I've wondered that also, Backwoods. And the same for anything that might register a ping with a vehicle, such as a GPS.
I thought about that not to long ago when the human leg was found in the bathtub (unrelated to Lauren.)
Got me to wondering how far he could have gotten in that time frame, and whether or not it could be triangulated.
I guess I can assume LE has all of this information and has just chosen not to comment on it?
Rare to post on Lauren's case these days but I haven't a doubt that all of us that have followed her case from the beginning still peek in and most of all think of Lauren often and are still praying for her precious family..
I have a rather stupid question but am curious about why it's worded this way.. All along we've known from it being continually reported that Lauren was dismembered, totally, as in the only remains found were her torso(and some reports that even the complete torso was not even intact).. With that said I wonder then why in the indictment it is murder with her decapitated??
For me, ATLEAST that is completely different for the obvious reason that when you hear someone's decapitated I think of body intact, minus the head.. Of course I do realize that is not necessarily true, tho, as we have here while the decapitation is correct however she was also completely dismembered as well..
I know not really important in the grand scheme of things buts something that immediately caught my eye when I first read the indictment couple weeks back and was just curious as to why possibly they chose that specific wording?
TIA to anyone who may know or even have an opinion or thought on why that would be
Smooth, we talked a little about decapitation being highlighted in the indictment a bit earlier and here is what I remember being suggested as possibilities:
(1) Way of addressing the cause of death not being known to the grand jury: Since the information before the grand jury did not allow them to know what instrument or manner of death was used, it could have been a way of saying, more or less, "we believe the accused killed her and, though we don't know exactly how she was killed, that doesn't matter, because we also believe the accused (the same person) also decapitated her -- which in and of itself would kill the victim, even if the victim were not already dead".
(2) Included to set up the "depravity" qualification for a possible capital case.
(3) Possibility that decapitation might actually be the cause of death but not yet provable
ETA: I just thought of something else that might tie in, though I doubt that this would be the whole reason: Since several of the internet posts SM made referenced decapitation in one way or another, if the prosecution used the posts in presenting to the grand jury, and hopes to use them in a trial, it would provide another possible "link" between the posts and the crimes.
Last edited by Backwoods; 11-27-2011 at 09:02 PM. Reason: change wording; add thought
I dont' know but it seems that you find the indictment a bit limited, shy and lacking as do I. (?) No one seemed to think the short nature of it was important, but it left me quite confused. Even if further was just DISCUSSED and wasn't needed in writing, it seems lacking still to me for such a hienous crime
I hope someone can answer your question. It does seem quite important. They have not located the Head (this is horrible to type) nor her other parts, so it's not like they HAD discovered one part and can actually gain something by calling it decapitation only
Thanks for the inquiry so that we might all learn
First, LE certainly haven't given the public much info on this entire case. Just comfort stuff, to make us all feel a little better.
Second, remember the commitment hearing, the prosecution didnt' want to share too much during the hearing (or they didnt' have it)
Third: remember the SoL QUOTES on the other forums, one of the sleuthers here discovered that and turned it in to LE.
Fouth: I really wonder if they have nothing else still, maybe they are waiting on expert sleuthers to find something, like you're suggestion above..........(?)JK
OR simply they are holding are their eggs until they HAVE a grandiose case and are waiting to tell the defense. They do have to tell them everything, right? So he can build a defense...........???
But we just gotta wait!
It's natural that the prosecution would want to "hold their eggs", as you say, as long as possible. (That's probably one reason the indictment itself reveals nothing beyond what we have known).
I hope one of our lawyer types will correct or add to the following comments, as needed, but, as I understand: The discovery phase, when the prosecution turns over more information to the defense, does not begin, I believe, until after the arraignment.
When it does begin, the prosecution does not exactly have to turn over all its "eggs", I think, but yes, it does have to share with the defense all of certain kinds of evidence, as well as anything substantial it might have in the way of evidence that would tend to point away from SM (exculpatory evidence).
I think the defense will be privy to all forensic results, for example, but I am not sure that the prosecution has to share a list of all its witnesses (maybe, but not clear on that ...it may be that the defense gets a list but not info about what the witnesses will testify ...? Just not clear on that point.)
I do hope maybe we will hear further from some of the lawyers who post here. (One thing, though: I think there is an attitude that it is best not to try to look too far ahead just now, since, until the arraignment, we don't know for certain that SM won't plead guilty/make a deal, etc., and a trial be avoided all together.)
It's a waiting game right now, IMO.
Thanks for clarification on the sharing of evidence or witnesses. Yes, after arraignment/For the trial.
I've heard so many cases, real and fictional where there are surprises, may have been just surprise witnesses that were not announced by the prosecution prior to them being called to testify and it seems to be a no no in court, for both parties not to be made aware
We shall wait, arraigment soon right and will we hear anything then or just get McDee Plee
I hope he did have one, and I hope LE has all of the pings. I don't think they do, however, because I *think* they would have used the information to find Lauren's remains.
It has crossed my mind that this sort of crime seems to often be immortalized in digital media these days.
If he did have one with him, and LE does have the pings- I unfortunately can still see it being a bit of a needle in a haystack to locate remains. At any rate, I hope he was stupid enough, or crazy enough, to mess up somewhere in the planning of this heinous crime. Just one little mistake, to help bring Lauren back to her family.
Well naturallythey have HER DNA on them but more importantly, they were found in his apt and sent to lab for testing. DA was not happy about the leak of information.
He's a goner.
