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

[southern_comfort]

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.

So far, it is only an issue with regard to bond. For it to be an issue at trial, someone would need to bring it up, and then it would be met by objections (not authenticated, relevance, failure to lay a proper foundation, etc.). If it wasn't posted by McD, I feel confident it won't ever make it into the trial.

It could be an issue if the defense is not happy with the bond that's set. I suppose it could also be an issue peripherally, such as if it tainted the jury pool. That is still a preliminary matter, though. I just don't see a fake post making it into the evidence at trial.

 

[MaconMom]

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...?

No, I'm saying if they know for a fact that SMD did not write the post and it was posted as some kind of joke, let MPD know so they're not using "evidence" against him that is false.

I dont think Winters would use this post in court if they were aware that SMD didn't post it. It doesn't make sense to me that they would knowingly use a post an impostor made.

 

[southern_comfort]

No, I'm saying if they know for a fact that SMD did not write the post and it was posted as some kind of joke, let MPD know so they're not using "evidence" against him that is false.

I dont think Winters would use this post in court if they were aware that SMD didn't post it. It doesn't make sense to me that they would knowingly use a post an impostor made.

At this point, they may just have a big pile of unsorted SoL posts compiled by some intern and picked the juiciest of the lot for this hearing without paying attention. That seems awfully lazy to me, but it's possible.

 

[Sonya610]

At this point, they may just have a big pile of unsorted SoL posts compiled by some intern and picked the juiciest of the lot for this hearing without paying attention. That seems awfully lazy to me, but it's possible.

Yes I suspect that is what happened. I don't believe Winters realized it was a hoax.

And it isn't just about the bond hearing, those comments were posted in the local papers and the public reaction was quite strong. Folks were saying it was a confession and proof he is guilty! Bogus information like that being presented in court and inflaming the public is a big deal in a capital murder case.

 

[Backwoods]

At this point, they may just have a big pile of unsorted SoL posts compiled by some intern and picked the juiciest of the lot for this hearing without paying attention. That seems awfully lazy to me, but it's possible.

Whoa, if that were to be what's happened, I'd sure hate to be that intern.

 

[Backwoods]

Yes I suspect that is what happened. I don't believe Winters realized it was a hoax.

And it isn't just about the bond hearing, those comments were posted in the local papers and the public reaction was quite strong. Folks were saying it was a confession and proof he is guilty! Bogus information like that being presented in court and inflaming the public is a big deal in a capital murder case.

I've thought it was intentional ... but not as sure now. Just kind of bamboozled by it, myself.

Almost start wondering if DA is intentionally courting a mistrial ... I don't really think so, but that's just one of the many things that has crossed my mind.

Time will tell, I guess.

 

[AgentFrankLundy]

I think it was the first time he acted on it, but I think he has been thinking about it since forever.
I think his mistakes might stem from his arrogance. I think he has been smarter than the majority of the people in his life and it gave him a false sense of self. I think he knew a little about getting away with murder but just not enough to outsmart the FBI and such. He ran out of time. He should have picked someone a little less popular and less loved by all...he might still get away with it...I think his law background might let him manipulate the system. Actually, that is what I am afraid of.

I agree . I think this was his first murder, but it would not have been ( and still may not be, God Forbid) his last. Where is Angel when we need her ?

 

[Sonya610]

I've thought it was intentional ... but not as sure now. Just kind of bamboozled by it, myself.

Almost start wondering if DA is intentionally courting a mistrial ... I don't really think so, but that's just one of the many things that has crossed my mind.

Time will tell, I guess.

Yeah well it isn't the first odd thing so far in the investigation. Remember the bathtub? Several weeks after the crime scene was released a reporter noted there were possible saw marks? At the time we (local news site posters) were speculating as to whether the landlord was really going to rent out the apartment to a new tenant with the bath tub in place. Days later the police decided to seize the tub evidence!

 

[Backwoods]

Yeah well it isn't the first odd thing so far in the investigation. Remember the bathtub? Several weeks after the crime scene was released a reporter noted there were possible saw marks? At the time we (local news site posters) were speculating as to whether the landlord was really going to rent out the apartment to a new tenant with the bath tub in place. Days later the police decided to seize the tub evidence!

I never considered that gaffe with the tub might be intentional -- sloppy, yes. But using this post at the hearing -- I'm going back and forth and roundabout on trying to figure out how/why it happened.

 

[AgentFrankLundy]

Trying to get caught up , I have two questions that may be dumb;
Backwoods, what April 20th deadline is there for what ?
GiveMeTheShivers , sorry you don't like us, but what about McD's dad's paint business did we get wrong?

