Page 24 of 52 FirstFirst ... 14 22 23 24 25 26 34 ... LastLast
Results 346 to 360 of 769
  1. #346
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    6,294
    Quote Originally Posted by southern_comfort View Post
    Now with this, I will agree -- well, partially. I've thought since the beginning that this post was never intended to be (and won't be) in evidence at trial. Personally, I don't think they have any intention of using any of the internet posts at the trial. IMO, of course.

    I do think it could come into play later as grounds for a venue change, or something of that nature.
    At this point I don't think they can use the posts at trial.

    However if there are no ramifications for reading hidiously shocking false "confessions" in court with the media recording it I do expect that will set a very dangerous new precident.

    As I mentioned, it seems like this would mean from now on Prosecutors can claim the defendants confessed to rape, murder, dismemberment, cannibalism, necrophilia, etc.... or any other crazy thing they like in front of judges and the news media without any serious repercussions?


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


  3. #347
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    6,294
    Just thought of something that hasn't been brought up before...

    What if the DA used some of the intenet posts at the grand jury hearing? I don't think he used THAT post as obviously McDaniel and attorneys would have likely freaked out over it a while back, although they DID file several motions regarding the grand jury and asked that the indictment be thrown out, but I think (?) those motions were public, or were they?

    But what if Winters presented OTHER posts to the grand jury that can't be verified? Seems in the past that has overturned convictions....

    Prosecutors, for example, are prohibited from presenting false information to a grand jury, and convictions stemming from an indictment based on false information are overturned on appeal.

    http://system.uslegal.com/u-s-consti...d-jury-clause/
    Since Winters seems to be presenting everything BUT the kitchen sink in this case it seems quite likely he DID possibly bring up some internet posts too.


  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Sonya610 For This Useful Post:


  5. #348
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    sipping coffee at the Purple Rose Theatre
    Posts
    53,293
    Quote Originally Posted by cocomod View Post
    I think this post is a red herring and may be of little importance. The fact is, we do not know what other evidence that they have against McD. They may never bring this post up again during the trial for all we know. They may have enough other evidence, it may just shock the defence team. For all we know, the evidence may be strong enough to push the defence to ask for a plea. Until I see or hear the rest of the evidence, I simply cannot say that Winters completely bungled this case. He certainly made a few mistakes such as letting the 90 day window close, but to say that the whole case is bunk is a stretch I am not willing to take.
    ita coco. I could see the second bold being a possibility because imhoo they have a solid case/lots of evidence (time will tell of course)


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


  7. #349
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    At this point I don't think they can use the posts at trial.

    However if there are no ramifications for reading hidiously shocking false "confessions" in court with the media recording it I do expect that will set a very dangerous new precident.

    As I mentioned, it seems like this would mean from now on Prosecutors can claim the defendants confessed to rape, murder, dismemberment, cannibalism, necrophilia, etc.... or any other crazy thing they like in front of judges and the news media without any serious repercussions?
    Well, I think prosecutors have always been able to claim whatever they want to claim. Their ethical obligations and (in many proceedings) the defense's opportunity to rebut would presumably preclude them from telling outright lies. Assuming it turns out that the post is phony and they knew it, if the defense thinks it's had a sufficiently negative impact, I have confidence that they can and will do something about it (such as file an ethics grievance with the bar, move for a change of venue, etc.).
    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 3 Users Say Thank You to southern_comfort For This Useful Post:


  9. #350
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    4,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    Just thought of something that hasn't been brought up before...

    What if the DA used some of the intenet posts at the grand jury hearing? I don't think he used THAT post as obviously McDaniel and attorneys would have likely freaked out over it a while back, although they DID file several motions regarding the grand jury and asked that the indictment be thrown out, but I think (?) those motions were public, or were they?

    But what if Winters presented OTHER posts to the grand jury that can't be verified? Seems in the past that has overturned convictions....



    Since Winters seems to be presenting everything BUT the kitchen sink in this case it seems quite likely he DID possibly bring up some internet posts too.
    That has certainly crossed my mind ... even the post currently in dispute.


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


  11. #351
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    4,370
    Quote Originally Posted by southern_comfort View Post
    Now with this, I will agree -- well, partially. I've thought since the beginning that this post was never intended to be (and won't be) in evidence at trial. Personally, I don't think they have any intention of using any of the internet posts at the trial. IMO, of course.

    I do think it could come into play later as grounds for a venue change, or something of that nature.
    This is exactly what I'm thinking, too. The posts did their work with public impact, I believe.


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


  13. #352
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    6,294
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    This is exactly what I'm thinking, too. The posts did their work with public impact, I believe.
    I think they planned to use every darn thing they have at the trial (or even if they don't need to use it they still want to have it available just in case) up to and including putting "Hunter and Chase" the cadaver dogs on the stand if they needed to!

    If they KNEW they couldn't use the posts because they were not verified it was taking a big risk to use a fake one at the hearing.

    I DO believe he wrote the westboro baptist church massacre post in which he said he would look "stunned and out of it" after he was arrested for murder which is EXACTLY how he acted for weeks, that would have been powerful in front of a jury (IF they had actually verified the posts). He also talked about how gruesome extremely graphic movies did not bother him in the slightest, that would ALSO be powerful. I surely would have wanted to use those in court if I were the DA!


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


  15. #353
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    In the sweet Carolina pines
    Posts
    3,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    I think they planned to use every darn thing they have at the trial (or even if they don't need to use it they still want to have it available just in case) up to and including putting "Hunter and Chase" the cadaver dogs on the stand if they needed to!

    If they KNEW they couldn't use the posts because they were not verified it was taking a big risk to use a fake one at the hearing.

    I DO believe he wrote the westboro baptist church massacre post in which he said he would look "stunned and out of it" after he was arrested for murder which is EXACTLY how he acted for weeks, that would have been powerful in front of a jury (IF they had actually verified the posts). He also talked about how gruesome extremely graphic movies did not bother him in the slightest, that would ALSO be powerful. I surely would have wanted to use those in court if I were the DA!
    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. 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 porn?


    A proud decedent of The Declaration of Independence signer.


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


  17. #354
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Tn/Ar
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    He also talked about how gruesome extremely graphic movies did not bother him in the slightest, that would ALSO be powerful.
    snipped

    Why?


  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Diddy98 For This Useful Post:


  19. #355
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    4,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    I think they planned to use every darn thing they have at the trial (or even if they don't need to use it they still want to have it available just in case) up to and including putting "Hunter and Chase" the cadaver dogs on the stand if they needed to!

    If they KNEW they couldn't use the posts because they were not verified it was taking a big risk to use a fake one at the hearing.

    I DO believe he wrote the westboro baptist church massacre post in which he said he would look "stunned and out of it" after he was arrested for murder which is EXACTLY how he acted for weeks, that would have been powerful in front of a jury (IF they had actually verified the posts). He also talked about how gruesome extremely graphic movies did not bother him in the slightest, that would ALSO be powerful. I surely would have wanted to use those in court if I were the DA!
    bbm: me, too, if I were the DA. And if I were a defense attorney, I surely would be challenging the relevance -- because I'm just not sure it's there.

    I think the prosecution would like to be able to use the posts, but I don't think they have ever counted big on getting them before a jury. I think maybe that's a reason they possibly slipped into the bond hearing the post we've been discussing, perhaps under slippery rules and with slippery wording. JMO


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


  21. #356
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    4,370
    Quote Originally Posted by 3doglady View Post
    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. 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 porn?
    bbm: I think the defense might try, depending on how all this post stuff turns out, but I really think that may not work too well.

    We know that the prosecution claims the child porn was found on a flash drive found in SM's apartment -- physical evidence gathered, physical evidence that can be displayed. The nebulous (from what we know as of now) circumstances surrounding the bond-hearing post are nowhere comparable, IMO.


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


  23. #357
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    In the sweet Carolina pines
    Posts
    3,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    bbm: I think the defense might try, depending on how all this post stuff turns out, but I really think that may not work too well.

