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

[GypsiesTramps&Thieves]

According to FB, I think today is Lauren's birthday. I'm sure today is extremely hard for her friends and family.

Actually, I think it's tomorrow, the 18th. Does anyone know for sure? GASunshine?

 

[GeorgiaSunshine]

Actually, I think it's tomorrow, the 18th. Does anyone know for sure? GASunshine?

It's tomorrow the 18th

She would have been 28

 

[tomkat]

Winters has to turn over discovery on the 20th, so if there is a lot of evidence I don't understand why he would use the unverified post. I've never thought they had much forensic evidence and this tends to confirm that. Hopefully I'm wrong, if he did it. Either way, I would have thought the DA would want to verify the posts.:waitasec: If the post is a fake couldn't the DT use it against the state's case when McD goes to trial for the child ?

Yeah that part I just can't comprehend. I do hope they have more, time is ticking!!

 

[tomkat]

Must be her birthday. Apparently downtown, Mercer area, some have posted Pink banners or heart wreaths in her honor.

 

[bessie]

Link to photos of a memorial relatives set up at Barristers Hall to commemorate Lauren's birthday.

http://www.macon.com/2012/04/17/1993566/family-remembers-lauren-gidding.html

 

[Backwoods]

Link to photos of a memorial relatives set up at Barristers Hall to commemorate Lauren's birthday.

http://www.macon.com/2012/04/17/1993566/family-remembers-lauren-gidding.html

bessie and all: on the 11 p.m. news tonight, Channel 13WMAZ in Macon ran story and video on this same memorial, but I don't see it posted on the web site yet -- perhaps it will be later on in the morning. Here's the homepage:

http://www.13wmaz.com/


:cupcake::cupcake::cupcake::cupcake::cupcake: Lauren, from one April-born girl to another: Many are thinking of you on your birthday. I would like to have had the opportunity to meet you.

 

[Sonya610]

Yeah that part I just can't comprehend. I do hope they have more, time is ticking!!

Well the evidence is being turned over this Friday.

If, as some suspect, it is not that strong will we see the defense make statements that suggest they feel optimistic? I would expect there will be a bit more spin, statements saying their client is innocent, and hinting they want to get this trial started as their client will be exonerated once he has his day in court yada yada.

On the flipside if they DO have a smoking gun then we might see a plea deal. I am just hoping we don't have to wait another year to get a hint about the real scope of the evidence.

 

[tomkat]

and across the street from Barrister Hall, A pink wreath heart at the entrance of Mercer Law School

http://www.facebook.com/BAMA1561#!/karen.giddings1

 

[tomkat]

Happy Birthday Lauren. I will also be remembering a dear loved one who we lost, that also had a birthday in April.

The following image location is the entrance to Mercer Law School directly across the street from Barrister Hall

 

[Backwoods]

Here is the 13WMAZ coverage of Lauren's kin commemorating her birthday that ran last night (that I mentioned a few posts back):

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/local/ar...y-Members-Celebrate-Lauren-Giddings-Birthday-

 

[bessie]

I did wear a bright pink blouse to work today. Many people remarked about how pretty and spring-like I looked. No one knew the real reason I chose that color, but that's okay. I knew. So in my own way, I was honored to join Lauren's family and friends, and the rest of you guys, in remembering Lauren on her birthday.

For Lauren

Tomkat, my prayers for your family. My family remembers a special lost loved this month, too. :hug:
​

​

 

[Sonya610]

Not to beat a deceased horse here but....

There has been much speculation about using the computers cache to recapture posts instead of getting the data from the web host. Some have pointed out that there IS software that can do that.

Well heck yeah, that played a huge role in the Casey Anthony trial, the prosecution used software called CacheBack to analyze the home computer's cache and stated she searched "how to make chloroform" 84 times (a huge pivotal point in their case to show premeditation which appears to have been be required to ensure the death penalty, at least according to what others are saying, wouldn't that apply to McDaniel's case too, or no?). Turns out that was wrong and they knew it, the word chloroform was searched for ONCE but they had experts testify to the claim of 84 searches in court.

Apparently the software developer realized the mistake and reran the counts, then documented it all and sent it to the prosecution, he even offered to fly down at his own expense to clarify the error but the prosecution ignored him and went on with their plan to use the false info anyway.

[video=youtube;l5B1srffCMU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5B1srffCMU[/video]

Anyway, considering how much pressure is on the prosecutor in this case McDaniel is darn lucky that the FBI and GBI processed the majority of evidence (if in fact there isn't much evidence). If there was any temptation to "supplement" the evidence (not that there would be...just sayin'...apparently that happens more than one would think) the other agencies wouldn't have a reason to go along with it; their careers and reputation are not going to be damaged if the case is lost, but certainly could be if they played along with falsehoods strictly for the benefit of OTHER agencies!

I would think it means the evidence will be fairly untainted, whereas it seems in many cases it is not. It honestly shocks me that the prosecutors would knowingly state the 84 claim in a trial such as that, it would definitely come out and be the subject of a mistrial or appeal if they had gotten a conviction. I guess I have been a bit naive regarding what really goes on in cases like this.

 

[AgentFrankLundy]

http://www.13wmaz.com/comments/177873/175/McDaniel-Defense-Doubts-Validity-Of-Online-Post I don't think we are beating a dead horse, yet, it is a very valid point of contention. I am intrigued by the comments here of this McCranie fellow, not sure how much of an expert he is , but it echoes a lot of what we have been saying . Forgive me for not following as closely as I have in the past, and I promise I will in the future if we ever really get any red meat, but it seems to me that Winters carefully chose his words at the bond hearing , allowing him latitude if it cannot be proven that the post came directly from McDaniel with hard computer forensic evidence . That certainly would have been the prudent thing to do

 

[Sonya610]

but it seems to me that Winters carefully chose his words at the bond hearing , allowing him latitude if it cannot be proven that the post came directly from McDaniel with hard computer forensic evidence . That certainly would have been the prudent thing to do

Here is a transcript of what he says...not an official transcript I just listened to the actual statement made in court. I will note that Winters "hems and haws" a lot more when he presents the internet posts than he does when he presents other evidence...but I don't think hemming and hawing qualifies as mincing his words.

Yes Sir… in various sexual acts, that is what the defendant has been indicted on 30 counts of sexual exploitation of children. (Winters apologizes again.) They also ahh…realized…while going through this media that he…he posts on message boards, kind of like chat rooms, that he will go online and type things and go back and forth on message boards.

One of them is called operatorchan…it is kind of a message board where people can come on and post things…ummm…and they are able to tell this and identify the defendant because during this he identifies himself and his moniker... his screen name... is “S-O-L” which stands for Son of Liberty.

Umm…there’s numbers and numbers of posts..some that have a picture of him with Clarence Thomas…ummm…pictures that he identifies himself…one where..umm… he identifies saying he is a third year law student…he takes a trial practice course…your honor in law school where he has to a…have somebody come in and sit as a juror and watch a trial…and that is part of what he has to do to get credit for the class.

The police have actually interviewed the person that he got to come do this, and this person identified Mr. McDaniel as being this “SOL” Son of Liberty as the person who posted or made these posts online.

Your honor there are a number of posts that he does…I will read to court one of them…one of his posts states...and this is from the moniker SOL….

”Graduate from law school…(reads rest of post).

 

[3doglady]

Sonya, There was misreporting in the Anthony case. The CacheBack Owner discovered his mistake after he testified. He notified the prosecution and the defense was notified immediately after. The prosecution did not hide anything. The DT were informed during the trial, which is the reason they had the other computer expert testify that it was not 84 times but one. If you watch the last day or so of the trial Baez brings up the Cachbacke error to the judge proving he knew about it. I know there were allegations by Cheny which were untrue. The CacheBack owner wrote a letter explaining what took place which is on the Anthony thread here. There was some question about LE seeing a discrepancy before the trial, but they did not notify the prosecution or the Cacheback owner. All this was discussed extensively on the A thread.
This goes to show how questionable IT testimony is in a trial. Usually one expert explains it one way and another explains it another way. Add to that most jurors don't have enough IT knowledge to decide which expert is correct. A similar situation took place in the Cooper trial in Raleigh. The DT tried to convince the jury that LE planted a Google map visit (dump site) on Cooper's computer by saying the timestamp was invalid.

 

[Backwoods]

http://www.13wmaz.com/comments/177873/175/McDaniel-Defense-Doubts-Validity-Of-Online-Post I don't think we are beating a dead horse, yet, it is a very valid point of contention. I am intrigued by the comments here of this McCranie fellow, not sure how much of an expert he is , but it echoes a lot of what we have been saying . Forgive me for not following as closely as I have in the past, and I promise I will in the future if we ever really get any red meat, but it seems to me that Winters carefully chose his words at the bond hearing , allowing him latitude if it cannot be proven that the post came directly from McDaniel with hard computer forensic evidence . That certainly would have been the prudent thing to do

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, 13WMAZ has made it impossible to read (and I don't mean post to, I mean even READ) the comments unless you have a Facebook account. Which I don't.

ETA: Just read through the FAQ on the Facebook-linked posting there and it seems I SHOULD be able to read the comments. One of my security thingies must be blocking the Facebook portion, I'll have to fiddle around with it I guess.

 

[Backwoods]

Here is a transcript of what he says...not an official transcript I just listened to the actual statement made in court. I will note that Winters "hems and haws" a lot more when he presents the internet posts than he does when he presents other evidence...but I don't think hemming and hawing qualifies as mincing his words.

Thanks Sonya. I actually do think he was mincing words, but I think he slipped at least once and spoke more straightforwardly ("McDaniel wrote this" sort of fashion) than he intended.

You should transcribe the comments he makes right after he reads the post, too -- same sort of "I said it but I didn't say it" sort of wording.

One thing I have been mulling over: If the post isn't truly from SM (and I personally feel sure it isn't) and Winters knew it (and I personally think he did) -- I wonder if he did not quite anticipate how many folks out in internetland were in a position to question it, and how quickly they would do so. I just think he may not have bargained on that ... one reason it infuriates me that the Telegraph did not cover that angle in any fashion, once questions were raised, especially after printing their great big "disturbing internet post" headline and printing the post nearly verbatim.

 

[Sonya610]

Thanks Sonya. I actually do think he was mincing words, but I think he slipped at least once and spoke more straightforwardly ("McDaniel wrote this" sort of fashion) than he intended.

You should transcribe the comments he makes right after he reads the post, too -- same sort of "I said it but I didn't say it" sort of wording.

Afterwards he says...

Ummm…that is a post that comes from…the postings that he does. Your Honor..ummm….there is NO DOUBT that Mr. McDaniel is entitled to a bond (and the rest is about bond stuff...). (Funny how he emphasizes "no doubt" right after the internet post thing eh? No subliminal message there?)

I don't see how people can claim he is mincing he words. Yes, he speaks in a strange manner, almost as if English is his second language, but I think that may be because he is not comfortable explaining evidence regarding computers or the Internet. He clearly states that McDaniel posted this under the name SoL and that they confirmed SoL was McDaniel...and that "he" posted it.

I wonder if he did not quite anticipate how many folks out in internetland were in a position to question it, and how quickly they would do so. I just think he may not have bargained on that ... one reason it infuriates me that the Telegraph did not cover that angle in any fashion, once questions were raised, especially after printing their great big "disturbing internet post" headline and printing the post nearly verbatim.

Yes I do think you are correct. He doesn't understand that "Internetland" stuff so he assumes that it is a big gray cloud like thing that most others don't understand either (obviously the judge doesn't). They found stuff in Internetland and it looks real so they presented it in court, who else understands that stuff enough to question it? Yeah, maybe the defendant would question it but surely he can't prove or disprove what he posted so... it's his word against theirs!

Also the GBI had that computer for WEEKS and finally found the CP, they were "almost done" at that point. The GBI would have found and pursued those internet posts early on IF they had found them or IF they pursued that angle. Do we know if this was the school issued computer? If it WAS McDaniel might have used a browser that doesn't cache pages or store history of sites visited, especially if he were looking at and such on occasion. Wouldn't want the IT guys at the school coming across that in the event the machine crashed.

And I won't even comment on the Telegraph other than to say I am disgusted with them! They choose to leave out stories that don't "fit their agenda" so it makes one wonder what ELSE they are leaving out???

(PS you can read the 13wmaz posts without having facebook, you just have to make the comments display, I never log into Facebook).

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

I did wear a bright pink blouse to work today. Many people remarked about how pretty and spring-like I looked. No one knew the real reason I chose that color, but that's okay. I knew. So in my own way, I was honored to join Lauren's family and friends, and the rest of you guys, in remembering Lauren on her birthday.

For Lauren

Tomkat, my prayers for your family. My family remembers a special lost loved this month, too. :hug:
​

​

I did the same thing, Bessie, but then collapsed for the night before I got a chance to leave a birthday message here. :banghead: Sending warm thoughts to Lauren's family and friends.

 

[Sonya610]

As stated before...I ain't no lawyer but if they don't know HOW she died...if they can't prove she was TORTURED or horrendously abused before death...I have no clue why they are even going after the death penalty.

There are 11 reasons one can be sentenced to death via execution in GA, including being convicted of rape or robbery and then doing it again (gosh they need to buy a whole lot more drugs and start using them!). The DA chose reason 7) "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved depravity of mind" on the list because none of the others fit.

Thing is in order to prove the crime fit the above they have to prove the victim was seriously tortured or abused, the "depravity of mind" thing is related to the torture/physical abuse of the victim. If they can't prove HOW SHE DIED or WHAT KILLED HER how on earth can they prove it involved torture or aggravated battery? I suspect if the torso showed signs of torture it would have leaked by now. Apparently weird internet posts do not constitute "depravity of mind"; the actual method of killing does.

So it appears the prosecution needs to prove the method of death and also prove it was abusive and extreme if they want to strap him to the table.

"(b) In earlier decisions interpreting the statutory provision, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that (i) the evidence that the offense was "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman" must demonstrate "torture, depravity of mind, or an aggravated battery to the victim," (ii) the phrase "depravity of mind" comprehended only the kind of mental state that led the murderer to torture or to commit an aggravated battery before killing his victim, and (iii) the word "torture" must be construed in pari materia with "aggravated battery" so as to require evidence of serious physical abuse of the victim before death. Pp. 429-432.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/446/420

All 11 reasons here: http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-17/chapter-10/article-2/17-10-30/