GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #13

[Backwoods]

I got the impression that Winters was inferring that the SOL posts were discovered because of the flash drive. Did anyone else think he was saying that?

I think he was trying to indicate that the posts were discovered as a result of the electronic equipment being seized, yes. And maybe they were, certainly possible -- but I kinda personally think not.

On this topic: Did Winters do a no-no mentioning the child ? I can't hear the audio well enough at that point to tell what happened exactly, but the judge says something to him, he apologizes, then goes on to detail MORE about the images, then the judge says something else and Winters apologizes again. Anybody catch just what happened there?

 

[3doglady]

I need to go back and watch the other hearing. I seem to remember Buford asking the detective if there was forensic evidence in McD's apartment. He looked at Winters then took a while to answer before saying no(can't remember exactly how he phrased it). Now we hear that LG's dna was on the panties. At the time we discussed that LE may know things that had not been put in a written report.

 

[3doglady]

I think he was trying to indicate that the posts were discovered as a result of the electronic equipment being seized, yes. And maybe they were, certainly possible -- but I kinda personally think not.

On this topic: Did Winters do a no-no mentioning the child ? I can't hear the audio well enough at that point to tell what happened exactly, but the judge says something to him, he apologizes, then goes on to detail MORE about the images, then the judge says something else and Winters apologizes again. Anybody catch just what happened there?

I thought the judge was telling him to slow down so the court reporter could catch up but I'll have to listen again.

 

[Backwoods]

I need to go back and watch the other hearing. I seem to remember Buford asking the detective if there was forensic evidence in McD's apartment. He looked at Winters then took a while to answer before saying no(can't remember exactly how he phrased it). Now we hear that LG's dna was on the panties. At the time we discussed that LE may know things that had not been put in a written report.

I think what you're remembering may be the exchange about whether SM's DNA was on the hacksaw. It was really awkward. I think that's the part where Patterson asks if he can confer with the DA about his answer and the judge tells him "no" ... and finally Patterson says something like "Not to my knowledge."

I don't remember a question about forensic evidence from SM's apartment, but could have been one -- been a long time since I watched that, too.

ETA: I do remember that Buford asked whether they found any chloroform in SM's apartment and Patterson said no.

 

[southern_comfort]

True, as I said in my post above, he didn't.

But that doesn't mean SM didn't express concern about the parking lot as well, at some other point in the interviewing. Remember, at the comittment hearing, they had no desire to spill all the beans -- just enough to do the job. Maybe he talked about the apartment concerns to one detective (Patterson) and parking lot concerns to another. Lots of possibilities on this one, I think.

I agree. Patterson's testimony reflected just a portion of what was said. I don't see any reason the jumping language couldn't have been actually employed somewhere in the course of things.

 

[Backwoods]

I thought the judge was telling him to slow down so the court reporter could catch up but I'll have to listen again.

Ah -- that would make sense.

 

[tomkat]

I have only heard "no real evidence" and silence. If they had real strong evidence they wouldn't be making such a big deal out of internet posts and cadaver dog signals.

If you recall the Jocelyn Rivera case (sp) the LEO/Prosecution wasn't shy at all, they announced everything immediately as in within 3 days.

They had real evidence, DNA, handwritten note, much more and they didn't have to bring up internet posts or sniffer dogs reactions or be secretive.

OH MY GOSH, Thank you!! Why the hell wait and hold substantial evidence if you wish to keep him from bonding out! DNA of his and hers, on a garment or such, is much more substantial than all this cadaver dog and SOL posting bull. What kind of game is that to pretend you dont' have DNA or something else substantial at this stage of the game?? Besides that, DNA is proof and the other is more like rumour. That's what I was confused on in regards to the bond hearing, all the hearsay or "alleged evidence" to keep him from bonding out (when he's innocent until proven guilty) but if you go to the hearing with DNA evidence of his and hers on one garment, that is way more substantial and not so much a rumour as Sonya mentioned earler about hearings and rumours. How do you keep a man from bonding out by presenting rumours or shady evidence? Why try if you have DNA???

 

[pearl]

OH MY GOSH, Thank you!! Why the hell wait and hold substantial evidence if you wish to keep him from bonding out! DNA of his and hers, on a garment or such, is much more substantial than all this cadaver dog and SOL posting bull. What kind of game is that to pretend you dont' have DNA or something else substantial at this stage of the game?? Besides that, DNA is proof and the other is more like rumour. That's what I was confused on in regards to the bond hearing, all the hearsay or "alleged evidence" to keep him from bonding out (when he's innocent until proven guilty) but if you go to the hearing with DNA evidence of his and hers on one garment, that is way more substantial and not so much a rumour as Sonya mentioned earler about hearings and rumours. How do you keep a man from bonding out by presenting rumours or shady evidence? Why try if you have DNA???

They have Lauren's DNA on her underwear found in SM's sock (?) drawer.

 

[Sonya610]

True, as I said in my post above, he didn't.

But that doesn't mean SM didn't express concern about the parking lot as well, at some other point in the interviewing.

If Winters was really quoting McDaniel, as he claimed to be, he should have quoted ALL of the excuses verbatem if multiple excuses were offered, that would sound more suspicious than just quoting one.

Plus honestly why is he still bringing it up anyway? The cadaver dog signals did not lead to any evidence so why make it a focal point in their arguments at this late stage? They should be focusing on the REAL evidence and no longer need innuendo.

 

[southern_comfort]

If Winters was really quoting McDaniel, as he claimed to be, he should have quoted ALL of the excuses verbatem if multiple excuses were offered, that would sound more suspicious than just quoting one.

Plus honestly why is he still bringing it up anyway? The cadaver dog signals did not lead to any evidence so why make it a focal point in their arguments at this late stage? They should be focusing on the REAL evidence and no longer need innuendo.

You've lost me again. Why should Winters have quoted all of the excuses verbatim? Maybe he thought that one sounded the most ridiculous and liked the effect best when it stood alone. This was an adversarial proceeding, after all.

I don't think we know what evidence they have, or what was discovered as a result of the HRD dogs hitting on specific areas. We can guess that it's not much, or nothing, but do we know that?

"Did the defendant do it?" is not really the issue at a bond hearing. There is no reason to be introducing a bunch of probative evidence in that regard. IMO, of course.

 

[Sonya610]

If one looks at the original arrest warrant there were two things mentioned, the hacksaw and the "comments" regarding murder that match the circumstances of Giddings murder. http://cache.abovethelaw.com/upload...niel-Stephen-Mark-McDaniel-arrest-warrant.jpg The comments almost certainly refer to the internet posts as the roommate did a lengthy interview with the Telegraph and correction: the interview with the room mate did not reveal what he told the police.

Nearly a year after the crime the main evidence is still primarily the hacksaw wrapper and the incriminating internet posts along with the testimony of the roomate. If the DA had processed the internet post evidence properly they would have contacted the web host (not webmaster) and had all of the logs and the website itself copied as evidence.

If they had done that the webmaster/admins at the "other" site surely would have been told about it. If the DA did NOT do that I would expect all of the internet posts will be inadmissible.

I say the webmasters would know because years ago I hosted a web domain and there were a couple of inquiries from the authorities, the secret service contacted our host one time, and another time a local cop wrote to them. In both cases the host told me about it and/or forwarded over any email inquiries immediately.

The other site would almost certainly know if the electronic evidence had been collected.

 

[pearl]

This is certainly off-topic but quite interesting in that SM could make bail. I think this judge means business.

http://www.cnn.com/?refresh=1

Judge orders two suspects in Tulsa, Oklahoma, shootings held in lieu of $9,160,000 bail each.





updated 10:13 AM EDT, Mon April 9, 2012

 

[Sonya610]

I got the impression that Winters was inferring that the SOL posts were discovered because of the flash drive. Did anyone else think he was saying that?

He was definitely implying the posts were found while they searched electronic items...a flash drive, a computer, a playstation that can access the internet... He said they found child and they also discovered McDaniel was posting on message boards etc...

At the original commitment hearing Winters specifically asked Patterson if there is additional evidence to move forward on this case, and he asked if the GBI found evidence...Patterson says yes and then explains “Things were discovered on electronic items that were taken from the accused’s apartment.”

http://www.macon.com/2011/08/27/1679493/judge-rules-that-case-against.html

Is anyone surprised Winters is for some reason not being truthful regarding how the posts were discovered? It appears to be a common theme here.

 

[Backwoods]

He was definitely implying the posts were found while they searched electronic items...a flash drive, a computer, a playstation that can access the internet....

At the original commitment hearing Winters specifically asked Patterson if there is additional evidence to move forward on this case, and he asked if the GBI found evidence...Patterson says yes and then explains they (GBI) found "electronic evidence" that relates to this case (not the child case, that charge had already been filed, so likely referring to the internet posts).

http://www.macon.com/2011/08/27/1679493/judge-rules-that-case-against.html

I'm sure they evenutally found some evidence of his posting and other internet activities on his electronics during analysis, of course. Nevertheless, I still feel that it's likely that the first Macon MPD heard of the "other site" postings wasn't from there.

Actually, I believe Patterson, asked about the GBI's findings (I believe in some probing by Buford, but I'd have to watch again to be sure), hesitates and says something to the effect that the evidence found doesn't relate directly to the charges on the (murder) indictment but "relates to this case". Personally, I believe that Patterson, on that day, was speaking of the child . I believe the prosecution considers that it "relates to this case."

 

[Sonya610]

Actually, I believe Patterson, asked about the GBI's findings (I believe in some probing by Buford, but I'd have to watch again to be sure), hesitates and says something to the effect that the evidence found doesn't relate directly to the charges on the (murder) indictment but "relates to this case". Personally, I believe that Patterson, on that day, was speaking of the child . I believe the prosecution considers that it "relates to this case."

Winters asked if hte GBI provided good evidence, then Buford asked what it was. The child charges had already been filed earlier that week, they could have been referring to the child but since that was a separate case. This hearing took place right around the time the Telegraph published that article with dozens of SoL quotes.

Toward the end of the proceedings, Buford asked Patterson if there were now any forensic test results back on the alleged evidence in the case that was sent to the FBI’s laboratories.

... Patterson said there were no results from the FBI pertinent to the murder charge.

Winters then asked the detective, “Do you have any evidence from the FBI or the GBI that would help give you probable cause, and specifically the GBI, that would help give you probable cause to go forward?”

Patterson said there was, and later, when asked by Buford what it was, said, “Things were discovered on electronic items that were taken from the accused’s apartment.”

When the judge asked if those items relate to the murder charge, Patterson paused for 30 seconds and then asked, “Can I discuss this with the district attorney?”

Told he could not, the detective said, “Does it relate to the warrant today? No. Does it relate to the case overall? Yes.”
Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2011/08/27/1679493/judge-rules-that-case-against.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Backwoods]

From your quote --

Winters then asked the detective, “Do you have any evidence from the FBI or the GBI that would help give you probable cause, and specifically the GBI, that would help give you probable cause to go forward?”


Patterson said there was, and later, when asked by Buford what it was, said, “Things were discovered on electronic items that were taken from the accused’s apartment.”


When the judge asked if those items relate to the murder charge, Patterson paused for 30 seconds and then asked, “Can I discuss this with the district attorney?”


Told he could not, the detective said, “Does it relate to the warrant today? No. Does it relate to the case overall? Yes.”

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2011/08/27/167...case-against.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy​

Well, whatever he was referring to, kinda seems to me, after reading the above again, that if something was found "that would help give you probable cause to go forward" (on, one would assume, the charge at hand in the hearing), it's not too cool that he then went on to say that the evidence being spoken of didn't "relate to the warrant today."

 

[Sonya610]

From your quote --Well, whatever he was referring to, kinda seems to me, after reading the above again, that if something was found "that would help give you probable cause to go forward" (on, one would assume, the charge at hand in the hearing), it's not too cool that he then went on to say that the evidence being spoken of didn't "relate to the warrant today."

Yeah. Especially because the Judge specifically asked "Do the items relate to the murder charge?" and then Patterson hemmed and hawed...and said "Yes".

