Lauren Giddings was brutally murdered and dismembered before her decapitated torso was discovered outside of her Macon, GA apartment. Although a suspect is already in custody and several months have passed, the search for her parts continues.
In particular, the family members of murdered Mercer University Law graduate Lauren Giddings wants detectives to search local farmlands for the dismembered bits and pieces. At this point, is it really necessary? It's been since midsummer and any parts that are left, if there are any that can be found, would be so badly decomposed that investigators wouldn't really be able to do adequate tests on them. There couldn't be a cause of death pinpointed from the finds that couldn't have already been found on the woman's torso.
Did Stephen McDaniel kill and dismember Lauren Giddings?
The amount of evidence against the slain woman's classmate and neighbor is astounding. It also doesn't help his case that he's had a history of making comments about "getting away with murder." If he isn't found guilty of murdering Lauren Giddings, at the least he could face prison time for child pornography, as police found it in his possession during a search of his apartment for evidence. They also found that he was in possession of the very hacksaw that was used to dismember Giddings.
---~~*~~---
©Chelsea Hoffman is the Author of "Chloe and Louis," and the "Fear Chronicles," series of books. She also covers a myriad of true crime stories online. Visit ChelseaHoffman.Com to follow the blog and contact Chelsea directly.
---~~*~~---
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 5
You've got a couple of your facts confused.
1) "the family members of murdered Mercer University Law graduate Lauren Giddings wants detectives to search local farmlands for the dismembered bits and pieces." This is partially true. Lauren's family wants to search McDaniel's grandfather's farm for her body. They are willing to do the search themselves, although the police department has said that any searches now must be conducted by the police (or FBI, or other official group). They don't want to search other farmlands - just McDaniel's grandfather's land.
2) "They also found that he was in possession of the very hacksaw that was used to dismember Giddings." This is completely false. The hacksaw packaging was found in McDaniel's apartment. The hacksaw itself was found locked in a storage shed in the apartment complex - NOT in his posession.
3) "There couldn't be a cause of death pinpointed from the finds that couldn't have already been found on the woman's torso." This is ALSO completely false. There are many, many tests that can be done on the portions of Lauren's body that have not been found yet, some of which can determine HOW she was killed. The police have not mentioned how she died. If they find her head, they may be able to determine that a blow to her skull is what killed her. Finding the hacksaw does not necessarily mean they know how she died. On a personal note, I hope that is NOT how she died, because it would be a terrible way to go.
I know it's your job to sensationalize news, but I really wish you would state the facts rather than embellishing them to make the story more sensationalized. For those of us who loved Lauren and continue to pray for her justice, the details are very important. I, personally, think McDaniel did it. But even that hasn't clouded my ability to discern the true facts from the sensationalist lies.
2. The packaging and DNA proved that it was at one point in his possession.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_entomological_decomposition
we're talking several months in the hot, humid summer of GA -- at the most, if any parts are found, they will have to employ the help of an entymologist - which at the most will give you a time frame and POSSIBLE environmental influences.
It's called science and it's not that hard to figure out.
-- in other words, semantics aren't going to get you far with me.
2. The packaging was in his possession, yes. But unless and until they find HIS DNA on the hacksaw itself (which the police haven't disclosed), he can deny he ever had access to that specific hacksaw. Maybe the packaging was for another hacksaw (same brand, same type, but a different one - they make millions, you know) - his defense can come up with hundreds of reasons why there was packaging for a hacksaw in his apartment but it wasn't the hacksaw used on Lauren's body. You'd be a terrible lawyer - you absolutely cannot jump to conclusions like that.
3. You're citing Wikipedia. I'm not even going to justify that with a response.
Yes, it is science, and apparently it IS hard for you to figure it out, as evidenced by your statements in your post and this comment, which disregard the facts about the case, details, and science. Of course semantics aren't going to get far with you - you're a sensationalist writer who's more interested in getting hits on this article than actually reporting the true facts about Lauren's murder. Those of us who knew and loved her are concerned about the facts, not exploiting her death for profit.