high standard.

    I wonder if luminol reacts to raw hamburger juice. Does anyone know if they brought the refrigerator back to the vacant apartment?
    Why not have an airtight case if you can before an arrest is made? And, there may be a smoking gun once all the FBI test results are back. For all we know (which I admit isn't much yet), they may already have their smoking gun. Their main POI is sitting in jail for now - no need to rush to arrest him on murder charges.

    Patience is a virtue - and I, for one, don't have much of it!!! But, I'm trusting that LE is handling this case exactly the way they should be. I have friends in common with Lauren, so I want LE to absolutely have the right perpetrator and nail the SOB.

  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Alliecat For This Useful Post:


  13. #107
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by NotALawyer View Post
    Um, I would totally be buying a new refrigerator regardless of when it's returned.

    Really!

  14. #108
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    greater Orlando area
    Posts
    309
    I find some odd parallels between killer Drew Planten and Stephen McDaniel, in terms of their overall personalities. I found it hard to imagine, from looking at him, Drew Planten killing anyone let alone being a violent sexual sadist but it turns out he most likely killed another woman aside from Stephanie Bennett [found raped and murdered in her Raleigh, NC apartment] before he moved to North Carolina.
    He was a college graduate and zoologist who worked in a State lab. He was an extreme loner. He killed himself while in his cell. While in custody he often had to be strapped to a wheelchair as he refused to stand up or cooperate in any way, he was nearly catatonic during his trial.
    Obviously more extreme a case than McDaniel's behavior while in custody, and there was hard DNA evidence linking him to the murder, but if any of you are familiar with Drew Planten maybe you'll see why I get a similar "vibe" from McDaniel? Again, not saying McDaniel is similar to Planten in terms of guilt.
    "Deep in each man is the knowledge that something knows of his existence. Something knows, and cannot be fled or hid from." - Cormac McCarthy

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to angelanalyzes For This Useful Post:


  16. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by Alliecat View Post
    Why not have an airtight case if you can before an arrest is made? And, there may be a smoking gun once all the FBI test results are back. For all we know (which I admit isn't much yet), they may already have their smoking gun. Their main POI is sitting in jail for now - no need to rush to arrest him on murder charges.

    Patience is a virtue - and I, for one, don't have much of it!!! But, I'm trusting that LE is handling this case exactly the way they should be. I have friends in common with Lauren, so I want LE to absolutely have the right perpetrator and nail the SOB.

    I suppose there is no rush since he's sitting there anyway... except that if he isn't their guy, he's being publicly torn to shreds for no reason.

    To whoever has an opinion: What would be the harm in charging him now, if they have probable cause? I keep hearing the words "jeopardize the investigation". In what way would it be jeopardized if they charged him before all the evidence is back? The evidence is what it is, isn't it? Thanks in advance for your ideas.
    If I can stop one heart from breaking,
    I shall not live in vain;
    If I can ease one life the aching,
    Or cool one pain,
    Or help one fainting robin
    Unto his nest again,
    I shall not live in vain.
    ~Emily Dickinson~

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to southern_comfort For This Useful Post:


  18. #110
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    greater Orlando area
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by justiceforlauren View Post
    AA, where does he say McDaniel in the video? Do u know around where, tried to skim back thru it and I couldn't find it.
    This link should take you right to it, it's a snippet from the presser today beginning with the part where Burns dismisses the rumor that someone involved with the investigation has been going around saying McDaniel is not even a POI and that this is all a big coverup:

    http://www.13wmaz.com/video/10825708...-Giddings-Case

    In the raw video it begins at mark 2:29.
    He just has such a tone of incredulity in his voice as he says the whole thing, like he wants to say "oh please!" but is holding back.
    "Deep in each man is the knowledge that something knows of his existence. Something knows, and cannot be fled or hid from." - Cormac McCarthy

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to angelanalyzes For This Useful Post:


  20. #111
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by angelanalyzes View Post
    This link should take you right to it, it's a snippet from the presser today beginning with the part where Burns dismisses the rumor that someone involved with the investigation has been going around saying McDaniel is not even a POI and that this is all a big coverup:

    http://www.13wmaz.com/video/10825708...-Giddings-Case

    In the raw video it begins at mark 2:29.
    He just has such a tone of incredulity in his voice as he says the whole thing, like he wants to say "oh please!" but is holding back.
    This reminds me of Burns rolling his eyes (IMO) on the Fox news show when the reporter said that SM's mother is waiting for him to be exonerated.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to NotALawyer For This Useful Post:


  22. #112
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    greater Orlando area
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by NotALawyer View Post
    This reminds me of Burns rolling his eyes (IMO) on the Fox news show when the reporter said that SM's mother is waiting for him to be exonerated.
    I am still kicking myself for missing that special!!!
    He rolled his eyes? Wow. WOW.
    "Deep in each man is the knowledge that something knows of his existence. Something knows, and cannot be fled or hid from." - Cormac McCarthy

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by angelanalyzes View Post
    I am still kicking myself for missing that special!!!
    He rolled his eyes? Wow. WOW.
    I rewound it and had others in the room watch it with me, and they agreed. However, when I posted about it, some here disagreed and felt that he was "shifty-eyed" throughout.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to NotALawyer For This Useful Post:


  25. #114
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Macon, GA
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by southern_comfort View Post
    I suppose there is no rush since he's sitting there anyway... except that if he isn't their guy, he's being publicly torn to shreds for no reason.

    To whoever has an opinion: What would be the harm in charging him now, if they have probable cause? I keep hearing the words "jeopardize the investigation". In what way would it be jeopardized if they charged him before all the evidence is back? The evidence is what it is, isn't it? Thanks in advance for your ideas.
    There are only two reasons to explain (in my opinion) why he hasn't been charged:

    1. There has been no evidence that can tie him to the case and/or implicate him. (that's been examined so far by the FBI and has yielded results)

    Or

    2. He didn't do it.

    I can't imagine that if anything that had been returned so far would implicate him as the killer that they would just be waiting on an arrest. This isn't to say he didn't do it, just that they can't implicate him.

  26. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SouthernKate For This Useful Post:


  27. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by NotALawyer View Post
    I rewound it and had others in the room watch it with me, and they agreed. However, when I posted about it, some here disagreed and felt that he was "shifty-eyed" throughout.
    I think he gets some strange looks at random times, honestly. I've concluded his eye rolling doesn't mean what eye-rolling traditionally means. At most, it seems to indicate he's trying to think of a word or phrase.

    I also didn't hear anything strange in his voice when he talked about the rumor that SM is no longer a person of interest. He did begin to sound a little incredulous and as though he wanted to laugh as he went on to talk about the rumor that SM is being used as a red herring to keep the public from discovering that there's a serial killer. I took the incredulity to be related to idea of a serial killer coverup though, and not to the concept of SM as a non-POI.
    If I can stop one heart from breaking,
    I shall not live in vain;
    If I can ease one life the aching,
    Or cool one pain,
    Or help one fainting robin
    Unto his nest again,
    I shall not live in vain.
    ~Emily Dickinson~

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to southern_comfort For This Useful Post:


  29. #116
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    greater Orlando area
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by NotALawyer View Post
    I rewound it and had others in the room watch it with me, and they agreed. However, when I posted about it, some here disagreed and felt that he was "shifty-eyed" throughout.
    Combined with his tone today I wouldn't be surprised if he rolled his eyes, lol. He literally laughed/smiled as he looked down at the podium to read some of the rumors.
    "Deep in each man is the knowledge that something knows of his existence. Something knows, and cannot be fled or hid from." - Cormac McCarthy

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to angelanalyzes For This Useful Post:


  31. #117
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    4,268
    Quote Originally Posted by angelanalyzes View Post
    In terms of...digested human remains? No way they are going to be able to sift through that and figure out whose is whose...lol
    Well, they were talking about storm drainage...I thought. Now I don't remember where or when. I thought they meant non-digested remains, though. I need a break, aaagh!
    Kindness is magic. (Derek)

    @JaneDoe25 (Twitter)

  32. #118
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    greater Orlando area
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by PlainJaneDoe View Post
    Well, they were talking about storm drainage...I thought. Now I don't remember where or when. I thought they meant non-digested remains, though. I need a break, aaagh!
    Oh yes, yes, they would definitely look for blood in the drains immediately traced to the apartments but nowhere deep down in the sewers. :/
    "Deep in each man is the knowledge that something knows of his existence. Something knows, and cannot be fled or hid from." - Cormac McCarthy

  33. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to angelanalyzes For This Useful Post:


  34. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    13,916
    Quote Originally Posted by southern_comfort View Post
    I suppose there is no rush since he's sitting there anyway... except that if he isn't their guy, he's being publicly torn to shreds for no reason.

    To whoever has an opinion: What would be the harm in charging him now, if they have probable cause? I keep hearing the words "jeopardize the investigation". In what way would it be jeopardized if they charged him before all the evidence is back? The evidence is what it is, isn't it? Thanks in advance for your ideas.
    If they charge him with murder...

    Then they get evidence back that proves he is innocent

    That evidence proves someone else did it

    They charge someone else with murder

    That person's defense screams through the whole trial that the police charged someone else, THEY don't even know who committed this murder!

    They don't care that he is being vilified in the media... they just care that they don't screw up a future prosecution... his or someone else's.

  35. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to MsFacetious For This Useful Post:


  36. #120
    SmoothOperator's Avatar
    SmoothOperator is offline Sadly what connects all these puzzles is that there's a victim@the heart of each
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    5,585
    A question for any of our lawyers..

    Can someone explain why it is that some cases have to be taken before a grand jury in order to receive an indictment before they are able to make an arrest?( the two that come to mind are kyron Horman case and hailey Dunn case)??

    And why some cases they are just able to flat out make am arrest without having to go before the grand jury with the evidence??

    I just do not understand what makes this huge difference in processes .. TIA

  37. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SmoothOperator For This Useful Post:


  38. #121
    SmoothOperator's Avatar
    SmoothOperator is offline Sadly what connects all these puzzles is that there's a victim@the heart of each
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    5,585
    Thought this was good representation of just how well luminol works.. It's a split picture side by side.. Left side is what the carpet and wall looks like to the naked eye and the right said is that exact same area after sprayed with luminol and lights are dimmed.. Pretty remarkable and one could see how that it'd be thought that everything was cleaned up. Because to the naked eye you'd never know that there was ever blood there..
    Lots more luminol info at the link:http://science.howstuffworks.com/luminol1.htm

  39. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to SmoothOperator For This Useful Post:


  40. #122
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    35
    First time posting, folks, so please excuse any bumbling on the links and quote boxes - or the lack thereof - right up front!

    Chief Burns said that his main reason for the presser today was to address untruths in the form of rumors. After each one he told us, "That's a rumor." In other words, "that one's also a bunch of bupkis, folks!"

    http://www.13wmaz.com/video/live/default.aspx

    Here's the quote from the link that I think is key, and that can help us to limit our wild speculation:

    "One...said a certain public official told a group that he was speaking to, that McDaniel is not even a person of interest, and we're just saying that to keep the public from panicking, and that we have a serial killer on the loose in Macon - that's a rumor."

    IMO, that's all we need to know: McD IS a POI - not a decoy, not merely a condom filcher, but a serious POI in this homicide. With the info LE already has on their POI, the chief is confident enough to tell us not to worry about a serial killer being out there in relation to Lauren's homicide.

    When asked if they're closer to making an arrest this week than they were last week at this time, Chief Burns response is that those 4 who have all of the evidence are meeting with the DA early next week to discuss what they have thus far. That indicates to me that - if the DA agrees - they may have enough to make an arrest as early as next week.

