GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #10

[Hyrax]

I respectfully disagree. I haven't had a chance to read the case law you quoted, but the quotation itself indicates (to me, at least) that the affidavit does need to sufficiently inform the accused of the specific charges against him. I think Buford was raising a legitimate challenge to the specificity of the affidavit based on the affidavit itself and the detective's own admission during the commitment hearing.

The charge is murder. There is no need to name the exact statute used for purposes of the affidavit, but in this case we know which one it is, because Georgia only has one murder statute, § 16-5-1. That contains both felony murder and malice aforethought murder. But again, note that a felony murder can also be a malice murder, or not.

The affidavit provided that there is probable cause to believe that McDaniel committed a malice murder. It does not need to detail each element, that is what the indictment will do.

In this case, the affidavit did in fact detail a malice murder -- the discussing the plan for the murder ahead of time gets you the malice aforethought.

If the state wants to make this an indictment for felony murder (perhaps to get an easier shot at the death penalty) then they can still do that. They just weren't required to specifically clarify that prior to an indictment.

Edited to Add: What Buford tried to do was bring in confusion caused from Winters' statement at the press conference that McD was being charged with felony murder. The affidavit, by itself, was not objectionable or confusing -- it's only ambiguous in light of external matters. Without the press statement to bring up, and the witness being somewhat inept (although as a witness he's not supposed to deal with legal questions anyway), Buford wouldn't have had much to talk about. But those things aren't relevant to the argument he was trying to make.

 

[Irene_Adler]

The charge is murder. There is no need to name the exact statute used for purposes of the affidavit, but in this case we know which one it is, because Georgia only has one murder statute, § 16-5-1. That contains both felony murder and malice aforethought murder. But again, note that a felony murder can also be a malice murder, or not.

The affidavit provided that there is probable cause to believe that McDaniel committed a malice murder. It does not need to detail each element, that is what the indictment will do.

In this case, the affidavit did in fact detail a malice murder -- the discussing the plan for the murder ahead of time gets you the malice aforethought.

If the state wants to make this an indictment for felony murder (perhaps to get an easier shot at the death penalty) then they can still do that. They just weren't required to specifically clarify that prior to an indictment.

I understand what you mean. I was just addressing your comment as to the legitimacy of Buford's line of questioning, though. Even if the affidavit detailed malice murder, I would think that the detective's testimony during the commitment hearing that the affidavit was one for felony murder, the objection to which the judge overruled, might be cause for further questioning. I assume the judge can take all evidence presented at the hearing into account when ruling on probable cause, including testimony. If that assumption is correct, then a detective's testimony undermining or somehow confusing the content of the affidavit would provide more than a legitimate basis for a defense attorney to focus on the discrepancy, in my opinion. Had the detective not stated that the affidavit was for felony murder, and had the judge not overruled the prosecutor's objection, I would completely agree with you.

 

[HellonHeels]

Or, have SMD try it on. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit! :shakehead:

No more trying on gloves in court. We all know how that worked out the last time.

 

[SmoothOperator]

OK..HELP..HELP..sorry can only peep in for a sec..and I've got tons of questions.. but if anyone knows about just these couple I'll pop in later to discuss much more..

Blue gloves.. This is probably common knowledge but I'm a bit confused.. First of all blue gloves with blood found to be on them and recently discovered by defense investigator. I mean couldn't this be as insignificant as blood from a minor, innocent cut or even hangnail, or is it being said they are like bloody OJ gloves?? and I certainly take it there have been zero forensics done on them, so, likely not even in any way involved??

I Have followed WM3 for 18yrs(4miles over the bridge from me).and I know the DT when became aware of possible evidence would immediately alert the prosecution..was this not done here?? That really confused me as I understand that the lead det. on the stand didn't have a clue of their existence??

Thanks to anyone who can clarify.. I'll be back when I have more time..

 

[Hyrax]

I understand what you mean. I was just addressing your comment as to the legitimacy of Buford's line of questioning, though. Even if the affidavit detailed malice murder, I would think that the detective's testimony during the commitment hearing that the affidavit was one for felony murder, the objection to which the judge overruled, might be cause for further questioning. I assume the judge can take all evidence presented at the hearing into account when ruling on probable cause, including testimony. If that assumption is correct, then a detective's testimony undermining or somehow confusing the content of the affidavit would provide more than a legitimate basis for a defense attorney to focus on the discrepancy, in my opinion. Had the detective not stated that the affidavit was for felony murder, I would completely agree with you.

