Search results

Sorry for your troubles, Shivers. Hang in there. LE would see the alerting dogs as convincing evidence if they need to convince a judge (not a jury) of the low standard of probable cause (not proof beyond reasonable doubt), especially if they have little else. It's that last thought that...

Gee, Shivers. I don't know where to start, so maybe the place to begin is at the beginning of your logic that the dogs would alert in the halls. There are no halls at BH -- I know you've seen the photos, if not the actual apartments. If, and I said if, the particles from which the dogs pick...

It's been a busy week here in Lake WebSleuth . . . 1. Child *advertiser censored* charges 2. The <modsnip> website posts (that many of us had heard about) went public 3. The commitment hearing went as scheduled (and as predicted bound over the case) WS posts have focused on each event as they unfolded...

And . . . do you notice he says something like "it's just too stupid for a guy to steal an insignificant thing" -- and this from a guy whose undoing was the theft of two condoms. Sorry for the repetition. My computer hadn't refreshed the page and I didn't see that had been noted.

Dead on, Hyrax. I think this explanation of why the new charges now is the most likely I've heard or considered. Well explained, too. Thanks!

<modsnip> I am NOT suggesting that LE should do nothing about this newly discovered crime. My suggestion is that the child *advertiser censored* charges are not of the same huge magnitude as the case LE is trying to make against SMD for felony/murder. I have no doubt that Winters & Patterson/Burns thought...

That's the very reason why "Because they are crimes" is a wholly inadequate answer to the question I asked as to why Winters & Burns chose to get a warrant on the new charges. While child *advertiser censored* is a serious felony, it's obvious that the big prize here is convicting SMD on felony/murder...

and, additional possible motives for these charges: 4) LE is trying to convince SMD & his lawyer that they WILL put him away for a long, long, time with or without the murder conviction, so SMD will confess. I personally doubt that this tactic will work and predict that SMD will NOT confess...

Hello again, folks -- been out of touch for a couple of days, tune in local TV & bam! There is new info! Hyrax makes good points that the kiddie *advertiser censored* charges are likely based on solid, if not unimpeachable, evidence. But the big question for me is: Why charge SMD with these offenses...

It's a lead pipe cinch that the bathrooms & showers in BH apartments back up to each other with a common wall. Just makes sense that these concrete block construction apartments are mirror images of each other and that plumbing for bathrooms would be placed within the interior wall (to avoid...

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Cases_Where_DNA_Revealed_that_Bite_Mark_Analysis_Led_to_Wrongful_Arrests_and_Convictions.php The above article by The Innocence Project lists several now-exonerated convicts who had been wrongfully convicted by bite mark "experts". The article is well...

I'm with you, GT&T, on law school performance being incompatible with meth addiction and SMD was not reported to be a marginal student with attendance problems (as I would expect a meth head to be). Bite marks as evidence is another story. Yes, I've read some accounts of expert opinions...

So the K&S lawyer, then 40 something, started dating her as a 23 year old? Ewww~

Quote: Originally Posted by Wondergirl Has it ever been mentioned whether Lauren was dating or friends with the victim(s) of the condom thefts? But - - the condom thefts were in the winter of 2008-2009 and LG didn't start dating the K&S lawyer until later, right?. Even if we knew the names...

The instructor is unlikely to be able to establish SMD's presence or absence if attendance is not taken (and I believe this is likely the case, since the bar review course is paid for by the students and awards no credit, diploma or certificate and the students are motivated to attend by their...

Again, I share your instinct. My reason is not the hacksaw packaging and key, but the initial condom episode. While we don't know exactly how it went down, I'm thinking SMD was keeping them in some sort of display or condition that drew LE's attention to them in the first consensual search of...

I agree with you, Pearl. LE has shown probable cause to think SMD committed felony murder (to get the arrest warrant). To get a warrant to search McDaniel family property in Lilburn or elsewhere, they would have to provide additional facts to show that there is probable cause to believe that...

Sure it makes sense. Maybe that's because my instinct agrees with yours. I'm just trying to bring my mind into line with my gut. Based on what we know for sure so far, I agree with you also that we don't have enough to convict. That's why I was inquiring earlier into possible independent...

Thanks for following my line of thought. It IS helpful to ask "if he did it, why did he do it?" But that is different from asking "Do we know that he had a motive for murder?" The latter question then sets up the conclusion, "Because he had a motive (as well as opportunity, etc), then he...

I've been (and remain) quite a fan of yours, AA. In fact, I found WS via your Tumblr blog. But I think there is a logical problem in your post above. We were inquiring into SMD's possible infatuation with LG for the purpose of determining (in our own judgment) whether that provided a motive...