  41. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to WhoaJo For This Useful Post:


  42. #123
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    19,279
    Quote Originally Posted by southern_comfort View Post
    I suppose there is no rush since he's sitting there anyway... except that if he isn't their guy, he's being publicly torn to shreds for no reason.

    To whoever has an opinion: What would be the harm in charging him now, if they have probable cause? I keep hearing the words "jeopardize the investigation". In what way would it be jeopardized if they charged him before all the evidence is back? The evidence is what it is, isn't it? Thanks in advance for your ideas.
    Once charged, the clock starts ticking. In a complex case, naturally, LE and the prosecutor will extend their prep time for as long as the law allows to ensure a solid case.

    Here's part of your answer. More at the link.
    (a) Any person accused of a capital offense may enter a demand for speedy trial at the term of court at which the indictment is found or at the next succeeding regular term thereafter; or, by special permission of the court, the defendant may at any subsequent term thereafter demand a speedy trial.
    http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/...le-7/17-7-171/

    Smooth, the short answer to you grand jury question is that the law varies by state. Some states require a grand jury indictment for capital offenses. I don't believe that's the case in Georgia. Pretty sure I posted that in an earlier thread. No time to look up the statute. One of the attorneys will explain, I'm sure.
    __________________________________
    Muddy water in the street
    ; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"



  43. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to bessie For This Useful Post:


  44. #124
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by angelanalyzes View Post
    This link should take you right to it, it's a snippet from the presser today beginning with the part where Burns dismisses the rumor that someone involved with the investigation has been going around saying McDaniel is not even a POI and that this is all a big coverup:

    http://www.13wmaz.com/video/10825708...-Giddings-Case

    In the raw video it begins at mark 2:29.
    He just has such a tone of incredulity in his voice as he says the whole thing, like he wants to say "oh please!" but is holding back.
    The "oh please!" look was about serial killer rumor, which all by its little lonesome has made news. I did not see that as related to SM alone. The rumor of serial killers has taken on a life of its own and that is what bothered him. I don't think it is a serial killer. I think it is someone who knew LG. I am simply not convinced by funny hair and clothes and awkward public speaking that SM did it. At least, I am not convinced yet. I want to hear they have proof. Why? Because I want to know the right person is in jail. I want the killer off the streets whether it is SM or Donny Osmond. (Sorry, tried to pick someone random and he seemed the least likely killer in my mind)

    As for in the Fox special. I did not see ANY eye rolling. I saw a man looking all around, most likely at people standing off to the side. As a former teacher, child & adolescent therapist, and a mom, I have seen more than my share of eye rolling.
    It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. ~ Arthur Conan Doyle

  45. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to PsychoMom For This Useful Post:


  46. #125
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    19,279
    Quote Originally Posted by ThinMan View Post
    Think about this -- suppose Burns IS planning on wrapping up the investigation by first of next week (charging SMD). He needs the concurrence of Winters to present that charge to the Grand Jury.

    So, he's not going to tip his hand now by saying the meeting with Winters is to discuss charging SMD with the homicide. His evident frustration is that the rumors flying about make it difficult for him to complete this investigation to his entire satisfaction (or at least as well as the FBI results allow), and he's not going to be forced into tipping his hand by some reporter at a press conference he called to say "The investigation is going smoothly; quit worrying; trust me."
    __________________________________
    Muddy water in the street
    ; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"



  47. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to bessie For This Useful Post:


Page 5 of 28 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 - #14
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 756
    Last Post: 09-19-2013, 05:45 PM
  2. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #13
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 768
    Last Post: 06-24-2012, 04:13 AM
  3. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #12
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 799
    Last Post: 04-05-2012, 09:55 PM
  4. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #5
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 686
    Last Post: 08-04-2011, 04:49 PM
  5. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #3
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 540
    Last Post: 07-27-2011, 12:43 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •