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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
southern_comfort said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Wondergirl said:
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."
Click to expand...

*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.
 
SouthernKate said:
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.
Click to expand...

Um, I would totally be buying a new refrigerator regardless of when it's returned.
 
"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.
 
southern_comfort said:
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?
Click to expand...

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 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.
 
Alliecat said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
justiceforlauren said:
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.
Click to expand...

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/1082570803001/1/RAW-Chief-Mike-Burns-Dismisses-Rumors-in-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.
 
angelanalyzes said:
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/1082570803001/1/RAW-Chief-Mike-Burns-Dismisses-Rumors-in-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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
angelanalyzes said:
I am still kicking myself for missing that special!!!
He rolled his eyes? Wow. WOW.
Click to expand...

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.
 
southern_comfort said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
NotALawyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
NotALawyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
angelanalyzes said:
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 :crazy:
Click to expand...

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. :crazy: I need a break, aaagh!
 
PlainJaneDoe said:
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. :crazy: I need a break, aaagh!
Click to expand...

Oh yes, yes, they would definitely look for blood in the drains immediately traced to the apartments but nowhere deep down in the sewers. :/
 
southern_comfort said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 211 more.
Total: 3,609 (members: 212, guests: 3,397)

Online statistics

Members online
212
Guests online
3,397
Total visitors
3,609
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,814
Messages
17,959,373
Members
228,613
Latest member
boymom0304
Back
Top