Which leads me to another question. How important is it to LE to recover LG's remains? If they feel there's enough evidence already in hand, would they go through the time and expense of searching for the rest of her body? I know they finally searched the landfill, but that was a joint effort between private and public concerns, and was touted as a goodwill gesture on LE's part. Other than that one, LE hasn't led any searches other than the cursory ones I listed above. So, I guess what I'm wondering is if that's because they don't have any leads on where to search? Or, they have an idea or two, perhaps from cell records, but they can make a case without her remains, and budgetary constraints are a larger consideration?
Then my other question is this one. If LE has a lead on where the remains might be, through ping records or otherwise, but they don't feel it's necessary from a LE standpoint to search for them, would they share the information with the family so they could put together a private search? Have you ever encountered a situation like that, Oriah?
The answer might vary from case to case and between jurisdicitons. But is there a legal reason that would preclude sharing the information with next of kin?
I don't know a whole lot about pings and triangulation, etc. (though I know enough, now, after reading on WebSleuths, not to take mine with me if I turn to a life of crime...unless I were to forget... ) -- but I guess it might be (just one possibility) that his phone (if he has one) pinged during the pertinent days so to show that he was around and about with it in Macon, but nowhere else, yet not in such a way to really "track" to any possible local sites where he might have disposed of remains (if he is the killer)...?
Would LE be able to gain any info from a disposable cell phone if SM had one? Just a thought.
This gave me pause for thought, bessie.
I do think that most LEA's would share that with family (if family were not suspect, as Lauren's family is not.)
However, I also think that if LE had even an inkling of an idea as to where partial remains might be located, they may wish to remain in control of possible future search efforts until the case has been closed. Especially if a COD cannot be determined from the partial remains already located.
I also think that some jursidictions are so completely upset by these sorts of crimes (thank god for that- not all LE is hardened AT ALL) that even though budgetary restrictions may prevent them from moving forward with searches for partial remains that are not *necessary* for prosecution, they would keep that option on the back burner so to say, should an area of interest come up.
Also, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see another 'volunteer/professional/goodwill' search in the future, with a lot of LE participation.
I think the nature of this terrible crime has a lot of LE wanting to do everything they can- either on the clock, or on their own time- to try and bring full resolution to Lauren's family. To bring her home.
IN regards to the searches. I think it was the article relating to McD's grandfather and his land.........the family wanted to search and LE told the Giddings (basically) not to , that it could affect the investigation
Which leads to my question:
Why is it that, according to the article, Grandpa told LE or FBI they could search and also told Giddings family they could search, now LE is leading the Giddings away from THAT site for any possible search, and LE won't search there at this time but n LE was willing to search OTHER areas and DID...............
they didnt' wait for the arraignment to do the first searches. So when do they plan to do this? MID JANUARY/February when conditions for searches are worse? If they found her, then what does that do to the case, rather to the defense?
Did McD have an attorney during the early searches? Had he been named a suspect? Arrested yet?
Which (for some reason unknown to me) might be the difference if he did NOT have an attorney or was not named a suspect early and now he IS and does have an attorney (reason for the touchy situation in the searches for Lauren)
Thanks for reminding me about that article, Tomkat. I was on vacation when it was published, and just skimmed over it. It supports what Oriah said, that LE would want to retain control of any searches, even if they're not ready to do one themselves. That's horrible for Lauren's family.
Last edited by bessie; 11-29-2011 at 01:08 AM.
It's quite a tedious process though- especially in areas where there are a lot of retailers.
I wonder if LE has investigated this, in the pursuit of locating Lauren's remains.
Right, Oriah, but the numbers are all anonymous. If he had a phone and threw it away, tracing those numbers wouldn't do a bit of good.
The cell numbers of prepaid phones are randomly generated as they are activated by the service provider. The service provider has a log of that while the minutes are still available, unless it is past the expiration date of the minutes or data has exceeded the limit. I think.
Maybe I'm just reaching here, because I want Lauren brought home to her family.
While we are in "waiting" mode, I am just throwing a few things out there that have nagged at me or that I have been unclear on in this case.
Here's one, going back to one of the very basic details of this crime, Lauren's remains being found in the rollaway garbage bin at the apartment.
What I'm wondering is: At a small apartment complex like Barristers Hall, does the garbage pick-up truck enter the parking lot and go around to each apartment to empty the bins?
I'm accustomed to pick-up at a single-family dwelling, where we have to roll the bin out the driveway and place it at the side of the road each week, so I don't really know how pick-up normally works at multi-residence places.
If residents don't roll their bins to the curb, is there an area or spot within the complex at which they are supposed to place them for pick-up? If so -- do residents usually keep the bins at whichever spot they need to be for emptying and just carry their bagged trash out to them as needed during the week, or would they be more likely to keep the bins close to their door during the week, then roll them to the pick-up spot for trash day?
I can't find where we ever discussed this before -- if I'm wrong, somebody please point the way for me, if you can. And, any of you who are local and "know" Barristers Hall and how garbage pick-up works there, you probably are the only hope for a definitive answer -- but, anybody who has thoughts on this, please share them.
I'm wondering, of course, if the bin where Lauren was found was in the spot it should have been to be picked up. There was so much confusion over exactly where her remains were found, at first -- remember, we did not have confirmation for a while even that it was in the bin -- that I have never been clear on where exactly the bin was and whether it was where it should have been for a normal pick-up.
Last edited by Backwoods; 11-30-2011 at 12:14 AM. Reason: typos