Backwoods
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 4,666
- Reaction score
- 127
I feel a little sorry for Winters myself, but owing mostly, I'd guess, to my consistent tendency to feel some compassion for folks in tight spots.
But no matter how you look at it, IMO, there has been some bungling in this case. It is natural --and good, IMO -- that people take a little closer look at what may or may not be going on with that. That said, I think the questions and frustration being expressed locally is coming mostly from a vocal few. If the prosecution's case proceeds more or less smoothly from this point, much of the hubbub will soon die down. Even now, I'll venture to say, there are many people who are still registering, if anything, mostly the eye-catching/ear-catching reports of the contents of the post after it was read at the bond hearing ... and not the later development of it being (somewhat) acknowledged to not be authored by Stephen McDaniel.
Winters is at the top of the food chain in this, so naturally he stands to get the brunt of whatever public reaction regarding the post mistake. But honestly, regarding the post -- does he deserve all of it? In a way he does, I guess -- with the top position comes the final responsibility, but... .
I honestly do not know how much verification of evidence provided by other sources it is reasonable to expect the DA's office to do. I'd think it would be wise and ethical to do whatever checking and verification is reasonable and possible, but then again, I doubt DA staff are expected to be in a crime lab rerunning all sorts of complicated forensic testing, for example. We don't know that it wasn't Macon PD or the GBI or some other entity that blundered here. (And yes, that possibility raises other concerns in some people's minds.)
We here have no way of knowing for sure when the (authentic) SoL posts first came to the attention of the investigation. I personally tend to believe that a tip from a Websleuths member in late August may have been the initial tip-off -- though I also think it possible that, in the same time frame, LE may have heard from a member/members of the site where SoL posted. If I remember correctly, we had some intimation around that time that MPD was looking into the posts and considering asking the GBI to assist (although let me be quick to say that I do not know whether the GBI was asked to assist or did assist).
I personally believe that the "Mickey Finn" post was made at the other site some time after SM was charged with murder (early August) and also after the connection was made and discussed at the other site that SoL (the real one) and SM were one and the same --and I don't recall exactly when the latter was. I would really love to know the date of the bogus post and where in the chain of investigation the verification of that post got bungled. If it was handed to the DA as thoroughly verified ... well, I bet he wishes now he'd checked further...but is it really reasonable to expect that he would have? I'm truly asking; I don't know.
If the posts didn't come to LE's attention until late August, as I'm thinking, we know that LE felt confident enough to charge SM with murder on the basis of other evidence, since he was charged earlier in the month. If they really had "the goods" then, I expect they're still there. But then, it does become concerning that the DA let the 90-day time limit for indictment expire -- and failed to request an extension that could have been requested, I believe? -- because, like it or not, it does raise a question about whether the FBI forensics results that were still coming in were not supporting the case as well as hoped. Do we know that for sure? Naw, no way. But it's natural, IMO, to wonder a little.
Two things that concern me about the post:
(1) Was it presented to the grand jury and, if so, how much weight was it given? (No way for me to know.)
(2) Was it weighted heavily enough -- after it came to light -- in the minds of investigators to influence the direction of later parts of the investigation?
For example, did investigation go forward at that point on more or less an assumption that Lauren had been invited in for a drink and then drugged? Or, for another example, take the part of the post that contends that the victim came home late, "wasted from a graduation party": Was there a thought that LG really did head out to party for a while the evening she was last heard from?
I'm certainly not saying I think it likely that investigators necessarily would have swallowed the scenario as presented in the post hook, line and sinker. I'm just pointing out that, if believed to have been authored by SM, it could have misdirected some lines of thought and investigation.
But no matter how you look at it, IMO, there has been some bungling in this case. It is natural --and good, IMO -- that people take a little closer look at what may or may not be going on with that. That said, I think the questions and frustration being expressed locally is coming mostly from a vocal few. If the prosecution's case proceeds more or less smoothly from this point, much of the hubbub will soon die down. Even now, I'll venture to say, there are many people who are still registering, if anything, mostly the eye-catching/ear-catching reports of the contents of the post after it was read at the bond hearing ... and not the later development of it being (somewhat) acknowledged to not be authored by Stephen McDaniel.
Winters is at the top of the food chain in this, so naturally he stands to get the brunt of whatever public reaction regarding the post mistake. But honestly, regarding the post -- does he deserve all of it? In a way he does, I guess -- with the top position comes the final responsibility, but... .
I honestly do not know how much verification of evidence provided by other sources it is reasonable to expect the DA's office to do. I'd think it would be wise and ethical to do whatever checking and verification is reasonable and possible, but then again, I doubt DA staff are expected to be in a crime lab rerunning all sorts of complicated forensic testing, for example. We don't know that it wasn't Macon PD or the GBI or some other entity that blundered here. (And yes, that possibility raises other concerns in some people's minds.)
We here have no way of knowing for sure when the (authentic) SoL posts first came to the attention of the investigation. I personally tend to believe that a tip from a Websleuths member in late August may have been the initial tip-off -- though I also think it possible that, in the same time frame, LE may have heard from a member/members of the site where SoL posted. If I remember correctly, we had some intimation around that time that MPD was looking into the posts and considering asking the GBI to assist (although let me be quick to say that I do not know whether the GBI was asked to assist or did assist).
I personally believe that the "Mickey Finn" post was made at the other site some time after SM was charged with murder (early August) and also after the connection was made and discussed at the other site that SoL (the real one) and SM were one and the same --and I don't recall exactly when the latter was. I would really love to know the date of the bogus post and where in the chain of investigation the verification of that post got bungled. If it was handed to the DA as thoroughly verified ... well, I bet he wishes now he'd checked further...but is it really reasonable to expect that he would have? I'm truly asking; I don't know.
If the posts didn't come to LE's attention until late August, as I'm thinking, we know that LE felt confident enough to charge SM with murder on the basis of other evidence, since he was charged earlier in the month. If they really had "the goods" then, I expect they're still there. But then, it does become concerning that the DA let the 90-day time limit for indictment expire -- and failed to request an extension that could have been requested, I believe? -- because, like it or not, it does raise a question about whether the FBI forensics results that were still coming in were not supporting the case as well as hoped. Do we know that for sure? Naw, no way. But it's natural, IMO, to wonder a little.
Two things that concern me about the post:
(1) Was it presented to the grand jury and, if so, how much weight was it given? (No way for me to know.)
(2) Was it weighted heavily enough -- after it came to light -- in the minds of investigators to influence the direction of later parts of the investigation?
For example, did investigation go forward at that point on more or less an assumption that Lauren had been invited in for a drink and then drugged? Or, for another example, take the part of the post that contends that the victim came home late, "wasted from a graduation party": Was there a thought that LG really did head out to party for a while the evening she was last heard from?
I'm certainly not saying I think it likely that investigators necessarily would have swallowed the scenario as presented in the post hook, line and sinker. I'm just pointing out that, if believed to have been authored by SM, it could have misdirected some lines of thought and investigation.