I did find out the barbecue/v-card/lose it on TV post was from Sol and it was posted on the opchan site . I do not know when it was posted , perhaps anybody can create the same screen name , post as a joke , etc etc, as had already been discussed and theorized. What I do feel certain about though is that none of us ever saw it or it would have been a major topic of discussion. So, could have been deleted by either Sol himself, LE, or Opchan moderator, but it was not there prior to this group's discovery of that treasure trove of evil. And if Hogue could prove that this post did not come from SMcD, prosecution is done for. But even if Winters can prove it came from SMcD's computer, still doesn't prove he posted it. What if the guy that came down to help him with the mock trial (they did meet on the OpChan Site) wanted to kill her and frame him for murder ? Or the old "maintenance man in the laundry room with the hacksaw" trick ? Computer forensics are tricky, we saw that in the Casey Anthony trial when the prosecution tried to ( I think successfully) prove Cindy Anthony was lying based on when she clocked in and out on her computer. Casey is still a free woman though.

 

[Sonya610]

I do not know when it was posted , perhaps anybody can create the same screen name , post as a joke , etc etc, as had already been discussed and theorized.

That site does not require user registration or passwords, anyone can post under the nick SoL.

 

[Backwoods]

Trying to get caught up , I have two questions that may be dumb;
Backwoods, what April 20th deadline is there for what ?
GiveMeTheShivers , sorry you don't like us, but what about McD's dad's paint business did we get wrong?

I did find out the barbecue/v-card/lose it on TV post was from Sol and it was posted on the opchan site . I do not know when it was posted , perhaps anybody can create the same screen name , post as a joke , etc etc, as had already been discussed and theorized. What I do feel certain about though is that none of us ever saw it or it would have been a major topic of discussion. So, could have been deleted by either Sol himself, LE, or Opchan moderator, but it was not there prior to this group's discovery of that treasure trove of evil. And if Hogue could prove that this post did not come from SMcD, prosecution is done for. But even if Winters can prove it came from SMcD's computer, still doesn't prove he posted it. What if the guy that came down to help him with the mock trial (they did meet on the OpChan Site) wanted to kill her and frame him for murder ? Or the old "maintenance man in the laundry room with the hacksaw" trick ? Computer forensics are tricky, we saw that in the Casey Anthony trial when the prosecution tried to ( I think successfully) prove Cindy Anthony was lying based on when she clocked in and out on her computer. Casey is still a free woman though.

AgentFrank, keep doing the catch-up reading, for the last 4 or 5 pages I think. I think it will become clear that it is almost certain the post is sort of a joke post posted by another poster (not SM) at that "other site" well after SM was in jail. The poster probably used the name SoL, which is easy to do on that site it seems. Why did Winters quote from it? I've gone on at length about possible reasons, and so have others -- but truth is: beats me.

I think some of us DID see the post, but, as it was not meant to really deceive anyone, quickly knew it was a joke post so did not "pounce" on it -- as we would have, I agree with you, if we had found it made during the time frame when SM was not in jail and thus free to post.

I don't think proof of the true nature of the post will necessarily mean the prosecution is "done for", not if they have strong physical evidence. Otherwise ...well. I think many will wonder, though, before the time to present any such strong evidence, whether they could have that type of strong evidence and resort to and/or blunder into using the "non-evidence" of such a post.

April 20 was what one news link I posted stated is the deadline set for disclosure in the case, the prosecution sharing what it has with the defense. I was wondering whether that date was correct. If I can find the link again, I'll add it here.

ETA: Here is the link that gives the April 20 disclosure deadline, right at the end of the story:

http://www.41nbc.com/news/local-news/11402-judge-considering-bond-request-for-stephen-mcdaniel

 

[MaconMom]

Does anyone wonder how SMD could so calmly sit there as they were reading that post if he didn't really write it? I'm sure he knows better since he went to law school and has been coached by his attorneys, but I don't think I could resist saying something (or at least shaking my head) if I was being accused of writing something like that when I really didn't write it.

He shook his head and wrote something on a paper for his attorney when Winters apparently misspoke about the cadaver dogs. Why no reaction to the post? Unless there was something that I couldn't see on the video.

 

[southern_comfort]

Whoa, if that were to be what's happened, I'd sure hate to be that intern.

Heh.. well, I wasn't really thinking about an intern that didn't do his/her job... but that's a possibility, too.

I was more thinking along the lines of an intern doing initial grunt work in terms of gathering any and all online postings attributed to "SoL" (and doing a very thorough job of it), with the understanding that the prosecution would have to authenticate them prior to using them at trial.

As MaconMom pointed out, there wasn't much reaction to it. That makes me think everyone knew about it ahead of time.

 

[Backwoods]

Does anyone wonder how SMD could so calmly sit there as they were reading that post if he didn't really write it? I'm sure he knows better since he went to law school and has been coached by his attorneys, but I don't think I could resist saying something (or at least shaking my head) if I was being accused of writing something like that when I really didn't write it.

