GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #11

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Around 9:40 this morning, the Telegraph posted an article with the headline "McDaniel indicted in Giddings slaying", at http://www.macon.com/2011/11/15/1786687/mcdaniel-indicted-in-giddings.html. They took it down pretty much immediately after -- not sure if the Telegraph was just jumping the gun and predicting the outcome, or if they did hear the result and for some reason decided to delay in publishing it.

Either way, it's a foregone conclusion what the Grand Jury will come back with.
 
Hyrax said:
Around 9:40 this morning, the Telegraph posted an article with the headline "McDaniel indicted in Giddings slaying", at http://www.macon.com/2011/11/15/1786687/mcdaniel-indicted-in-giddings.html. They took it down pretty much immediately after -- not sure if the Telegraph was just jumping the gun and predicting the outcome, or if they did hear the result and for some reason decided to delay in publishing it.

Either way, it's a foregone conclusion what the Grand Jury will come back with.
Click to expand...

And it's still on the mobile site on my blackberry. So strange. I saw it at 9:45 and couldn't believe how fast it was. I'm betting they just have the story ready to go . . . Here's the mobile link

http://m.macon.com/macon/db_976/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=DF9oPiMo&detailindex=2&pn=0&ps=3
 
The 30 counts of exploitation is a big jump from the number he was originally charged with, right?
 
SouthernKate said:
Hope that's an indicator that they have a lot of solid evidence! They had to have found something to go from 7 charges to 30!
Click to expand...

Me too! I would guess that they showed just enough of their hand in order to get an indictment, and nothing more. I truly hope that things move forward quickly from this point on.

I think that another nail in Stephen's coffin, will be if there is a search of grandpa's land, they find Lauren's remains. I pray that they go forward with this search.
 
The 30 counts of exploitation definitely indicates they found more images somewhere in McDaniel's possession. We know he had the seven on a flash drive, maybe some were still on his computer.

It would be possible for them to bring multiple charges based on the same images, but I think not for simple possession plus something else. Maybe they found proof of him downloading the images and distributing them to others, or offering them for trade or sale, so they don't necessarily need to have found 23 more separate pictures.

Whatever, not that it matters. Scum like him don't stop at just a few. If they found him with even 7, he's possessed hundreds or thousands more images in the past.
 
It does say murder with "malice aforethought" so it sounds like malice murder but he was originally charged with felony murder. Since it just says "murder" maybe it's still felony murder.

Why would it mention decapitation specifically? I wonder if they think the decapitation was the cause of death.
 
MaconMom said:
I'm not a lawyer but it does say murder with "malice aforethought" so it sounds like malice murder which is what I think he was originally charged with.

ETA: sorry, he was charged with felony murder so never mind what I said.
Click to expand...

Not speaking as a lawyer and not certain, but I think the original charge was felony murder, which, while possibly carrying a capital punishment, implies the death, which was caused during the commission of another felony, was not necessarily premeditated. So it sounds like the charge has been upped, to premeditated murder. Again, not speaking professionally here, just my understanding...

ETA: sorry, I didn't see your ETA before posting!!
 
Backwoods said:
Not speaking as a lawyer and not certain, but I think the original charge was felony murder, which, while possibly carrying a capital punishment, implies the death, which was caused during the commission of another felony, was not necessarily premeditated. So it sounds like the charge has been upped, to premeditated murder. Again, not speaking professionally here, just my understanding...

ETA: sorry, I didn't see your ETA before posting!!
Click to expand...

That's ok - I went back and reworded it after that too. Its hard to update quickly on my phone.
 
I wonder how mommy is handling all of this information? How long can she continue to deny that he is evil??
 
Backwoods said:
Not speaking as a lawyer and not certain, but I think the original charge was felony murder, which, while possibly carrying a capital punishment, implies the death, which was caused during the commission of another felony, was not necessarily premeditated. So it sounds like the charge has been upped, to premeditated murder. Again, not speaking professionally here, just my understanding...

ETA: sorry, I didn't see your ETA before posting!!
Click to expand...


Quoting my own post to bold a portion and say: I THINK -- again, not certain, and would appreciate a lawyer ringing in here -- that if this (that the murder charge has been upped) is true, it may do away completely with any bond hearing due SM (because of the 90-day thing) on the original murder charge ... because it is in effect a different charge now...

Kind of a moot point, I know, but just studying on the legal ins and outs. (In the Bun case that we were looking at a little earlier, best as I have been able to determine, his bond hearing was cancelled after he was indicted not so much because of his "indicted" status but because additional or different charges came from the GJ.)

On the child exploitation charges, all this wouldn't need to come into play, since the 90-day mark on those had not been reached. Think Buford filed for bond only for the murder charge.
 
MaconMom said:
It does say murder with "malice aforethought" so it sounds like malice murder but he was originally charged with felony murder. Since it just says "murder" maybe it's still felony murder.

Why would it mention decapitation specifically? I wonder if they think the decapitation was the cause of death.
Click to expand...

bbm: I'm not sure, MaconMom, but I'm thinking it may have something to do with the circumstances of the cause of death not being clear...?

Almost like the GJ is saying, ok, we believe there's sufficient evidence to charge this person with causing the death -- even though we're not sure exactly how -- and we also believe this person performed the decapitation, which act would have in itself killed the victim, so it doesn't really matter (to the validity of GJ opinion) that we don't know for certain the exact cause of death. In other words, not necessarily saying that decapitation is the cause of death but that, even if COD is not known, that they believe death and decapitation were caused by the same person...

Sorry kind of graphic, just couldn't come up with less graphic way to get my point across (if I even did!)
 
The indictment does confirm he was indicted on a felony murder charge. It lists O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 which is felony murder. I missed it earlier.
 
They specify § 16-5-1(a) in the indictment, which means they are charging him with malice murder. Felony murder is § 16-5-1(c), and does not require malice aforethought.

My best guess is that they included the part about the decapitation for purposes of identifying an aggravating circumstance under § 17-10-30(b), which would make McDaniel eligible for capital punishment. Probably (b)(7), to show that the murder was "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, or inhuman".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 241 more.
Total: 3,936 (members: 242, guests: 3,694)

Online statistics

Members online
242
Guests online
3,694
Total visitors
3,936
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,552
Messages
17,954,724
Members
228,532
Latest member
GravityHurts
Back
Top