GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #13

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a feeling, just a hunch from what I have heard from a Personal injury attorney here in Atlanta, that this lawsuit is not coming from the Giddings family. This is a personal injury group who picked this up. I can't remember their name, but I was told this months ago that the firm had picked up the case and was sueing the apt complex.

The article clearly says the demand letter was written by "Lawyers for the Giddings estate" which means this was being filed on behalf of Giddings heirs (i.e. her family). The lawyers obviously have inside information regarding the investigation as well.
 
I have a feeling, just a hunch from what I have heard from a Personal injury attorney here in Atlanta, that this lawsuit is not coming from the Giddings family. This is a personal injury group who picked this up. I can't remember their name, but I was told this months ago that the firm had picked up the case and was sueing the apt complex.

Firm?? What interest would someone else have in this case? Was it the BF Firm??
 
This latest article ...wow, this raises different emotions in me.

As far as a criminal trial, what's discussed here (at least, as far as it is discussed) is pretty much non-evidence, IMO. Traces of blood -- human? -- in an otherwise "pristine" fridge -- so no "traces" of lettuce, soda, mayonnaise, butter? And the former tenant isn't gonna tell us whether he had yet cleaned his refrigerator.... Hair that "looks like" SM's ...OK.

It's odd to me that civil cases go forward before a criminal trial commences ... I know they can, in the absence of a conviction, as with the OJ civil suit, but this really strikes me as, maybe, premature. I'm not faulting the Giddings family, it's the system of it that seems strange. The whole thing against the apartment complex (from what we read here in the article, anyhow) seems predicated on SM being the killer. What if he wasn't? Just for example, say a traveling serial killer picked Lauren up while she was out running, killed and dismembered her at a motel, returned the torso (all just for the sake of making a point here). Say the blood in the fridge is beef blood, no torso was ever there. Would the apartment complex logically bear any responsibility?

Some of you attorneys refresh my memory -- what is the standard of proof in a civil case? I know it's not "beyond reasonable doubt" -- what is the term?

And look at that headline: "Blood, hair found in refrigerator of Giddings' neighbor". What does that suggest (especially to someone who might not bother to read on and find out which neighbor). Before the bond-hearing-post-controversy clam-up, I had never thought the Telegraph appeared biased in this case... I thought accusations otherwise were not well founded. But after that -- and now this headline -- I really, really have my doubts about the paper's agenda here.

And, oh, yeah -- just how did they gain access to the contents of this letter? Did someone think it would be in their best interest to share it ...? Not disclosing that, are we.

BB is saying the master key she lost gardening was not one fitting the new master key system installed around the time Lauren and Stephen moved in, right? That, to her knowledge, no master key of that system was missing?
She says NO key was lost.

Neither she, nor her brother, know of a lost master key, and there is no evidence one was lost.
http://www.macon.com/2012/04/24/2001930/blood-hair-found-in-refrigerator.html


There was discussion about the apartment's liability when it was revealed that McD was in possession of a master key. Obviously, at least to me, the owners bear some responsibility for failure to account for, and secure, a key that can unlock all of the doors in the complex, IF McD is found guilty, and it is shown in court that the key was used to carry out the crime (and I'm pretty certain that's not limited only to accessing LG's apartment). That seems to be the main issue. The non-working cameras, etc., etc., are just the usual padding.


Unlike the OJ case, it's not a claim of wrongful death with malice. Nor is it going forward, per se. The letter is a proposal for an out of court settlement not predicated on McD's guilt or innocence. We've heard a little of the evidence so far, but not enough to make a fair prediction of the outcome. Pretty soon, we'll know of more, or the lack thereof, and the scales will tip. It's a gamble for both sides, and this is the appropriate time to make the offer while the odds are even. If you're the plaintiff's attorney, you write a big scary letter (which doesn't add up to much, as you've pointed out), with the objective to gain a settlement, sparing your clients the agony and expense of a trial down the road. If you're the defendant/insurer, you assess the risks and make a decision to wait it out, or agree to a settlement now to avoid further litigation, and potentially a hefty payout.

