Page 2 of 31 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 769

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

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Here is a link to the brief the defense filed today regarding the bond:

    http://www.13wmaz.com/assetpool/docu...n-for-bond.pdf

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


  3. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by McMunn View Post
    Not meaning to deviate from the current conversation, but I was driving by the Barrington Hall apartments today, and kind of got stuck in traffic right in front of the AT&T building next to the apartments. As I was waiting for traffic to move, I noticed the security camera on the front right side of the roof of the building, and how the dumpsters are somewhat visible from that angle. There is one fir-type tree there near the dumpsters, but there seems to be several spaces where I'm guessing that the camera could possibly have caught something that evening. I am really anxious to find out whether or not a part of the evidence is video footage from that security camera.
    I remember that this particular camera has been mentioned before as a possible source of evidence. Let's hope (as I think we did in discussion before) that it was operating and had something of the right vantage point to be helpful. I wonder, too, if it was and does -- but the footage shows nothing toward the state's case -- will we ever know?

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


  5. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Just another little observation about the post Winters read at the bond hearing.

    At the very end are the words "you mad virgins". In the courtroom, Winters read this with the intonation that it is almost a bizarrely poetic phrase of address.

    But now I'm thinking it was actually a variation of the familiar trolling card, "You mad?" In other words, "You mad, virgins?"

    That would sure fit with the claim that irritated posters at the other site were aiming this post largely to taunt WSers, I think.

    Maybe some of you saw this right away -- but I didn't. (I obviously am not as 'net-world savvy as, say, my daughter, who probably would have made the connection right away -- I was "hearing" it in the same style Winters presented it.)

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


  7. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    Just another little observation about the post Winters read at the bond hearing.

    At the very end are the words "you mad virgins". In the courtroom, Winters read this with the intonation that it is almost a bizarrely poetic phrase of address.

    But now I'm thinking it was actually a variation of the familiar trolling card, "You mad?" In other words, "You mad, virgins?"

    That would sure fit with the claim that irritated posters at the other site were aiming this post largely to taunt WSers, I think.

    Maybe some of you saw this right away -- but I didn't. (I obviously am not as 'net-world savvy as, say, my daughter, who probably would have made the connection right away -- I was "hearing" it in the same style Winters presented it.)
    I haven't had the slightest idea how to interpret that. I figured it was some sort of slang that I just don't get. That's an interesting perspective. I'll have to think about that.
    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~

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to southern_comfort For This Useful Post:


  9. #30
    Here's a page with info about the phrase "you mad", which claims to be part of a series on LOLspeak/Chanspeak.

    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/u-mad

    I think I would rather be cleaning my toilet than learning Chanspeak.. lulz.
    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~

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to southern_comfort For This Useful Post:


  11. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    20,833
    Quote Originally Posted by pearl View Post
    Bessie,
    Please move this post if it should not be on this forum and should be on another.

    Can someone answer this question? How much time elapsed from when Lauren's remains were found and SM arrested and when he man who had come to Macon to help SM with his project first talked to LE? If the man came forward very soon after the arrest, he could have told LE about SM's posts, LE could have contacted the website, and this particular post (and maybe others that no one on WS has read) could have been removed. Have we came to a consensus on the reliability of the poster claiming that the particular post in question was a bit of fun on someone's part?
    Your post is fine here, Pearl. I posed the same ideas the other day, myself. We don't know when the OpChan poster initially spoke to LE. As for the reliability of the claim, I honestly can't say. There is no proof that it was a hoax posted after McD was incarcerated. Nor is there proof to show it wasn't a post quoting an earlier one made by McD. We can speculate, but I'm wary of allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the DA without a screenshot or cached version of the post in question. Afaik, to date, no one has been able to produce one.
    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)"



  12. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Miami, Florida
    Posts
    236
    Great stuff in here lately sleuthers. Good catch on the You Mad meme, SouthernComfort, I don't think I have seen (or read lately, getting forgetful in my old age) those 25 things about Lauren, that again really brings home that we are dealing with the horrible death of a wonderful young lady. And good observation, one I hadn't noticed about the McDaniels not being present . Perhaps Amy Leigh and Joe can try to contact or tell us why they wouldn't be there with their son on trial for his life. Judge Brown is focusing on whether McD might "harm himself" in his bond deliberation, whether McD Is a "person" under OCGA 17-6-1 . I could help him out there, but I will save the jokes for later. Let's keep it up. Thanks to all contibutors.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    559
    I've been thinking some about the mental health evaluation asked for by this judge. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. Didn't the judge ask one of his lawyers at an earlier hearing something about his mental fitness to stand trial? Maybe not that exactly, but something similar?

    http://www.41nbc.com/news/local-news/10061-mcdaniels-defense-team-challenges-searches-in-giddings-case
    McDaniel did not speak at Wednesday's hearing. Judge Brown also asked about McDaniel's mental state. His attorneys said there was no issue

    This makes me think his honor might think SM has mental issues.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    5,403
    From what I have read when it comes to computer evidence and Internet posts....

    The prosecution/leo either seizes the actual computer/server OR they contact the server owner and get a complete copy of all logs, ip addresses, times, along with a complete duplicate of the original website.

    Printing stuff out doesn't count.

    If the post is legit and verifiable either the server, or a digital copy of the server logs and the entire website will be entered when evidence is disclosed to the defense.

    If the prosecution cannot produce the evidence to back up the fact they vetted that ONE post...well I guess they weren't planning to present any ANY other SoL posts either! Plus....

    If the post is not legit then trust me all heck will break loose. Stating things like he said....he.... "drugged, raped cut her limbs off and barbequed them while throwing out the torso because I don't eat organ meat" in front of a judge with reporters recording every word and broadcasting those statements to the public/jury pool....not good. Really not good in any circumstance, even if they had smoking gun evidence.
    Last edited by Sonya610; 04-07-2012 at 07:48 PM.

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


  16. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    From what I have read when it comes to computer evidence and Internet posts....

    The prosecution/leo either seizes the actual computer/server OR they contact the server owner and get a complete copy of all logs, ip addresses, times, along with a complete duplicate of the original website.

    Printing stuff out doesn't count.

    If the post is legit and verifiable either the server, or a digital copy of the server logs and the entire website will be entered when evidence is disclosed to the defense.

    If the prosecution cannot produce the evidence to back up the fact they vetted that ONE post...well I guess they weren't planning to present any ANY other SoL posts either! Plus....

    If the post is not legit then trust me all heck will break loose. Stating things like he said....he.... "drugged, raped cut her limbs off and barbequed them while throwing out the torso because I don't eat organ meat" in front of a judge with reporters recording every word and broadcasting those statements to the media....not good. Really not good in any circumstance, even if they had smoking gun evidence.
    bbm: Sonya, I think you may have hit on part of this puzzle!

    Now that you have said that -- I'm thinking maybe they have indeed decided against presenting the internet posts as evidence. I've never thought they would be good evidence -- not related to the crime at all -- (and yes, I know many others here feel differently). The posts have already done all the work they reasonably could, probably, in public impact --'cause Lord knows they have been publicized.

    The bond hearing might have been a last opportunity to showcase them again -- and, if it was "tricky but legal" (which I am not entirely clear about) to present that one as authored "by SoL", even if the prosecution knew it was not authored by SM -- this was the golden opportunity. Unlike SM's actual posts, this one obviously refers to the crime and in fact pretty much "sums up" all the atrocities involved, both fact and not-proven theory.

    But the thing is, of course, the post is not genuine.
    IMO. I believe (and hope) that truth will come to public light, eventually.
    Last edited by Backwoods; 04-07-2012 at 07:45 PM. Reason: amend wording

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


  18. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    5,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    I'm thinking maybe they have indeed decided against presenting the Internet posts as evidence.
    So if it is okay for Winters to broadcast made up Internet posts at a hearing in front of a Judge and the media I guess that means from now on it is okay for prosecutors to claim "He posted he tortured 16 babies" and "He posted this was his two thousandth rape victim" and "He stated in an Internet post he sodomized 14 children and then disemboweled them before burying them in his backyard".

    And then after 100 or 1000 statements of that nature in the media they select the jury pool.

    It is not okay.

    Would you want to be accused of a crime you did not commit and have the prosecutor start blaring made up statements like that about you to the media? Really really horrid fake statements all over the press, read by people that will be on the jury? Think on that.

  19. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    So if it is okay for Winters to broadcast made up Internet posts at a hearing in front of a Judge and the media I guess that means from now on it is okay for prosecutors to claim "He posted he tortured 16 babies" and "He posted this was his two thousandth rape victim" and "He stated in an Internet post he sodomized 14 children and then disemboweled them before burying them in his backyard".

    And then after 100 or 1000 statements of that nature in the media they select the jury pool.

    It is not okay.

    Would you want to be accused of a crime you did not commit and have the prosecutor start blaring made up statements like that about you to the media? Really really horrid fake statements all over the press, read by people that will be on the jury? Think on that.
    bbm: I don't have to think on it. I think I've made it pretty clear that I wouldn't approve of that approach, with me or anyone else in the defendant's seat.

    Perhaps, though you are quoting my post, you are not directing all the "It is not okay" stuff at me. But just in case: Let me point out, I didn't say it was OK.

    If the theory that they don't plan on using the posts as evidence proves true, they will probably not be mentioning them again in the courtroom. And it may be, after this latest, they may not rely on referring to them much outside the courtroom. As I said, the posts may have already done their work.
    Last edited by Backwoods; 04-07-2012 at 09:04 PM. Reason: add some wording

  20. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    5,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    bbm:Perhaps, though you are quoting my post, you are not directing all the "It is not okay" stuff at me. But just in case: Let me point out, I didn't say it was OK.

    If the theory that they don't plan on using the posts as evidence proves true, they will probably not be mentioning them again in the courtroom. And it may be, after this latest, they may not rely on referring to them much outside the courtroom. As I said, the posts may have already done their work.
    Sorry if I directed that at you. You are right, I was projecting.

    Fact is, it is almost a certainty that they planned to make the Internet posts a big part of the case. That and the cadaver dog thing. Oh and the plastic wrapper that matched the model number of the hacksaw.

    They didn't have much so at some point they got....well sheesh I don't know what happened. Desperate?

    This happened in Macon, Georgia. Virtually every bit of info leaked before it was announced, if they had smoking gun DNA that could win the case it would have leaked too, if only widespread rumors of "They have something big but haven't revealed it". The rumors I hear are "they don't have any real evidence".

    If you are in central GA you know what I mean.

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


  22. #39
    Maybe the old server suffered such a thorough self-destruct that there is no other way to authenticate the posts than via the SoL screenname.
    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~

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


  24. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    5,403
    Quote Originally Posted by southern_comfort View Post
    Maybe the old server suffered such a thorough self-destruct that there is no other way to authenticate the posts than via the SoL screenname.
    Yes. That sounds like a good argument. : )

    Your Honor, the post was real, we saw it however unfortunately we cannot confirm that via computer forensic data or really, in any way but we saw it and the nick was "SoL".

    By the way your Honor...the burden of proof is on the DEFENSE. We, the prosecution/state can say WHATEVER WE LIKE and the defense has to PROVE it isn't true.

    That is how the law works, it is a Roman legal thing written in Latin.
    Last edited by Sonya610; 04-07-2012 at 10:06 PM.

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


  26. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    Yes. That sounds like a good argument. : )

    Your Honor, the post was real, we saw it however unfortunately we cannot confirm that via computer forensic data.

    By the way your Honor...the burden of proof is on the DEFENSE. We, the prosecution/state can say whatever we like and the defense has to PROVE it isn't true.
    It is the defense's job to debunk prosecution evidence.

    Think of it this way. When you have a truly innocent defendant... say, a defendant who was in fact 4000 miles away from the scene when the crime occurred... every piece of evidence that tends to prove the defendant committed the crime is "false". It has to be, doesn't it? It's still evidence, though. It's still the prosecutor's job to produce evidence and the defendant's job to poke holes in it.

    Assuming that post wasn't made while McD was incarcerated (because dates are pretty concrete), if the servers are truly wiped and there is no way to authenticate beyond linking the SoL screenname, are you suggesting the prosecution can't use the evidence?
    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~

  27. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to southern_comfort For This Useful Post:


  28. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by southern_comfort View Post
    Maybe the old server suffered such a thorough self-destruct that there is no other way to authenticate the posts than via the SoL screenname.

    Unfortunately, it seems very likely that may be the case.

