Page 19 of 31 FirstFirst ... 91011121314151617181920212223242526272829 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 475 of 769

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

  1. #451
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    5,397
    Quote Originally Posted by tomkat View Post
    They must know WHICH apt was downloading porn, each apt would have a different box. That was not mentioned here interestingly.
    I don't know much about hardware but I don't think "they" meaning outside folks would know. All of the traffic would go out through the network router showing the router's ip address to the ISP, to figure out which tenant did what would require looking at the apartment complex's router/network logs.

    The Barrister Hall website clearly states "free wireless Internet access!" which means no "boxes" required just the password to log into to the wireless network.

    Owned and operated by Mercer Law School alumni, Barristers Hall caters to students through our discounted summer rents, free wireless internet, on-site laundry, one-bedroom apartments with large studies, semester pre-pay discounts and more.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sonya610 For This Useful Post:


  3. #452
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    I don't know much about hardware but I don't think "they" meaning outside folks would know. All of the traffic would go out through the network router showing the router's ip address to the ISP, to figure out which tenant did what would require looking at the apartment complex's router/network logs.

    That is why she got the letter about the illegal movies, they knew SHE paid for the internet connection and that is all they knew, she didn't bother investigating it because she didn't want to spend the money to get an IT guy to sort through the logs. The Barrister Hall website clearly states "free wireless Internet access!" which means no "boxes" required just the password to log into to the wireless network.
    When they mentioned MOVIES, I was thinking SATELLITE, Not internet, which would require a box unless everyone watched the same thing all day. LOL. Thanks!

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to tomkat For This Useful Post:


  5. #453
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    Small but interesting regarding the internet posts and child porn. If all of the tenants used the same network/internet connection then they all had the same IP address as far as the ISP and the outside world was concerned!

    That adds yet another step in trying to verify internet posts and downloads, they would have to seize the apartment complex's router and logs to figure out WHO in the complex was visiting sites or downloading. Obviously Ms. Bush was not to keen on hiring someone to investigate that when the illegal movie download thing came up, I would thinks she would complain to the Telegraph if the GBI had seized the apartment complex's router or other network equipment.

    If we recall, she even complained to the Telegraph that the FBI was going to keep the refrigerator for several months! Not sure what she planned to do with it when she got it back, though it might be worth something on http://www.supernaught.com/.
    Just shows you can't provide a "Free" service, SOMEONE will abuse it and look where it leads!!! Downloading of porn doesnt' make BB or SM a murderer................

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to tomkat For This Useful Post:


  7. #454
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    5,397
    Quote Originally Posted by tomkat View Post
    Just shows you can't provide a "Free" service, SOMEONE will abuse it and look where it leads!!! Downloading of porn doesnt' make BB or SM a murderer................
    Lots of places provide free internet access, in fact more and more all the time! Starbucks and many fast food restaurants provide it too. If someone wanted to hide their identity simply into one of their parking lots, tap into their wireless and download away to your hearts content.

    Starbucks offers free, one-click, unlimited Wi-Fi at all company-owned stores in the United States, including instant access to the Starbucks Digital Network. There’s no purchase or subscription required, no password needed and no time limit on your session.

    http://www.starbucks.com/coffeehouse/wireless-internet
    On that note it is rather interesting, surely the people trading in illegal material like CP are aware of these anonymous wireless connections. Why isn't the government cracking down on that? Ohhhh...because big corporations support it and the government would RATHER target individual citizens.

  8. #455
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    Lots of places provide free internet access, in fact more and more all the time! Starbucks and many fast food restaurants provide it too. If someone wanted to hide their identity simply into one of their parking lots, tap into their wireless and download away to your hearts content.



