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

[likeafox]

Sorry, didn't realize "no copying and pasting from other sites" extended to quoting a one-sentence headline. I'll back off the speculation.

Edit: Posted the link in the private thread, if anyone wanted to look up the reference.

 

[bessie]

Likeafox, the rule about c&p is pretty strict. Please don't let that discourage you from posting.

 

[Backwoods]

All the negativity from what seems to be speculation reminds me why I stopped visiting this site. I know everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but just assuming LE and the FBI messed everything up before the trial begins is a little much for me. Maybe they did mess it up, but, hey, maybe they didn't.

Case in point, Mcd's Dad's painting biz. Blood pressure was raised over nothing.

bbm: 'shivers, can you briefly refresh my memory on the part I bolded? I've "thunk and thunk" and can't recall what you are referring to!

 

[bessie]

I've been sitting here trying to figure that out, too. lol

Shivers, come back and 'splain.

 

[Backwoods]

I know the link below is to a blog (AboveTheLaw), but as I remember it has been allowed in the past. Be sure to read the comments -- sounds like the other site is speaking up there (toward the end of the comments) -- and I'm glad -- but gosh they sure have no love for us.




http://abovethelaw.com/2012/04/a-cr...phen-mcdaniel-in-lauren-giddings-murder-case/

 

[Sonya610]

Pull up the most recent macon.com thread and read the latest comment.

Now THAT sounds very legit...one of the <modsnip> guys stating the McDaniel post was a troll...part of a thread in which they were messing around.

I will post the link: http://www.macon.com/2012/04/03/1973472/mcdaniel-pleads-not-guilty-to.html#disqus_thread


<mosnip>

 

[Backwoods]

Pull up the most recent macon.com thread and read the latest comment.

Now THAT sounds very legit...one of the <modsnip> guys stating the McDaniel post was a troll...part of a thread in which they were messing around.

I will post the link: http://www.macon.com/2012/04/03/1973472/mcdaniel-pleads-not-guilty-to.html#disqus_thread


<modsnip>

To me, the comment saying the post was a hoax does sound authentic. If it is, I am glad that person stepped up and posted it. (Though I do wish they'd lay off us, ouch)

Maybe The Telegraph will get on this story now. Whatever the truth is about the post Winters quoted, it needs to come out, IMO.

 

[southern_comfort]

Yeah one of the leaks was the "Walmart tape" showing him buying a poncho and a hacksaw etc... I am guessing that was rumor not a real leak (though most all of the rumors have been true).

There is NO LOGIC behind the prosecutions statement regarding the internet post and date rape drugs and barbeques. Anything that seems off or "hokey" in a case like this is very very bad and honestly fatal to the case. Plus Winter's statement about the dogs reacting to stuff "jumping out of the parking lot"...that was bad too.

These odd comments are not part of a "great plan" by the state prosecutors....just like when Patterson asked during the Grand Jury hearing "Can I talk to the Prosecutor before I answer that question?".

Not some great plan...just plain lack of common sense and reasoning skills in the face of extreme pressure. I think the cops and DA are good guys in this case, they didn't cook any of the evidence.... but sheesh...they are falling apart in too many ways.

The barbecue post never has to come up again. It isn't evidence in McD's trial and it won't be mentioned there unless someone brings it up again. Why do you think it's fatal to the case?

 

[Sonya610]

To me, the comment saying the post was a hoax does sound authentic. If it is, I am glad that person stepped up and posted it. (Though I do wish they'd lay off us, ouch)

Maybe The Telegraph will get on this story now. Whatever the truth is about the post Winters quoted, it needs to come out, IMO.

Oh trust me the truth WILL come out! Hogue will make sure it does! The Telegraph won't get involved in this, they can't prove or disprove the authenticity of the post and they can't be disparaging the evidence in the trial without proof.

I am honestly so very shocked by this. It makes perfect sense in every way as it sounds JUST like something those guys would write while joking around and the post had nothing to do with the real crime.

How is it POSSIBLE that the DA claimed that was real? How is it possible they didn't notice the date of the post OR EVEN TRY to verify the source! Heck even if the post WAS real I don't know why the DA would want to bring that post into the case, it doesn't match the details of the crime at ALL and could easily make the defendant look crazy instead of guilty.

The only explanation I can think of is that they KNEW it wasn't real and yet they planned to pretend it was. If that is the case then where did they "find" the rest of their evidence exactly?

 

[MaconMom]

To me, the comment saying the post was a hoax does sound authentic. If it is, I am glad that person stepped up and posted it. (Though I do wish they'd lay off us, ouch)

Maybe The Telegraph will get on this story now. Whatever the truth is about the post Winters quoted, it needs to come out, IMO.

If they know for a fact that it's a hoax, I hope they contact the police.

Also I hope the DA would be smart enough to check to make sure the post was made before they took SMD into custody.

 

[southern_comfort]

Fair point about him not going to great lengths to hide his identity otherwise. I do find it interesting, though, that the discussion over on the other site (looked it up after writing my last post) is headlined <modsnip>

Not that I buy everything they say <modsnip>, but my impression is still that the post was faked.

Oh, I agree it was faked! I am pretty sure I remember reading it and it was so obviously faked that I ignored it at the time. I'm just thinking that it's easy enough for a moderator to see an (unmasked) IP. If SoL's posts were all from ISP-XYZ and suddenly this BBQ post pops up from ISP-PDQ, that's good evidence for a mod that it's trolling.

I suppose it could have been planned ("I'll post openly from my home all along like an innocent person who has nothing to hide, and then one more detailed post describing exactly what I actually did from a masked IP to make it seem like I'm in Timbuktu, and that will create reasonable doubt!)... but that's pretty complex for a killer who would leave a hacksaw wrapper in his room. Heck, maybe that's an intentional part of the plan too. :crazy:

In the middle of the night, I woke up thinking that the BBQ post wasn't even on "the other site"... that it was a trolling comment post somewhere under an article. I am going to have to listen to Winters again. Does he say this post was actually from that other site, or does he say, "McD posted on this other site as SoL, and then we found THIS post by SoL!" -- without saying where they found the post in question? If he is using the verified identity from one site to prove the same person is using the moniker on another site, that is a whole new level of ridiculous.

 

[Sonya610]

The barbecue post never has to come up again. It isn't evidence in McD's trial and it won't be mentioned there unless someone brings it up again. Why do you think it's fatal to the case?

Of course it will come up at the trial! The defense will bring it up!

The whole trial process is supposed to be about truth and integrity particularly on the part of the state. A blatant lie (or at best extreme incompetency) on a matter of this serious a nature will cause most all rational people to question every single statement and every single bit of evidence that comes from that source. If the evidence was overwhelming maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't matter but the evidence isn't.

It is called losing credibility and it is quite serious whether it happens in the workplace or in a murder trial.

 

[southern_comfort]

Of course it will come up at the trial! The defense will bring it up!

The whole trial process is supposed to be about truth and integrity particularly on the part of the state. A blatant lie (or at best extreme incompetency) on a matter of this serious a nature will cause most all rational people to question every single statement and every single bit of evidence that comes from that source. If the evidence was overwhelming maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't matter but the evidence isn't.

It is called losing credibility and it is quite serious whether it happens in the workplace or in a murder trial.

So, you think the defense is going to stand up at trial and object to something that hasn't been entered into evidence at trial?

 

[Backwoods]

Oh, I agree it was faked! I am pretty sure I remember reading it and it was so obviously faked that I ignored it at the time. I'm just thinking that it's easy enough for a moderator to see an (unmasked) IP. If SoL's posts were all from ISP-XYZ and suddenly this BBQ post pops up from ISP-PDQ, that's good evidence for a mod that it's trolling.

I suppose it could have been planned ("I'll post openly from my home all along like an innocent person who has nothing to hide, and then one more detailed post describing exactly what I actually did from a masked IP to make it seem like I'm in Timbuktu, and that will create reasonable doubt!)... but that's pretty complex for a killer who would leave a hacksaw wrapper in his room. Heck, maybe that's an intentional part of the plan too. :crazy:

In the middle of the night, I woke up thinking that the BBQ post wasn't even on "the other site"... that it was a trolling comment post somewhere under an article. I am going to have to listen to Winters again. Does he say this post was actually from that other site, or does he say, "McD posted on this other site as SoL, and then we found THIS post by SoL!" -- without saying where they found the post in question? If he is using the verified identity from one site to prove the same person is using the moniker on another site, that is a whole new level of ridiculous.

This disturbed my sleep, too, southern comfort.

For one thing, I watched the hearing again before I tried to sleep. (Miraculously, my computer actually cooperated.) I can't quote verbatim, but it was pretty much as you describe above: Winters says they seized electronics, they determined that SM talked on message/chat boards, they verified that at THAT particular site (he names it) he was the person using the moniker SoL because he posted his picture, said he was in law school, invited the guy to the mock trial, etc.; then reads the parts of the post in question and says "this was posted under the moniker SoL". Maybe he actually says "he posted this under the moniker SoL", but I'm not sure.

Then, too: After the hearing the other day, 13WMAZ ran video of some of Lauren's relatives' reactions. (I don't think anyone has posted a link here -- I will try to in a little bit.) Among the things they say is basically that the DA tried to prepare them in advance by telling them that they would hear some new disturbing stuff.

Now did Winters, planning to read that post -- which was the main "new" and I would say most disturbing new info -- KNOW that it is not genuine, and let those folks think it is??? If so -- it boggles the mind.

 

[Sonya610]

So, you think the defense is going to stand up at trial and object to something that hasn't been entered into evidence at trial?

They won't "object" to it, they will bring it up and ask questions about it! Questions like "Mr. Winters do you recall quoting an internet post attributed to my client at the bond hearing?" "Did you attempt to verify the source of that post before using it in your arguments to deny my client bond?" "Did you verify the date of the post?"

"Oh....so you did not verify the date or the source but yet you attributed those statements to my client in a courtroom, is that correct?"

I am not an attorney so I don't know exactly how this will all come up but I am sure it will.

 

[southern_comfort]

They won't "object" to it, they will bring it up and ask questions about it! Questions like "Mr. Winters do you recall quoting an internet post attributed to my client at the bond hearing?" "Did you attempt to verify the source of that post before using it in your arguments to deny my client bond?" "Did you verify the date of the post?"

"Oh....so you did not verify the date or the source but yet you attributed those statements to my client in a courtroom, is that correct?"

I'm just not following you, Sonya... are you saying you think Winters will be a witness on the stand?

 

[Backwoods]

Here is the video of Lauren's relatives speaking after attending the bond hearing, as I mentioned just above:

http://www.13wmaz.com/video/1545730448001/50317413001/Giddings-Family-Reacts-to-Hearing

 

[Sonya610]

I'm just not following you, Sonya... are you saying you think Winters will be a witness on the stand?

Honestly I don't know how it will be handled but if the post is indeed fake the state made a big mistake and the defense will surely make the most of it.

Can you honestly say it doesn't make you question their credibility? Maybe your mind is made up and therefore you wouldn't let it factor into your decision but many people would find it very troubling.

 

[Backwoods]

Honestly I don't know how it will be handled but if the post is indeed fake the state made a big mistake and the defense will surely make the most of it.

Can you honestly say it doesn't make you question their credibility? Maybe your mind is made up and therefore you wouldn't let it factor into your decision but many people would find it very troubling.

Sonya, JMO, I think most of us who believe the post read by Winters was a hoax or bogus post find the situation quite troubling. You are not the only one, don't worry.

I'm understanding southern_comfort, who I believe is an attorney, to be saying -- and I could be misinterpreting -- that likely, as it stands NOW, since the post in question has not been entered into trial evidence (yet), the defense would not have any way to challenge it at trial unless the prosecution does present it at the trial as evidence -- unless maybe the defense chose to present the post themselves, which would seem unlikely.

 

[Backwoods]

If they know for a fact that it's a hoax, I hope they contact the police.

Also I hope the DA would be smart enough to check to make sure the post was made before they took SMD into custody.

Why the police? Are you saying that you think whoever wrote the post (if not SM) might be the killer?

Otherwise, I don't think anything illegal has been done.

I think there is a good chance the DA knows the post is bogus and/or dated after SM was in jail. (Like you -- I certainly HOPE that was checked, anyhow.) I think the prosecution read that post "for effect". At least, that's what I WAS thinking -- I am beginning to wonder now if maybe they really DID believe he wrote it ...??? Surely, surely not...?