    ETA: One reason I say "unfortunately" is because I think the post WAS made while SM was incarcerated ... but with no data, how can that be proven?

    Also -- what does everyone make of the earlier reports about the site ... you know, the FBI takeover and all that? Was that for real?
    Last edited by Backwoods; 04-07-2012 at 10:08 PM. Reason: add comment

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to Backwoods For This Useful Post:


  30. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    Unfortunately, it seems very likely that may be the case.

    ETA: One reason I say "unfortunately" is because I think the post WAS made while SM was incarcerated ... but with no data, how can that be proven?

    Also -- what does everyone make of the earlier reports about the site ... you know, the FBI takeover and all that? Was that for real?
    Even a screencap or a printout would show a date, no? They have captured the posts in some form, I am sure.
    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~

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


  32. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by southern_comfort View Post
    Even a screencap or a printout would show a date, no? They have captured the posts in some form, I am sure.
    I guess (and hope) you are right about that. The defense may not have posts made on that board later on -- though they may very well, being pretty smart folks -- but even if they don't, the prosecution will have to share theirs ... IF admitted as evidence, right?

    But maybe NOT if the use of this post stops here ...?

  33. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    559
    Quote Originally Posted by southern_comfort View Post
    Even a screencap or a printout would show a date, no? They have captured the posts in some form, I am sure.
    I would guess a hard copy printout because the DA was reading from something.

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to pearl For This Useful Post:


  35. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    Sorry if I directed that at you. You are right, I was projecting.

    Fact is, it is almost a certainty that they planned to make the Internet posts a big part of the case. That and the cadaver dog thing. Oh and the plastic wrapper that matched the model number of the hacksaw.

    They didn't have much so at some point they got....well sheesh I don't know what happened. Desperate?

    This happened in Macon, Georgia. Virtually every bit of info leaked before it was announced, if they had smoking gun DNA that could win the case it would have leaked too, if only widespread rumors of "They have something big but haven't revealed it". The rumors I hear are "they don't have any real evidence".

    If you are in central GA you know what I mean.
    bbm: I have heard talk both ways.

  36. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    5,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    ETA: One reason I say "unfortunately" is because I think the post WAS made while SM was incarcerated ... but with no data, how can that be proven?
    You are asking how it can be proven that the post was made while McDaniel was incarcerated?

    The prosecution stated it as fact so if others question it the prosecution needs to prove it. Trust me witnesses (like the one on macon.com) will come forward to say it was fake and posted as a joke. If the prosecution cannot refute those statements well....sheesh it won't go that far but if it does people WILL come forward to testify.

    This whole case has been so bizarre, who knows what will happen but fake internet posts won't be allowed.

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


  38. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    I guess (and hope) you are right about that. The defense may not have posts made on that board later on -- though they may very well, being pretty smart folks -- but even if they don't, the prosecution will have to share theirs ... IF admitted as evidence, right?

    But maybe NOT if the use of this post stops here ...?
    If they want to use it at trial, yep, they'll have to share.

    I think there must be some procedure where they could get it now, too. Truthfully, though, I think they had it already. I don't think they were surprised by it in the least.
    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~

  39. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to southern_comfort For This Useful Post:


  40. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    5,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    bbm: I have heard talk both ways.
    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.

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


  42. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    You are asking how it can be proven that the post was made while McDaniel was incarcerated?

    The prosecution stated it as fact so if others question it the prosecution needs to prove it. Trust me witnesses (like the one on macon.com) will come forward to say it was fake and posted as a joke. If the prosecution cannot refute those statements well....sheesh it won't go that far but if it does people WILL come forward to testify.

    This whole case has been so bizarre, who knows what will happen but fake internet posts won't be allowed.
    I am guessing, too, that this post (and probably none of the posts, including the real SoL ones) will make it to a trial. If this one does -- yes, I think that there are those who could offer valuable testimony about its true nature...though that testimony would be a whole lot more valuable backed up with computer data.

    But what about the impact of it at this hearing? First, it has to be asked, is it going to influence the judge's decision about the bond? And what about the public impact/tainting the jury pool angle? I hope maybe someone who has information and (crossing fingers) data to put this in its true light will talk to the media.

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


Page 2 of 31 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... 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
  •