    On that note it is rather interesting, surely the people trading in illegal material like CP are aware of these anonymous wireless connections. Why isn't the government cracking down on that? Ohhhh...because big corporations support it and the government would RATHER target individual citizens.
    I'm not debating that many don't offer free services, but you see, it seems its always the LANDLORDS who seem to get sucked into this kind of thing, blaming them for all sorts of things. Locks should be changed each time a new tenant moves in, Period. But how is someone to PROVE that they DID. . I dont' particularly like Master Keys....But It's kind of comical in my book, how we don't even have a murderer yet and someone is sueing the complex for fault. We dont' even know where it was committed really. I just dont' think the complex is responsible for someone's morbid mindset. Yes, things can be simpler but criminals look for the easiest target, whether it be a location or the individual. Well, LG had her key under the mat, so how can anyone say the MASTER key was what was used when SM possessed BOTH, he could have simply made a copy of her key. Now if he only had the master key and his DNA was discovered with her DNA on her items or his items...............wellllllll, I wouldn't even be typing.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tomkat For This Useful Post:


  10. #456
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    20,815
    Quote Originally Posted by tomkat View Post
    THANK YOU! And this whole article, maybe not biased but bogus.....I do agree that the LL is responsible for their OWN KEYS and not letting them fall into the wrong hands.......but this.............This is trying to hold the LL of Complex responsible for the murder!!! No law says there must be security guards or cameras.

    Well, ultimately no matter how the murderer got to her, WHICH IS UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME, he could have simply knocked on her door and she opened it!! But if someone is want to commit murder, THAT is who to blame.........If not wanting to COMMIT MURDER, it wouldn't matter about the keys........BLAME THE MURDERER
    Not murder, Tomkat. Georgia does have laws which require apartment owners to provide adequate security for its tenants against foreseeable third party crimes. This is a good article:
    Many people are unaware that business owners, landlords and other property owners owe them special duties of care while they are on the property. This includes the duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition, to warn of known dangers and to protect those who are legally on the property from certain harms. In some cases, these harms include criminal acts of others, such as physical assaults, sexual assaults and other intentional crimes.
    http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/...ct/209692.html

    Basically, the law says the owner must have knowledge of a past similar crime on the property or in the vicinity. If there were no past assaults on women in the area, BB might not be required under the law to install extra security measures. But again, I don't think security cameras and alarms are the big issue here. It's the key that's "key", and that's pretty much a no-brainer, IMO. BB claims she doesn't know of a lost master key, yet we know McD had one. To me, that shows a lax attitude about security.

    The Telegraph article also says:
    Attorneys representing Giddings’ estate contend that she reported security problems regarding her windows and locks, but that her calls and e-mails were ignored.
    http://www.macon.com/2012/04/24/2001...rigerator.html

    If the lawyers can produce an e-mail, it won't bode well for BB unless she can show action was taken to repair the problems. I don't hold the owners responsible for LG's murder. If, however, it is shown that the killer gained access to her apartment with a key from the management office that wasn't properly secured, then yes, IMO they should be held liable for negligence.

    This brings to mind something that stuck in my craw about those purported bloodstained gloves. BB was quick to say it was paint, but I question if that wasn't an effort to do damage control. There's an obvious difference between dried blood and paint on rubber gloves. I'm not even sure what I think about those glove, but the story smelled fishy. I don't have any facts to base that on; it's strictly conjecture on my part. I do wonder about it, though.
    HANNAH GRAHAM TIP LINE (434) 295-3851
    EMAIL: CPDtips@charlottesville.org

    __________________________________

    Muddy water in the street
    ; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"



  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bessie For This Useful Post:


  12. #457
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    5,397
    Quote Originally Posted by bessie View Post
    I'm not even sure what I think about those glove, but the story smelled fishy. I don't have any facts to base that on; it's strictly conjecture on my part. I do wonder about it, though.
    The glove story was just idiotic. If you recall Buford claimed in court that the investigator found what looked like gloves with blood on them days earlier. The investigator apparently LEFT the gloves there without having them admitted as evidence!!!