As for the Telegraph, I don't see any bias here. The issue isn't McD's guilt or innocence. It's whether the property owners are liable to LG's estate (heirs, family), and IMO, both sides are well represented in the article. :moo:
 
I have a feeling, just a hunch from what I have heard from a Personal injury attorney here in Atlanta, that this lawsuit is not coming from the Giddings family. This is a personal injury group who picked this up. I can't remember their name, but I was told this months ago that the firm had picked up the case and was sueing the apt complex.
That personal injury group might be handling the suit, but the plaintiff is Lauren Giddings and her estate.
 
It looks like Boni Bush the landlord shared the letter with the telegraph along with her letter responding to it. If the Telegraph actually got their hands on the letter/s then they wouldn't likely leave any "juicy bits of info" out of their article.

Me thinks those hairs are the closest thing to a "smoking gun" that the DA has. Sounds like the DA was telling the family "we got your man, don't worry, we found _____". If the family was being careful not to reveal the non-public evidence why would they mention that? And if there was a lot MORE evidence why not mention that too?

Seems to me if you are going to share private info regarding evidence in order to compell an insurance company to pay you then you would share the best of it, not just "a little bit". If you were NOT going to share private info then you wouldn't mention any of it at all!

The last bit of the article in which they talk about a "cream white flip top trash can" with names of the law student residents including Giddings seems like extremely bad taste.

And that is what I have been saying about the DA, why share trivial info if you've got real damning evidence?? This whole case is clearly someone trying to frame someone else and the struggle SEEMS evident becuase no SM DNA has been discovered or atleast NOT Mentioned among all the trivial finds. They have nothing. Sadly........ if he's guilty anyway. If your rag has a hair on it, wipe the fridge out one last time, it'll leave a hair..............in a pristine fridge. Why there is no food particles in there. I'm not saying SM is not guilty. I"m saying this is trivial pursuit becuase they seem to keep trying to make something fit into the puzzle that won't. ON the other hand. being optimistic for ONCE, ha, since the release of this letter, which was kept secret so long, proves there is more INTERESTING info, if not damning evidence, yet to be told.
 
Giddings estate attorneys contend that McDaniel downloaded child *advertiser censored*, that Barristers Hall owners were aware of Internet abuse at the complex and chose not to investigate.

The Bushes say the complex’s Internet provider has contacted them twice regarding illegal downloads of movies.

Small but interesting regarding the internet posts and child *advertiser censored*. If all of the tenants used the same network/internet connection then they all had the same IP address as far as the ISP and the outside world was concerned!

That adds yet another step in trying to verify internet posts and downloads, they would have to seize the apartment complex's router and logs to figure out WHO in the complex was visiting sites or downloading. Obviously Ms. Bush was not to keen on hiring someone to investigate that when the illegal movie download thing came up, I would thinks she would complain to the Telegraph if the GBI had seized the apartment complex's router or other network equipment.

If we recall, she even complained to the Telegraph that the FBI was going to keep the refrigerator for several months! Not sure what she planned to do with it when she got it back, though it might be worth something on http://www.supernaught.com/.
 
Good Morning, Sleuthers ! It is an interesting article. I don't recall if I have heard of this lawsuit (or future lawsuit) before this, but let's take it for what it is , just a demand letter to get money at this point. Doesn't say that the blood or hair is anyone's , but did say it looked like McDaniel's. Joe and Amy Leigh keep trying to humanize Ms. Bush , talking about her dead parrot, but her " “Absent possession of a master key, there would merely be two less pieces of evidence connecting Stephen to the murder" quote gives her away. I will say this much though, when I went by Barrister's Hall Sunday the picture of Lauren and Butterbean was still up as was the wreath. One of the more interesting things I thought was about the internet connectivity of the complex. I am now led to believe it is all on one connection, that they could tell if one of the residents was downloading *advertiser censored* or adult movies. "The Bushes say the complex’s Internet provider has contacted them twice regarding illegal downloads of movies." It will be interesting to see how that plays out and what all evidence the Internet provider can or will show .
 