 

[southern_comfort]

I think we are pretty much in the same position as the "other site" posters found themselves in with regard to this. The threads here (with the exception of private ones) are open to anyone to read and report on anywhere they like, I guess -- it's just that, for much of the time, nothing is going on with WS that attracts attention from people who don't normally read and/or post here. (I'm counting LE and attorneys as people who normally do -- just in the sense that I believe they often do on a case involving them.)

Just speaking for me: I'm not here to bash anyone. I don't feel that I've done that, either.

I don't think you have bashed anyone, and I hope I haven't either.

You (Backwoods), 3doglady and I are few of a small handful of people who have gone out of our way and suffered some pretty heated assaults in our attempt to keep the conversation balanced here. In many people's minds, McD was guilty from the moment he did that media interview, and there is no wavering for them, no matter what the evidence shows or fails to show.

A beautiful life was taken, and of course people are angry and upset, but justice will not be served if the wrong person pays for it. On the flip side, I believe in an adversarial system of justice and I find it hard to sit here silently while people disparage the prosecution when we really don't know what's going on and we've heard nothing from the defense team about it. Nobody from the "other side" (e.g., the heavily prosecution-favoring side) is posting now for some reason, so I am trying again to keep things balanced from their perspective (hard as it is... wth is with that post???)

I know it troubled me greatly when I saw McD nearly drawn and quartered based on the way he spoke in a high-pressure situation, and it's been downhill ever since, based on some pretty weak evidence from my perspective. He reminds me of people I know, and in some ways he reminds me of myself. That is no reason to excuse him if he's done something awful, but it's enough to give me pause and to realize that what we've seen is not enough to crucify him.

As for posts on the other site... Thank God we can't be locked up for having imaginations... even crude ones.... because I'd have a life sentence.

 

[Backwoods]

I don't think you have bashed anyone, and I hope I haven't either.

You (Backwoods), 3doglady and I are few of a small handful of people who have gone out of our way and suffered some pretty heated assaults in our attempt to keep the conversation balanced here. In many people's minds, McD was guilty from the moment he did that media interview, and there is no wavering for them, no matter what the evidence shows or fails to show.

A beautiful life was taken, and of course people are angry and upset, but justice will not be served if the wrong person pays for it. On the flip side, I believe in an adversarial system of justice and I find it hard to sit here silently while people disparage the prosecution when we really don't know what's going on and we've heard nothing from the defense team about it. Nobody from the "other side" (e.g., the heavily prosecution-favoring side) is posting now for some reason, so I am trying again to keep things balanced from their perspective (hard as it is... wth is with that post???)

I know it troubled me greatly when I saw McD nearly drawn and quartered based on the way he spoke in a high-pressure situation, and it's been downhill ever since, based on some pretty weak evidence from my perspective. He reminds me of people I know, and in some ways he reminds me of myself. That is no reason to excuse him if he's done something awful, but it's enough to give me pause and to realize that what we've seen is not enough to crucify him.

As for posts on the other site... Thank God we can't be locked up for having imaginations... even crude ones.... because I'd have a life sentence.

:goodpost:

Thanks, southern_comfort. Well said.

 

[bessie]

Before you type your next post, please take a moment to read this reminder.

Freedom of Speech:

While we believe very much in the freedom of speech & expression, you DO NOT have an absolute right to say whatever you want in this community. WS is based in the United States, but is not an agency of the Federal or any State government - so the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution and similar State amendments regarding your right to free speech DO NOT APPLY HERE. Anything that goes against our core beliefs and the purpose for which this community was designed may not be allowed. Posts and comments that are meant to incite conflicts between members or outside parties are strictly prohibited. WS Administration has the absolute right to edit, modify, close or delete any content found in this community. While this rarely, if ever happens, we will not tolerate individuals or groups creating problems with the overall membership.

WS Bashing:

Threads and posts attacking WS Policies will not be allowed. Further, any member found to be bad mouthing the WS community at an outside location will have their membership blocked.

Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
This post lands at random. :tyou:
ETA: The facts of the cases we discuss here are public information. We are free to analyze, critique, and disagree with decisions on both sides of the fence as long as we do so respectfully. So far, everyone has done a good job of staying within the guidelines. But...if you see a post you believe violates the rules, please use the alert function or pm a mod with your concerns. Do not discuss problem posts in the thread, and do not admonish other members about their posts.