    If the defense actually believed those gloves were real evidence that could prove their client was innocent they would NOT leave them at the complex and take the chance they could be thrown away or washed or otherwise become tainted. The police went to the complex and retrieved the gloves AFTER the court hearing. I was never a Buford fan but I lost even more confidence in him after that ridiculous claim.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Sonya610 For This Useful Post:


  14. #458
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    120
    (in response to my post from this am about personal injury firm representing this case)


    Again, I feel every time the other side opens their mouth or says something; it is shot down. Clearly there must be two seperate cases then. I specifically asked if the personal injury group was retained by family. It was not. These kinds of firms do grab onto cases like these in order to make monies.

    Also, could the Telegraph be inaccurate in its reports? There have been many inaccuracies cited by the Telegraph, including LGs incorrect birthday, which was corrected later that day.

    Please let all sides state points, observations etc. We all might learn something.

  15. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to GeorgiaSunshine For This Useful Post:


  16. #459
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    20,815
    ITA The glove business was a major snafu on Buford's part.
    HANNAH GRAHAM TIP LINE (434) 295-3851
    EMAIL: CPDtips@charlottesville.org

    __________________________________

    Muddy water in the street
    ; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"



  17. The Following User Says Thank You to bessie For This Useful Post:


  18. #460
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    20,815
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgiaSunshine View Post
    (in response to my post from this am about personal injury firm representing this case)


    Again, I feel every time the other side opens their mouth or says something; it is shot down. Clearly there must be two seperate cases then. I specifically asked if the personal injury group was retained by family. It was not. These kinds of firms do grab onto cases like these in order to make monies.

    Also, could the Telegraph be inaccurate in its reports? There have been many inaccuracies cited by the Telegraph, including LGs incorrect birthday, which was corrected later that day.

    Please let all sides state points, observations etc. We all might learn something.
    Sorry, GS. I cetainly didn't mean to shoot down your post. I might have misunderstood your post, though. So, if the family didn't hire the attorneys to settle the claim, then who do you think did? I've ASSumed one of her parents is the executor of her estate, but maybe I'm wrong.
    Last edited by bessie; 04-25-2012 at 12:03 PM.
    HANNAH GRAHAM TIP LINE (434) 295-3851
    EMAIL: CPDtips@charlottesville.org

    __________________________________

    Muddy water in the street
    ; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"



  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bessie For This Useful Post:


  20. #461
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    5,397
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgiaSunshine View Post
    I specifically asked if the personal injury group was retained by family. It was not. These kinds of firms do grab onto cases like these in order to make monies.
    Okay now I am confused. Are you suggesting that personal injury attorneys can file lawsuits without a plaintiff that was somehow related to the victim and suffered damages as a result?

    If that is what you are saying then every slightly suspicious death in Georgia would immediately have 500 lawsuits filed from every ambulance chasing attorney in the state? Seems that would clog up the court system just a bit. And who exactly would benefit from the settlements? The attorneys would just keep it all for themselves? They would get all of the insurance money and then when the victim or family tried to sue later they would simply be out of luck?

  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sonya610 For This Useful Post:


  22. #462
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    Okay now I am confused. Are you suggesting that personal injury attorneys can file lawsuits without a plaintiff that was somehow related to the victim and suffered damages as a result?

    If that is what you are saying then every slightly suspicious death in Georgia would immediately have 500 lawsuits filed from every ambulance chasing attorney in the state? Seems that would clog up the court system just a bit. And who exactly would benefit from the settlements? The attorneys would just keep it all for themselves? They would get all of the insurance money and then when the victim or family tried to sue later they would simply be out of luck?
    I'm unsure but the attorney said it was not family and led me to believe a personal injury firm was going after the apt complex. Can any lawyers weigh in? Can this happen? This lawyer made it seem like it can and does happen. I wish I could remember the name of the firm. It was said it is a good firm.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to GeorgiaSunshine For This Useful Post:


  24. #463
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgiaSunshine View Post
    I'm unsure but the attorney said it was not family and led me to believe a personal injury firm was going after the apt complex. Can any lawyers weigh in? Can this happen? This lawyer made it seem like it can and does happen. I wish I could remember the name of the firm. It was said it is a good firm.
    In order to bring a lawsuit, you have to have something called "standing". That means you have a stake in the matter and you were affected by whatever is underlying the lawsuit, such as being the one who was injured, or the injured person's family member.

    A personal injury firm can't just file a lawsuit. They would have to be representing a plaintiff with standing.
    If I can stop one heart from breaking,
    I shall not live in vain;
    If I can ease one life the aching,
    Or cool one pain,
    Or help one fainting robin
    Unto his nest again,
    I shall not live in vain.
    ~Emily Dickinson~

  25. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to southern_comfort For This Useful Post:


  26. #464
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by southern_comfort View Post
    In order to bring a lawsuit, you have to have something called "standing". That means you have a stake in the matter and you were affected by whatever is underlying the lawsuit, such as being the one who was injured, or the injured person's family member.

    A personal injury firm can't just file a lawsuit. They would have to be representing a plaintiff with standing.

    Would the boyfriend DV have such standing? If so, perhaps he is the one.

  27. #465
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    20,815
    Good answer, Southern Comfort. Much shorter than the one I started to type out. lol But that's it in a nutshell. Attorneys represent plaintiffs and defendants. They can't sue on behalf of themselves.

    State laws regarding who can file a wrongful death suit might vary somewhat, but usually it's a close family member. In Georgia, first a spouse, then a child (children), and when there is no surviving spouse or child, the decedant's parents can file a wrongful death suit. In the absence of a surviving spouse, child or parent, an executor for the estate can file suit on behalf of the next of kin.
    http://www.atlantainjurylawyer.com/w...r-1008540.html

    It is true that personal injury attorneys will "grab onto" high profile cases for the publicity, and/or cases that promise a very large sum in damages to be awarded because PIA's are typically paid on a contingency basis. They don't require retainers, but collect fees and a percentage from the award.

    The cases that attract PIA's are usually class action suits with a large group of plaintiffs, such as suits against pharmaceutical companies where many people suffer adverse effects from a prescription medication, product liability, and individual cases where a person is severely injured or dies as a result of some egregious act of negligence on the part of a large, wealthy business or public figure. Those are the cases with the big payoffs. The claim against the building owners doesn't fall into those categories. The initial demand is only $1M, and the final settlement will likely be less. Frankly, I don't even see the publicity from this claim as an enticement for a PIA firm.
    HANNAH GRAHAM TIP LINE (434) 295-3851
    EMAIL: CPDtips@charlottesville.org

    __________________________________

    Muddy water in the street
    ; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"



  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to bessie For This Useful Post:


  29. #466
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    It looks like Boni Bush the landlord shared the letter with the telegraph along with her letter responding to it. If the Telegraph actually got their hands on the letter/s then they wouldn't likely leave any "juicy bits of info" out of their article.

    Me thinks those hairs are the closest thing to a "smoking gun" that the DA has. Sounds like the DA was telling the family "we got your man, don't worry, we found _____". Seems to me if you are going to share private info regarding evidence in order to compell an insurance company to pay you then you would share the best of it, not just "a little bit". If you were NOT going to share private info then you wouldn't mention any of it at all!

    The last bit of the article in which they talk about a "cream white flip top trash can" with names of the law student residents including Giddings seems like extremely bad taste.
    Somehow I don't think BB shared this with the Telegraph. It would seem more likely to hurt than help the apartment's side of the civil case... especially if they also are truly concerned with public appearances and backlash, as is pretty much stated.

    I think their source must be elsewhere, and -- since they really don't give any clue or explanation as to how they received the info -- to me, this is no more substantiated (although yes, I believe such a letter probably exists), and probably much less significant, than coverage of reports that the bond-hearing-post is not genuine would have been, with sources that would have been available to the paper for that story.