He shook his head and wrote something on a paper for his attorney when Winters apparently misspoke about the cadaver dogs. Why no reaction to the post? Unless there was something that I couldn't see on the video.

When I re-watched the hearing last night, I was trying to note his demeanor/actions during that part, but it was hard to watch Winters (whose actions/words I also was trying to scrutinize) and SM both.

Seems like I did catch some fleeting facial expressions on SM -- maybe raised eyebrows -- and I think maybe he wrote something again. Also, I believe it is not long after the post-reading, that SM leans over and appears to be saying something of some length to Floyd Buford -- for a second, it almost appears that Buford has laid his head on the table, lol, and it caught my eye -- actually he is just inclining over toward SM.

I'm thinking one of the news links we've had offered some description of SM's actions during the post-reading, but I can't find it now (except Telegraph story says his eyes were shut as it concluded, I think). Maybe the other comments I think I'm remembering were in a photo caption...not sure.

 

[southern_comfort]

AgentFrank, keep doing the catch-up reading, for the last 4 or 5 pages I think. I think it will become clear that it is almost certain the post is sort of a joke post posted by another poster (not SM) at that "other site" well after SM was in jail. The poster probably used the name SoL, which is easy to do on that site it seems. Why did Winters quote from it? I've gone on at length about possible reasons, and so have others -- but truth is: beats me.

I think some of us DID see the post, but, as it was not meant to really deceive anyone, quickly knew it was a joke post so did not "pounce" on it -- as we would have, I agree with you, if we had found it made during the time frame when SM was not in jail and thus free to post.

I don't think proof of the true nature of the post will necessarily mean the prosecution is "done for", not if they have strong physical evidence. Otherwise ...well. I think many will wonder, though, before the time to present any such strong evidence, whether they could have that type of strong evidence and resort to and/or blunder into using the "non-evidence" of such a post.

April 20 was what one news link I posted stated is the deadline set for disclosure in the case, the prosecution sharing what it has with the defense. I was wondering whether that date was correct. If I can find the link again, I'll add it here.

ETA: Here is the link that gives the April 20 disclosure deadline, right at the end of the story:

http://www.41nbc.com/news/local-news/11402-judge-considering-bond-request-for-stephen-mcdaniel

BBM: I agree. I think that if McD did not write that post, it won't even come up at trial and it will fade into a non-issue. People have short memories. It just makes me wonder why they couldn't come up with something better to use to get him a high bond.

 

[Backwoods]

Heh.. well, I wasn't really thinking about an intern that didn't do his/her job... but that's a possibility, too.

I was more thinking along the lines of an intern doing initial grunt work in terms of gathering any and all online postings attributed to "SoL" (and doing a very thorough job of it), with the understanding that the prosecution would have to authenticate them prior to using them at trial.

As MaconMom pointed out, there wasn't much reaction to it. That makes me think everyone knew about it ahead of time.

bbm: Yeah, but if things start looking dismal for some reason, the poor (hypothetical) intern might still get the blame!

 

[southern_comfort]

Is there a timeline somewhere? I need a refresher on the time between events like L going missing, being found, and McD being jailed for burglary.

 

[Backwoods]

Is there a timeline somewhere? I need a refresher on the time between events like L going missing, being found, and McD being jailed for burglary.

I don't remember us ever having a timeline in these particular threads, actually -- could be wrong.

I think it goes (and anybody chime in to correct errors):

Sat., June 25, 2011 - Lauren last seen (last heard from around 10:30 p.m., if the email her boyfriend received was truly written by her)

Wed., June 29 - LG reported missing in late evening hours, Mercer Campus Police investigate

Thurs., June 30 - morning: Macon Police Department arrives at apartments to investigate, torso soon discovered; friends, neighbors, and classmates on site (including SM) taken to department for interviews

afternoon: SM interviewed by reporters shortly after returning from police department ... some time after, consents to walk-through search of his apartment, during which he is present ... later - SM goes back to department for further questioning, stays there until:

Fri., July 1, around 5 a.m. - SM arrested and jailed on burglary charge

 

[Sonya610]

I never considered that gaffe with the tub might be intentional -- sloppy, yes. But using this post at the hearing -- I'm going back and forth and roundabout on trying to figure out how/why it happened.

I don't think either mistake was intentional.

I just watched the video of the bond hearing. Wow. I do think Winters believed that post was real.

That was almost sad. Winters explains how they confirmed the identity of "SoL" via pictures and posts etc... He never even hints that the identity was confirmed by computer forensic experts, maybe some of the original posts were confirmed but apparently once the name "SoL" was identified they thought that meant it was all real.

Unless they have some really really good evidence that they are keeping a big secret this will be a permanent stain on Winters career.