GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #12

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
tomkat said:
Also, if the autolysis is emitted from nose and mouth, does it stay in the air or can it permeate through items around it?

Also, the dogs hit on the undies but were these dogs looking for the scent of Lauren or Decomposition when those were discovered in his apt?
Click to expand...

bbm: It hasn't been reported that a garment was found by one of the dogs hitting on it. (We were just speculating about whether one might have.)
 
Backwoods said:
bbm: It hasn't been reported that a garment was found by one of the dogs hitting on it. (We were just speculating about whether one might have.)
Click to expand...

I was just speculating if it did too. I am putting my thoughts on websleuth about decomposition.
 
tomkat said:
I was just speculating if it did too. I am putting my thoughts on websleuth about decomposition.
Click to expand...

Sorry, tomkat, guess I misunderstood.

Also, on your question a few posts back about whether the dogs hit in Lauren's apartment: At the commitment hearing on the murder charge, Detective Patterson testified that the HRD dog hit in Lauren's apartment, yes. (But I don't think he gave any info as to where in her apartment or on what.)
 
This is going off the topic of the underwear, but I've been meaning to mention this for awhile, so ...

As I've read more and more on WebSleuths, it has struck me how important cell phone pings (and other cell phone info) have become in so many cases -- almost ubiquitous, it seems.

And I've thought, we've heard surprisingly little about that in this case.

Of course, if Lauren was killed in the apartment complex ... and since it was learned so quickly that she was deceased ... it makes sense that we did not hear as much of that info about her phone as we often do about a victim's phone when the "missing" status continues longer.

But just pondering on the topic has surely gotten me curious about any phone clues about Stephen! I'm thinking, if he is the killer and he drove somewhere to dispose of remains, they could be pretty important. Of course, he certainly could be plenty savvy about pings and such and leave his phone behind ... but, if he is guilty, he certainly made other "mistakes" ... so I can't help but wonder.

Sometimes I have wondered if he even had a cell? It's hard to comprehend that a young law school student would not, I know -- but sometimes he strikes me as someone who might want to "stay off the grid" to the extent that he could. Guess he probably did have a cell, but ...

Just some thoughts.
 
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?
 
Oriah said:
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?
Click to expand...

bbm: Yes, I guess that's what we have to assume, Oriah. (I still can't help but be mighty curious, though!)
 
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 :)
 
Backwoods said:
Sorry, tomkat, guess I misunderstood.

Also, on your question a few posts back about whether the dogs hit in Lauren's apartment: At the commitment hearing on the murder charge, Detective Patterson testified that the HRD dog hit in Lauren's apartment, yes. (But I don't think he gave any info as to where in her apartment or on what.)
Click to expand...

No Problem Backwoods. I understand my ramblings can be confusing. haha.

I had a sudden revelation on decomposition and all angles and questions came to mind at one time

Thanks for clarification on the dogs
 
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.
 
SmoothOperator said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

Hi Smooth.

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
 
Backwoods said:
This is going off the topic of the underwear, but I've been meaning to mention this for awhile, so ...

As I've read more and more on WebSleuths, it has struck me how important cell phone pings (and other cell phone info) have become in so many cases -- almost ubiquitous, it seems.

And I've thought, we've heard surprisingly little about that in this case.

Of course, if Lauren was killed in the apartment complex ... and since it was learned so quickly that she was deceased ... it makes sense that we did not hear as much of that info about her phone as we often do about a victim's phone when the "missing" status continues longer.

But just pondering on the topic has surely gotten me curious about any phone clues about Stephen! I'm thinking, if he is the killer and he drove somewhere to dispose of remains, they could be pretty important. Of course, he certainly could be plenty savvy about pings and such and leave his phone behind ... but, if he is guilty, he certainly made other "mistakes" ... so I can't help but wonder.

Sometimes I have wondered if he even had a cell? It's hard to comprehend that a young law school student would not, I know -- but sometimes he strikes me as someone who might want to "stay off the grid" to the extent that he could. Guess he probably did have a cell, but ...

Just some thoughts.
Click to expand...

Just commenting here:
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...........???
 
tomkat said:
Just commenting here:
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...........???
Click to expand...

about what I bolded: tomkat, that certainly is the question of the moment right now, I think: Just what do they have?

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.
 
Backwoods said:
about what I bolded: tomkat, that certainly is the question of the moment right now, I think: Just what do they have?

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.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, in my mind there are 2 simple reasons. Holding on til arraignment or still hoping for more from forensics or further investigation, either way, they are not telling.
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
 
Backwoods said:
This is going off the topic of the underwear, but I've been meaning to mention this for awhile, so ...

As I've read more and more on WebSleuths, it has struck me how important cell phone pings (and other cell phone info) have become in so many cases -- almost ubiquitous, it seems.

And I've thought, we've heard surprisingly little about that in this case.

Of course, if Lauren was killed in the apartment complex ... and since it was learned so quickly that she was deceased ... it makes sense that we did not hear as much of that info about her phone as we often do about a victim's phone when the "missing" status continues longer.

But just pondering on the topic has surely gotten me curious about any phone clues about Stephen! I'm thinking, if he is the killer and he drove somewhere to dispose of remains, they could be pretty important. Of course, he certainly could be plenty savvy about pings and such and leave his phone behind ... but, if he is guilty, he certainly made other "mistakes" ... so I can't help but wonder.

Sometimes I have wondered if he even had a cell? It's hard to comprehend that a young law school student would not, I know -- but sometimes he strikes me as someone who might want to "stay off the grid" to the extent that he could. Guess he probably did have a cell, but ...

Just some thoughts.
Click to expand...
It's hard for me to imagine that McD would be unaware of how cell phone technology can be used to trace a person's whereabouts. For one thing, it's a controversial issue and one that any "true son of liberty" would be aware of. I'd also be a little surprised to learn McD had a cell phone rather than a landline. If he did have one, I really doubt he would have taken it with him to dispose of LG's remains. Why would he? I mean, who was he going to call?

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.
 
bessie said:
It's hard for me to imagine that McD would be unaware of how cell phone technology can be used to trace a person's whereabouts. For one thing, it's a controversial issue and one that any "true son of liberty" would be aware of. I'd also be a little surprised to learn McD had a cell phone rather than a landline. If he did have one, I really doubt he would have taken it with him to dispose of LG's remains. Why would he? I mean, who was he going to call?

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.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree that he likely wouldn't have taken a cell with him, knowing that it could possibly be traced. I can, however, see an instance where he would take one- if he wanted to utilize features other than calling in or out.
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.
 
Oriah said:
I tend to agree that he likely wouldn't have taken a cell with him, knowing that it could possibly be traced. I can, however, see an instance where he would take one- if he wanted to utilize features other than calling in or out.
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.
Click to expand...
You're so right! I didn't mean that pings would lead LE directly to LG's remains. It should have narrowed it down for them, or suggested areas to search. IIRC, the only LE led searches have been in the landfills and dumps, and along the river where LG was known to go jogging. They seem to be at a loss for other areas to search, which is why I don't think they have cell records to guide them. Or, it's just not a priority.

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... :rolleyes:) -- 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 194 more.
Total: 4,060 (members: 195, guests: 3,865)

Online statistics

Members online
195
Guests online
3,865
Total visitors
4,060
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,697
Messages
17,957,667
Members
228,588
Latest member
cariboucampfire73
Back
Top