  30. #467
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by bessie View Post
    She says NO key was lost.

    http://www.macon.com/2012/04/24/2001...rigerator.html


    There was discussion about the apartment's liability when it was revealed that McD was in possession of a master key. Obviously, at least to me, the owners bear some responsibility for failure to account for, and secure, a key that can unlock all of the doors in the complex, IF McD is found guilty, and it is shown in court that the key was used to carry out the crime (and I'm pretty certain that's not limited only to accessing LG's apartment). That seems to be the main issue. The non-working cameras, etc., etc., are just the usual padding.


    Unlike the OJ case, it's not a wrongful death claim, but a civil liability claim. Nor is it going forward, per se. The letter is a proposal for an out of court settlement not predicated on McD's guilt or innocence. We've heard a little of the evidence so far, but not enough to make a fair prediction of the outcome. Pretty soon, we'll know of more, or the lack thereof, and the scales will tip. It's a gamble for both sides, and this is the appropriate time to make the offer while the odds are even. If you're the plaintiff's attorney, you write a big scary letter (which doesn't add up to much, as you've pointed out), with the objective to gain a settlement, sparing your clients the agony and expense of a trial down the road. If you're the defendant/insurer, you assess the risks and make a decision to wait it out, or agree to a settlement now to avoid further litigation, and potentially a hefty payout.

    As for the Telegraph, I don't see any bias here. The issue isn't McD's guilt or innocence. It's whether the property owners are liable to LG's estate (heirs, family), and IMO, both sides are well represented in the article.
    Thanks for clarification on the key. I read hurriedly first time around and it was confusing to me.

    bbm: I do understand all this, it just still leaves an odd taste in my mouth. This is a part of the system that is just weird to me.

    As for the Telegraph, I do see bias in their recent decisions. And I don't say that lightly. The current article is pretty much a non-story -- albeit with an eye-catcher headline. "Non-stories" are understandable in a case in which a large part of the public has hung on every detail, I'm not faulting the paper for that -- but IMO this story is far less significant, at this point, than coverage of the disputed bond-hearing-post would have been.

  31. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Backwoods For This Useful Post:


  32. #468
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by tomkat View Post
    They must know WHICH apt was downloading porn, each apt would have a different box. That was not mentioned here interestingly.
    I don't think the article says anywhere that porn was being downloaded. Doesn't it say movies were being downloaded illegally? Couldn't that just mean, you know, a piracy kind of thing?

  33. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Backwoods For This Useful Post:


  34. #469
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    5,397
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    Would the boyfriend DV have such standing? If so, perhaps he is the one.
    I thought about the boyfriend too but it seems unless he was named as the beneficiary of her will he wouldn't. Boyfriends aren't family.

    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    Somehow I don't think BB shared this with the Telegraph.
    I believe you are right. When I read it I thought they were quoting BB from an interview, but in fact they were just quoting the letter that she (or someone) wrote in response to the demand letter. If BB didn't share it then yes...it brings up the question as to WHO did? Who would have copies? BB, the Plaintiff's, the insurance company and the attorney's office. Hmmmm.

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to Sonya610 For This Useful Post:


  36. #470
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by tomkat View Post
    I'm not debating that many don't offer free services, but you see, it seems its always the LANDLORDS who seem to get sucked into this kind of thing, blaming them for all sorts of things. Locks should be changed each time a new tenant moves in, Period. But how is someone to PROVE that they DID. . I dont' particularly like Master Keys....But It's kind of comical in my book, how we don't even have a murderer yet and someone is sueing the complex for fault. We dont' even know where it was committed really. I just dont' think the complex is responsible for someone's morbid mindset. Yes, things can be simpler but criminals look for the easiest target, whether it be a location or the individual. Well, LG had her key under the mat, so how can anyone say the MASTER key was what was used when SM possessed BOTH, he could have simply made a copy of her key. Now if he only had the master key and his DNA was discovered with her DNA on her items or his items...............wellllllll, I wouldn't even be typing.
    bbm: tomkat, you've made the same kind of point I was trying to, I guess, only in a little different way and maybe more effectively!