It looks like Boni Bush the landlord shared the letter with the telegraph along with her letter responding to it. If the Telegraph actually got their hands on the letter/s then they wouldn't likely leave any "juicy bits of info" out of their article.

Me thinks those hairs are the closest thing to a "smoking gun" that the DA has. Sounds like the DA was telling the family "we got your man, don't worry, we found _____". Seems to me if you are going to share private info regarding evidence in order to compell an insurance company to pay you then you would share the best of it, not just "a little bit". If you were NOT going to share private info then you wouldn't mention any of it at all!

The last bit of the article in which they talk about a "cream white flip top trash can" with names of the law student residents including Giddings seems like extremely bad taste.
Regardless of what the DA might have revealed to LG's family regarding actual evidence, the Giddings' attorneys could not state it in this letter because, first of all, it's unsubstantiated. The civil attorneys don't have test results in their possession at this time. Secondly, revealing evidence at this juncture could potentially harm the criminal case. So we hear blood and hair. Might be McD's hair, might not. It's a bluff.

I do absolutely agree with you that the trash can is in terrible taste!
 
Regardless of what the DA might have revealed to LG's family regarding actual evidence, the Giddings' attorneys could not state it in this letter because, first of all, it's unsubstantiated. The civil attorneys don't have test results in their possession at this time. Secondly, revealing evidence at this juncture could potentially harm the criminal case. So we hear blood and hair. Might be McD's hair, might not. It's a bluff.

I do absolutely agree with you that the trash can is in terrible taste!

THANK YOU! And this whole article, maybe not biased but bogus.....I do agree that the LL is responsible for their OWN KEYS and not letting them fall into the wrong hands.......but this.............This is trying to hold the LL of Complex responsible for the murder!!! No law says there must be security guards or cameras.

Well, ultimately no matter how the murderer got to her, WHICH IS UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME, he could have simply knocked on her door and she opened it!! But if someone is want to commit murder, THAT is who to blame.........If not wanting to COMMIT MURDER, it wouldn't matter about the keys........BLAME THE MURDERER
 
Good Morning, Sleuthers ! It is an interesting article. I don't recall if I have heard of this lawsuit (or future lawsuit) before this, but let's take it for what it is , just a demand letter to get money at this point. Doesn't say that the blood or hair is anyone's , but did say it looked like McDaniel's. Joe and Amy Leigh keep trying to humanize Ms. Bush , talking about her dead parrot, but her " “Absent possession of a master key, there would merely be two less pieces of evidence connecting Stephen to the murder" quote gives her away. I will say this much though, when I went by Barrister's Hall Sunday the picture of Lauren and Butterbean was still up as was the wreath. One of the more interesting things I thought was about the internet connectivity of the complex. I am now led to believe it is all on one connection, that they could tell if one of the residents was downloading *advertiser censored* or adult movies. "The Bushes say the complex’s Internet provider has contacted them twice regarding illegal downloads of movies." It will be interesting to see how that plays out and what all evidence the Internet provider can or will show .


They must know WHICH apt was downloading *advertiser censored*, each apt would have a different box. That was not mentioned here interestingly.
 
They must know WHICH apt was downloading *advertiser censored*, each apt would have a different box. That was not mentioned here interestingly.

I don't know much about hardware but I don't think "they" meaning outside folks would know. All of the traffic would go out through the network router showing the router's ip address to the ISP, to figure out which tenant did what would require looking at the apartment complex's router/network logs.

The Barrister Hall website clearly states "free wireless Internet access!" which means no "boxes" required just the password to log into to the wireless network.

Owned and operated by Mercer Law School alumni, Barristers Hall caters to students through our discounted summer rents, free wireless internet, on-site laundry, one-bedroom apartments with large studies, semester pre-pay discounts and more.
 
I don't know much about hardware but I don't think "they" meaning outside folks would know. All of the traffic would go out through the network router showing the router's ip address to the ISP, to figure out which tenant did what would require looking at the apartment complex's router/network logs.

That is why she got the letter about the illegal movies, they knew SHE paid for the internet connection and that is all they knew, she didn't bother investigating it because she didn't want to spend the money to get an IT guy to sort through the logs. The Barrister Hall website clearly states "free wireless Internet access!" which means no "boxes" required just the password to log into to the wireless network.

When they mentioned MOVIES, I was thinking SATELLITE, Not internet, which would require a box unless everyone watched the same thing all day. LOL. Thanks!
 
Small but interesting regarding the internet posts and child *advertiser censored*. If all of the tenants used the same network/internet connection then they all had the same IP address as far as the ISP and the outside world was concerned!

That adds yet another step in trying to verify internet posts and downloads, they would have to seize the apartment complex's router and logs to figure out WHO in the complex was visiting sites or downloading. Obviously Ms. Bush was not to keen on hiring someone to investigate that when the illegal movie download thing came up, I would thinks she would complain to the Telegraph if the GBI had seized the apartment complex's router or other network equipment.

If we recall, she even complained to the Telegraph that the FBI was going to keep the refrigerator for several months! Not sure what she planned to do with it when she got it back, though it might be worth something on http://www.supernaught.com/.

Just shows you can't provide a "Free" service, SOMEONE will abuse it and look where it leads!!! Downloading of *advertiser censored* doesnt' make BB or SM a murderer................
 
Just shows you can't provide a "Free" service, SOMEONE will abuse it and look where it leads!!! Downloading of *advertiser censored* doesnt' make BB or SM a murderer................

Lots of places provide free internet access, in fact more and more all the time! Starbucks and many fast food restaurants provide it too. If someone wanted to hide their identity simply into one of their parking lots, tap into their wireless and download away to your hearts content.

Starbucks offers free, one-click, unlimited Wi-Fi at all company-owned stores in the United States, including instant access to the Starbucks Digital Network. There’s no purchase or subscription required, no password needed and no time limit on your session.

http://www.starbucks.com/coffeehouse/wireless-internet

On that note it is rather interesting, surely the people trading in illegal material like CP are aware of these anonymous wireless connections. Why isn't the government cracking down on that? Ohhhh...because big corporations support it and the government would RATHER target individual citizens.
 
Lots of places provide free internet access, in fact more and more all the time! Starbucks and many fast food restaurants provide it too. If someone wanted to hide their identity simply into one of their parking lots, tap into their wireless and download away to your hearts content.



On that note it is rather interesting, surely the people trading in illegal material like CP are aware of these anonymous wireless connections. Why isn't the government cracking down on that? Ohhhh...because big corporations support it and the government would RATHER target individual citizens.

I'm not debating that many don't offer free services, but you see, it seems its always the LANDLORDS who seem to get sucked into this kind of thing, blaming them for all sorts of things. Locks should be changed each time a new tenant moves in, Period. But how is someone to PROVE that they DID. . I dont' particularly like Master Keys....But It's kind of comical in my book, how we don't even have a murderer yet and someone is sueing the complex for fault. We dont' even know where it was committed really. I just dont' think the complex is responsible for someone's morbid mindset. Yes, things can be simpler but criminals look for the easiest target, whether it be a location or the individual. Well, LG had her key under the mat, so how can anyone say the MASTER key was what was used when SM possessed BOTH, he could have simply made a copy of her key. Now if he only had the master key and his DNA was discovered with her DNA on her items or his items...............wellllllll, I wouldn't even be typing.
 
THANK YOU! And this whole article, maybe not biased but bogus.....I do agree that the LL is responsible for their OWN KEYS and not letting them fall into the wrong hands.......but this.............This is trying to hold the LL of Complex responsible for the murder!!! No law says there must be security guards or cameras.

Well, ultimately no matter how the murderer got to her, WHICH IS UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME, he could have simply knocked on her door and she opened it!! But if someone is want to commit murder, THAT is who to blame.........If not wanting to COMMIT MURDER, it wouldn't matter about the keys........BLAME THE MURDERER
Not murder, Tomkat. Georgia does have laws which require apartment owners to provide adequate security for its tenants against foreseeable third party crimes. This is a good article:
Many people are unaware that business owners, landlords and other property owners owe them special duties of care while they are on the property. This includes the duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition, to warn of known dangers and to protect those who are legally on the property from certain harms. In some cases, these harms include criminal acts of others, such as physical assaults, sexual assaults and other intentional crimes.
http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2010/Oct/209692.html

Basically, the law says the owner must have knowledge of a past similar crime on the property or in the vicinity. If there were no past assaults on women in the area, BB might not be required under the law to install extra security measures. But again, I don't think security cameras and alarms are the big issue here. It's the key that's "key", and that's pretty much a no-brainer, IMO. BB claims she doesn't know of a lost master key, yet we know McD had one. To me, that shows a lax attitude about security.

The Telegraph article also says:
Attorneys representing Giddings’ estate contend that she reported security problems regarding her windows and locks, but that her calls and e-mails were ignored.
http://www.macon.com/2012/04/24/2001930/blood-hair-found-in-refrigerator.html

If the lawyers can produce an e-mail, it won't bode well for BB unless she can show action was taken to repair the problems. I don't hold the owners responsible for LG's murder. If, however, it is shown that the killer gained access to her apartment with a key from the management office that wasn't properly secured, then yes, IMO they should be held liable for negligence.

This brings to mind something that stuck in my craw about those purported bloodstained gloves. BB was quick to say it was paint, but I question if that wasn't an effort to do damage control. There's an obvious difference between dried blood and paint on rubber gloves. I'm not even sure what I think about those glove, but the story smelled fishy. I don't have any facts to base that on; it's strictly conjecture on my part. I do wonder about it, though.
 
I'm not even sure what I think about those glove, but the story smelled fishy. I don't have any facts to base that on; it's strictly conjecture on my part. I do wonder about it, though.

The glove story was just idiotic. If you recall Buford claimed in court that the investigator found what looked like gloves with blood on them days earlier. The investigator apparently LEFT the gloves there without having them admitted as evidence!!!

If the defense actually believed those gloves were real evidence that could prove their client was innocent they would NOT leave them at the complex and take the chance they could be thrown away or washed or otherwise become tainted. The police went to the complex and retrieved the gloves AFTER the court hearing. I was never a Buford fan but I lost even more confidence in him after that ridiculous claim.
 
April 24, 2012

Blood, hair found in refrigerator of Giddings' neighbor, letter, say
By AMY LEIGH WOMACK and JOE KOVAC JR. — Telegraph staff
Posted: 8:54pm on Apr 24, 2012; Modified: 10:45pm on Apr 24, 2012

Blood traces turned up in a refrigerator police seized from the apartment of a downstairs neighbor of slain Mercer University law graduate Lauren Giddings, according to a letter demanding $1 million from the company insuring owners of the Georgia Avenue apartment complex where she lived.

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2012/04/24/2001930/blood-hair-found-in-refrigerator.html#storylink=cpy



McDaniel Hearing Adjourns Without a Ruling on Bond
WMAZ Staff, WMAZ 11:21 a.m. EDT April 2, 2012

Winters, the district attorney, reviewed details of the case previously disclosed to support the higher bond request: women's underpants with Giddings' DNA were found in McDaniel's bedroom along with a key to Giddings' apartment.

Winters said investigators found a saw with Giddings' remains on it and found packaging for the saw in McDaniel's apartment.

http://www.13wmaz.com/story/local/2012/04/02/3355731/
 
(in response to my post from this am about personal injury firm representing this case)


Again, I feel every time the other side opens their mouth or says something; it is shot down. Clearly there must be two seperate cases then. I specifically asked if the personal injury group was retained by family. It was not. These kinds of firms do grab onto cases like these in order to make monies.

Also, could the Telegraph be inaccurate in its reports? There have been many inaccuracies cited by the Telegraph, including LGs incorrect birthday, which was corrected later that day.

Please let all sides state points, observations etc. We all might learn something. :)
 
ITA The glove business was a major snafu on Buford's part. :bang:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
174
Guests online
1,946
Total visitors
2,120

Forum statistics

Threads
589,950
Messages
17,928,076
Members
228,013
Latest member
RayaCo
Back
Top