    We know that the prosecution claims the child porn was found on a flash drive found in SM's apartment -- physical evidence gathered, physical evidence that can be displayed. The nebulous (from what we know as of now) circumstances surrounding the bond-hearing post are nowhere comparable, IMO.
    I agree it's two entirely different things. But couldn't the DT say that Winters used a fake post as evidence in the hearing so why should the jury trust
    Winters to tell the truth about the flash drive? I've seen the state accused of planning evidence on a pc before and it almost worked. Computer evidence can be difficult for the average juror to understand even if it is on a flash drive. The DT can find an IT to testify and muddy the whole flash drive evidence, especially if they can claim Winters used a fake post as evidence. Most of us know about the infamous CacheBack program in the Anthony trial. There was the invalid time stamp on the Google map search in the Cooper trial. A lot of people were scratching their head over that evidence.


    A proud decedent of The Declaration of Independence signer.


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


  25. #358
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    6,294
    Quote Originally Posted by Diddy98 View Post
    Originally Posted by Sonya610 He also talked about how gruesome extremely graphic movies did not bother him in the slightest, that would ALSO be powerful.
    Why?
    It is not unusual for the prosecution to bring up the defendant's preference for violent movies or violent porn in trials. When the defense is trying to portray the defendant as "pure as the driven snow, a good Christian, good student, no criminal history etc..." then their preference for hard core torture films will influence the jury.

    I am not judging, I love hard core horror films and have watched plenty of real gore as well. I am actually rather surprised that he never mentioned real gore, he talks about how mainstream movies didn't bother him but never mentions real video clips which strongly implies he never took much interest in them as I would think he would have come across some during his internet travels.

    Plus I recall someone mentioning one of the posts referenced disposing of a body in the trash, that would be a handy bit of info to share with a jury!
    Last edited by Sonya610; 04-17-2012 at 08:48 AM.


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


  27. #359
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    6,294
    Quote Originally Posted by 3doglady View Post
    I agree it's two entirely different things. But couldn't the DT say that Winters used a fake post as evidence in the hearing so why should the jury trust
    Winters to tell the truth about the flash drive? I've seen the state accused of planning evidence on a pc before and it almost worked. Computer evidence can be difficult for the average juror to understand even if it is on a flash drive.
    Yeah well if the defense CAN bring up the internet post during the CP trial then it would surely influence the jury.

    Also if they processed the CP the same way that they processed the Internet evidence then they are in big trouble. Winters suggested the GBI processed the CP so it might be admissable. Plus there are numerous ways people really can pick up cp images without realizing it, especially if they hang out on message boards like 4chan (which is very similar to the other forum in many ways).

    Most of the CP cases I have read about involve backtracking, they discover that the person had connected to certain sites or clicked certain links to willfully download illegal images. Now of course they probably don't NEED to have the evidence of intentionally seeking it out and downloading it but that seems to be the norm.

    Child pornography charges dropped against former United Way executive

    Defense attorney Alan Roscetti had complained to State Supreme Court Justice Richard Kloch Sr. that he could not file a so-called alibi defense because he didn’t know exactly when prosecutors claimed the child pornography was downloaded. After prosecutors said the four images of kiddie porn were downloaded on April 26, 2010, Roscetti claimed Buffone was at a hockey game at the time and he would call witnesses who saw him there.

    Faced with Buffone’s alibi, prosecutors offered the deal.

    “I’m comfortable (with the plea),” Zucco said. “We didn’t get a firm explanation of the (download date), but the fact remains the (kiddie porn) was on (Buffone’s computer). But could we prove to a jury he (downloaded) it and when? Facing that problem, this is a fair resolution.”

    http://niagara-gazette.com/local/x29...-Way-executive
    Last edited by Sonya610; 04-17-2012 at 09:06 AM.


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


  29. #360
    According to FB, I think today is Lauren's birthday. I'm sure today is extremely hard for her friends and family.


  30. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to GypsiesTramps&Thieves For This Useful Post:


Page 24 of 52 FirstFirst ... 14 22 23 24 25 26 34 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. GUILTY 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
  2. GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #11
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 615
    Last Post: 11-15-2011, 06:04 PM
  3. GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 # 8
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 690
    Last Post: 08-21-2011, 09:12 PM
  4. GUILTY 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
  5. GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 # 2
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 703
    Last Post: 07-22-2011, 08:44 PM

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
  •