Detectives aren't lawyers. Patterson was there to answer fact questions, and his random opinions on the law are irrelevant. It doesn't count as evidence, because the fact Patterson had no idea whether it was a warrant for malice murder or felony murder or some combination thereof is irrelevant. What matters is whether the facts about the murder that Patterson testified to were sufficient to establish probable cause for murder.

I need to watch a clear copy of the video again, but my recollection was that Winters jumped right in when he realized where the questioning was going, and the judge made Buford back off from it, sustaining the objection.

 

[wilksterette]

For what it's worth, around the same time Buford asked the detective about the gloves, he also asked about the search of McDaniel's apartment for "blue fibers." Based on his line of questioning, and considering their proximity to that storage closet with gardening tools, I was imagining the gloves looking like those heavy-duty gardening gloves.

That's what I was thinking as well. But then again are they SURE it was blood? Let alone, the victim and/or suspect's. If they were there prior how could LE have missed them? But then again they may have not even been there in the first place! Kind of an odd thing to throw into the mix!

 

[wilksterette]

I find it very hard to believe LE would have missed blue gloves with blood on them (whether you could see the blood or not) when they searched that closet or laundry room or whatever it is. Now I'm wondering if this was even a locked room at all, where the gloves were found & also where the hacksaw was found.

If those gloves come back with Lauren's DNA on them, I'll be totally surprised. (And I'll also wonder when they were put there.)

What I believe was said was that the storage closet (opened with master key at time they found hacksaw AFTER they found the packaging in his apartment) is within the laundry room (accessable by numerical keypad entry). I could be off though, I was wrangling 2 toddlers while it was going on!

 

[AgentFrankLundy]

Agent Lundy reporting here after going to the commitment hearing. Looks like ya'll have already got this thing pretty well broken down, but I didn't see much discussion about Thaddeus Money. He was the person who McD bragged to that he know how he could get away with murder. In one statement Det. Patterson said it was right after McD moved to town. Since he went to Mercer undergrad I would put that around 2004 or 2005 In another he said it was his first year of law school, around 2008 but he wasn't sure. He said McD told him he would do it by sneaking up on them with chloroform. Buford effectively counterpunched that there was no chloroform found anywhere. The entire audience kept holding their breath waiting for Patterson to tell us what the felony was, and as he was about to blurt it out, he was saved by Greg Winters.Floyd did an excellent job. He still threw DD's name in there, but he basically made Patterson confess that MPD zeroed in on McD as their only person of interest (Cadaver dog only went into three apartments, not any of the ones behind the front of the building. Says his Private investigator discovered blue gloves with blood on them in the laundry room just this past week, detective Patterson was unaware of that. Dog hit in McD's bedroom and bathroom ( I don't want to even think about that) Det. Patterson is definitely no Yuri Melich, he came off as very unsure of himself, and asked Greg Winters one time if he could consult with him before he answered a question. Said he has only handled 20 murder cases. He said the GBI provided him with additional evidence to support the murder warrant that was gleaned off of computer data in McDaniel's apartment. McDaniel himself is either heavily medicated that he doesn't know what is going on , or is still going by his playbook and putting on an act in an attempt to get away with murder. He just stared straight ahead the entire time, never making eye contact with anyone. Even when he left, just stared straight ahead, didn't look at Mom and Dad. Floyd said he was aware of the charges against him. Just bizarre.

 

[tut med]

http://www.macon.com/2011/08/26/1678851/mcdaniel-murder-case-bound-over.html
UPDATE: More details revealed in Giddings murder case

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2011/08/26/1678851/mcdaniel-murder-case-bound-over.html#ixzz1W9hDDWiZ

 

[Wondergirl]

It is interesting to note that SM did not know there was a torso found, during the time when he was "concerned" that he may have inadvertently tracked evidence into his apartment.

At that time, Lauren was simply a missing person.

He was concerned he might have picked up something on his clothing or shoes and might have brought it into his apartment,” Patterson said, explaining that McDaniel had participated in a search for Giddings -- then just a missing person -- with several of Giddings’ friends in the early hours of June 30.

Patterson noted that McDaniel had not been told that police had found Giddings’ torso and five black trash bags inside one of two flip-top trash cans utilized by residents of four of the apartment units, including Giddings and McDaniel.

The dogs “alerted” in McDaniel’s bathroom and rear bedroom, Patterson testified.


Read more: http://www.macon.com/2011/08/26/1678851/mcdaniel-murder-case-bound-over.html#ixzz1W9glloLJ

 

[tut med]

Someone on the macon.com site made a good point
Why was McD nervous about the dogs if the body had not been found yet?

When the dogs were used had they found the torso yet?

Otherwise that would be a weird response....

 

[Wondergirl]

Confirming the Master Key found in SM's residence opened the closet, and discussion about Chloroform.

Police found a hacksaw with Giddings’ DNA on it inside a locked closet in the complex’s laundry room. Officers opened the closet with the master key found in McDaniel’s residence, Patterson said.

Patterson went on to say that McDaniel’s roommate from 2008 told police that McDaniel had talked to him about zombie invasions and how he could commit the “perfect murder.”

Patterson testified that the roommate said McDaniel told him he’d sneak up on a person and overpower them with chloroform.


Read more: http://www.macon.com/2011/08/26/1678851/mcdaniel-murder-case-bound-over.html#ixzz1W9hgWSuY

 

[Irene_Adler]

Detectives aren't lawyers. Patterson was there to answer fact questions, and his random opinions on the law are irrelevant. It doesn't count as evidence, because the fact Patterson had no idea whether it was a warrant for malice murder or felony murder or some combination thereof is irrelevant. What matters is whether the facts about the murder that Patterson testified to were sufficient to establish probable cause for murder.

I need to watch a clear copy of the video again, but my recollection was that Winters jumped right in when he realized where the questioning was going, and the judge made Buford back off from it, sustaining the objection.

I think you might be misunderstanding what I was responding to. I wasn't making an observation as to the legal relevancy of the detective's opinions, but to the legitimacy of Buford's questions. You mentioned that Buford was more or less wasting our time with this particular line of questioning. My only response was that I didn't think that Buford's attempt to question the detective about whether the facts in the affidavit alleged felony or malice murder was a waste of time. Relevant or not, I don't think Buford was wrong in trying to create some sort of doubt about the sufficiency/specificity of the allegations in the affidavit. You gotta go with what ya got, right?

 

[SmoothOperator]

What I believe was said was that the storage closet (opened with master key at time they found hacksaw AFTER they found the packaging in his apartment) is within the laundry room (accessable by numerical keypad entry). I could be off though, I was wrangling 2 toddlers while it was going on!

Above BBM.. Thanks wilkster!!.. I really like how this was said today in court..WoW[and by the end of the day I'm certain we'll have a transcript of its exact wording].. I think that once able to watch the proceeding in its entirety along with having a written transcript of it in black and white.. IMO I think we're gonna see that there's a few new kernals[or atleast clarified kernals]of important and significant detail..

Thanks to you all who watched it and were able to atleast give us that didn't some highlights and of course most importantly that the judge found probable cause and bound his azz over..Bond denied!!.. Just one more step closer to justice IMO..

 

[tut med]

It is interesting to note that SM did not know there was a torso found, during the time when he was "concerned" that he may have inadvertently tracked evidence into his apartment.

At that time, Lauren was simply a missing person.

Well you answered my question-while I was posting it. lol Thanks:truce:

 

[Sandstorm]

SLIDESHOW: Stephen McDaniel August 26th Hearing

http://www.13wmaz.com/slideshows/20...showname=Stephen-McDaniel-August-26th-Hearing

 

[Wondergirl]

Would the lawyers participating on our thread here, please help?

I know this has been discussed in other threads, prior to the commitment hearing.

Am I correct in my retention from those previous discussions, that regarding evidence and strategy, today at the hearing, the defence was trying to get the prosecution to reveal as much as possible, with the prosecution trying to reveal as little as necessary?

TIA

 

[tut med]

http://videos.macon.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=108387081&item_index=1&all=1&sort=NULL

McD leaving court

 

[Wondergirl]

What I believe was said was that the storage closet (opened with master key at time they found hacksaw AFTER they found the packaging in his apartment) is within the laundry room (accessable by numerical keypad entry). I could be off though, I was wrangling 2 toddlers while it was going on!

BBM: Maybe I have been asleep.

The laundry room was only accessable by numerical keypad entry? :waitasec:

So, the person who placed a bloody hacksaw in the locked storage closet, located IN the laundry room, had to both enter keyed numbers AND have a key to open the closet?

That does narrow things down considerably, as to who had access to both the room AND the closet.

I wonder if a security company had logs for the keypad entries on the laundry room door? Some systems are set-up to track all keyed entries, dates and times.

 

[southern_comfort]

Someone on the macon.com site made a good point
Why was McD nervous about the dogs if the body had not been found yet?

When the dogs were used had they found the torso yet?

Otherwise that would be a weird response....

Maybe he didn't know they were cadaver dogs, as opposed to SAR dogs.