  37. #471
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    I thought about the boyfriend too but it seems unless he was named as the beneficiary of her will he wouldn't. Boyfriends aren't family.



    I believe you are right. When I read it I thought they were quoting BB from an interview, but in fact they were just quoting the letter that she (or someone) wrote in response to the demand letter. If BB didn't share it then yes...it brings up the question as to WHO did? Who would have copies? BB, the Plaintiff's, the insurance company and the attorney's office. Hmmmm.
    Perhaps he was an executor for her will, though?

  38. #472
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    5,397
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    Perhaps he was an executor for her will, though?
    Well if he IS that sounds like a motive to me! But seriously she was a law student, what did she have? A hundred thousand in student loan debt, a car, some old cd's, etc... Unless she was a lot richer than we know I doubt if she even had a will, and if she did why on earth would she make her boyfriend the executor?

  39. The Following User Says Thank You to Sonya610 For This Useful Post:


  40. #473
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    Well if he IS that sounds like a motive to me! But seriously she was a law student, what did she have? A hundred thousand in student loan debt, a car, some old cd's, etc... Unless she was a lot richer than we know I doubt if she even had a will, and if she did why on earth would she make her boyfriend the executor?
    She may not have had much, but, as a law student, she might have been more keenly aware than most her age of the importance of having a will.

    Why would she make the boyfriend executor (or maybe co-executor?). Well, he was an established, somewhat-prestigious lawyer...? Beyond that, I don't know -- people do things like that sometimes. She probably trusted him -- maybe was looking to a future with him...? Not saying she did have him as an executor, or even that she had a will -- but I think both are not beyond the realm of plausibility.

    Also: Lauren probably looked forward to a long life and a successful professional track. She likely would have soon "had more" in assets... and so may have had a basic will "in place" already, to be updated as needed.
    Last edited by Backwoods; 04-25-2012 at 04:46 PM. Reason: add comment

  41. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Backwoods For This Useful Post:


  42. #474
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    5,397
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    Why would she make the boyfriend executor (or maybe co-executor?). Well, he was an established, somewhat-prestigious lawyer...? Beyond that, I don't know -- people do things like that sometimes.
    Yes, and if a girlfriend were trying to cement things with a boyfriend asking him to do stuff like this is one method. Though even if he WERE the executor he would have a whole lot of nerve going forward with a lawsuit like this without her families 100% agreement.

  43. The Following User Says Thank You to Sonya610 For This Useful Post:


  44. #475
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by tomkat View Post
    And that is what I have been saying about the DA, why share trivial info if you've got real damning evidence?? This whole case is clearly someone trying to frame someone else and the struggle SEEMS evident becuase no SM DNA has been discovered or atleast NOT Mentioned among all the trivial finds. They have nothing. Sadly........ if he's guilty anyway. If your rag has a hair on it, wipe the fridge out one last time, it'll leave a hair..............in a pristine fridge. Why there is no food particles in there. I'm not saying SM is not guilty. I"m saying this is trivial pursuit becuase they seem to keep trying to make something fit into the puzzle that won't. ON the other hand. being optimistic for ONCE, ha, since the release of this letter, which was kept secret so long, proves there is more INTERESTING info, if not damning evidence, yet to be told.
    bbm: I just have this funny feeling that they didn't test for "trace" food particles, LOL

  45. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Backwoods For This Useful Post:


Page 19 of 31 FirstFirst ... 91011121314151617181920212223242526272829 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 - #14
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 756
    Last Post: 09-19-2013, 05:45 PM
  2. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #12
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 799
    Last Post: 04-05-2012, 09:55 PM
  3. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #5
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 686
    Last Post: 08-04-2011, 04:49 PM
  4. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #4
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 675
    Last Post: 08-01-2011, 02:44 PM
  5. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #3
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 540
    Last Post: 07-27-2011, 12:43 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •