Page 5 of 31 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 769

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

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,767
    Quote Originally Posted by southern_comfort View Post
    You've lost me again. Why should Winters have quoted all of the excuses verbatim? Maybe he thought that one sounded the most ridiculous and liked the effect best when it stood alone. This was an adversarial proceeding, after all.

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

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


    It should be.............. but I guess it can't be, too early (since there has been not trial and no verdict) But if they have something significant, they should use it, or the defendent is entitled to a reasonable bond, JMO..........that's why I dont' think they have a thing on him other than the issues that have been brought forth thus far. Once again, JMO
    Last edited by tomkat; 04-09-2012 at 10:57 PM. Reason: correction

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,767
    Quote Originally Posted by pearl View Post
    They have Lauren's DNA on her underwear found in SM's sock (?) drawer.
    Her DNA is on all her things........I mean specifically if SM DNA is on something of hers or mixed with her DNA, as many hope I think, it should be brought forward. Dont' think they have any. Lauren's underwear in his sock drawer doesn't look good for sure!!! Thanks.

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


  4. #103
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    4,656
    Quote Originally Posted by tomkat View Post
    Her DNA is on all her things........I mean specifically if SM DNA is on something of hers or mixed with her DNA, as many hope I think, it should be brought forward. Dont' think they have any. Lauren's underwear in his sock drawer doesn't look good for sure!!! Thanks.
    While it doesn't look good it is circumstantial. They shared the same laundry room. The underwear could have been an accident...a laundry room item of clothing left in a dryer (if she didn't use bleach yes dna could remain).

    Okay we know it wasn't likely an accident but it COULD have been.

    This was a dismemberment, really really messy; keeping the DNA out of ones apartment would require careful planning and one or two changes of clothes/shoes. No circumstantial evidence is going to fly, well maybe before but...errrm....not likely anymore.

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


  6. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,739
    new item up at AboveTheLaw blog -- don't think I can quote from this?? But it is more on the post read at the bond hearing:

    http://abovethelaw.com/2012/04/was-t...t-week-a-fake/

    ETA: Includes a statement from Hogue about the post!
    Last edited by Backwoods; 04-09-2012 at 11:23 PM. Reason: add info

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


  8. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    new item up at AboveTheLaw blog -- don't think I can quote from this?? But it is more on the post read at the bond hearing:

    http://abovethelaw.com/2012/04/was-t...t-week-a-fake/

    ETA: Includes a statement from Hogue about the post!
    Ahhh.. now we are getting somewhere... maybe... finally.
    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~

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


  10. #106
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,739
    Quote Originally Posted by southern_comfort View Post
    Ahhh.. now we are getting somewhere... maybe... finally.
    Well, AboveTheLaw scooped The Telegraph. If Hogue gave a statement to this blog, bet he would've given one to the paper.

    (To be fair, maybe Telegraph has one too and the story is just not finished yet.)

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


  12. #107
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    While it doesn't look good it is circumstantial. They shared the same laundry room. The underwear could have been an accident...a laundry room item of clothing left in a dryer (if she didn't use bleach yes dna could remain).

    Okay we know it wasn't likely an accident but it COULD have been.

    This was a dismemberment, really really messy; keeping the DNA out of ones apartment would require careful planning and one or two changes of clothes/shoes. No circumstantial evidence is going to fly, well maybe before but...errrm....not likely anymore.


    I do realize it must be messy, really really messy.............yet I have never dismembered anything, and am not a hunter.............THE REASON I THINK THAT LE HAS NOTHING.........how the heck do you DO THAT??? SPLAIN it to me?! Leave nary a trace......I'm simply saying.......this horrendous crime, dogs who didnt' search anyuthing other than 3 apts, hacksaw with HER dna, panties with HER DNA, tub drains with HER DNA is mute, JMO. I pray to God they have something with HIS DNA on her item/s...............if they did, LE would brag that all over the country and someone would have leaked it by now and none of this other circumstantial stuff would be even brought up or atleast it would be in addition to LE having found HIS DAN, SM's DNA

  13. #108
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,767
    Quote Originally Posted by southern_comfort View Post
    Ahhh.. now we are getting somewhere... maybe... finally.
    What exactly is that getting? I just see confusion and all that SOL stuff being thrown out or not considered for bond because no one knows WHO exactly posted WHAT.......and no time to trace it all yet.........ANNNND, the fact that the prosecution threw a curve ball to the defense, says they have to play hush hush and secretive in hopes to make the judge hold SM without any REAL evidence or "WHATEVER" one needs to hold someone/no bond. Apparently, what you see is what you get, no SMcDNA...........
    Thanks in advance.

  14. #109
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,767
    Quote Originally Posted by pearl View Post
    This is certainly off-topic but quite interesting in that SM could make bail. I think this judge means business.

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

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





    updated 10:13 AM EDT, Mon April 9, 2012
    But probably not if it's set tooo high!

  15. #110
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by tomkat View Post
    [/B]

    I do realize it must be messy, really really messy.............yet I have never dismembered anything, and am not a hunter.............THE REASON I THINK THAT LE HAS NOTHING.........how the heck do you DO THAT??? SPLAIN it to me?! Leave nary a trace......I'm simply saying.......this horrendous crime, dogs who didnt' search anyuthing other than 3 apts, hacksaw with HER dna, panties with HER DNA, tub drains with HER DNA is mute, JMO. I pray to God they have something with HIS DNA on her item/s...............if they did, LE would brag that all over the country and someone would have leaked it by now and none of this other circumstantial stuff would be even brought up or atleast it would be in addition to LE having found HIS DAN, SM's DNA
    Ever watch Dexter? That's how you do not leave any DNA. If this was premeditated, which I know it was, there are a lot of things that will come out. The public will be shocked at the length the killer went to in cleaning up, but it does scare me that the killer might have been deceptive enough to not leave any DNA. It scares me that a crazy, sick person could get off, because he knew how to outsmart the justice system.

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


  17. #111
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    4,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    Well, AboveTheLaw scooped The Telegraph. If Hogue gave a statement to this blog, bet he would've given one to the paper.

    (To be fair, maybe Telegraph has one too and the story is just not finished yet.)
    The Telegraph reporters (Amy and Joe) wrote a long piece with 20+ SoL posts back in august, they obviously combed over every SoL post so you can be sure when those two printed last week's "new" quote they noticed it sounded odd. The reporters also read the comments that are posted in response to their stories and of course this was heavily discussed with members of the "other" site clearly stating the post was a troll.

    The Telegraph likely has more political concerns than the ATL site does, Macon is a small town in many ways so local reporters would have to be careful when it comes to scooping a story that could make the DA look bad, it could also peeve off the MPD.

    One thing that I find interesting, it is obvious attorneys have commented on this yet they all seem rather unsure about what this could mean. It is almost as if they are thinking something like this has never happened before in a capital case so no one really knows if it could turn into a huge big deal or be a minor mistake.

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


  19. #112
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    4,656
    Quote Originally Posted by tomkat View Post
    [/B]

    I do realize it must be messy, really really messy.............yet I have never dismembered anything, and am not a hunter.............THE REASON I THINK THAT LE HAS NOTHING.........how the heck do you DO THAT??? SPLAIN it to me?! NA
    It is certainly quite possible as long as the killer didn't get sloppy and run back into their own apartment in the middle of the job to grab a soda or check their email or some such thing.

    Everything would be done at the crime scene and cleaned up, then take a shower there (without leaving hair in the drain or finger prints all over) spot clean up the bathroom one last time and change into clean clothes. If the killer got sloppy and decided to shower/change in their own apartment they could get away with it but it would be risky, plus if they scoured their own bathroom with bleach afterwards the DA surely would have made a big deal about it (his apartment was messy but his bathroom had just been cleaned with bleach!).

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


  21. #113
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,767
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgiaSunshine View Post
    Ever watch Dexter? That's how you do not leave any DNA. If this was premeditated, which I know it was, there are a lot of things that will come out. The public will be shocked at the length the killer went to in cleaning up, but it does scare me that the killer might have been deceptive enough to not leave any DNA. It scares me that a crazy, sick person could get off, because he knew how to outsmart the justice system.
    No, but I WILL BE looking it up. ha. These things always shock me in the end! I know things are possible, but he didn't have much time as far as we know. Saturday to Monday.......was it Monday after the email that he missed class?

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


  23. #114
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    It is certainly quite possible as long as the killer didn't get sloppy and run back into their own apartment in the middle of the job to grab a soda or check their email or some such thing.

    Everything would be done at the crime scene and cleaned up, then take a shower there (without leaving hair in the drain or finger prints all over) spot clean up the bathroom one last time and change into clean clothes. If the killer got sloppy and decided to shower/change in their own apartment they could get away with it but it would be risky, plus if they scoured their own bathroom with bleach afterwards the DA surely would have made a big deal about it (his apartment was messy but his bathroom had just been cleaned with bleach!).


    Incriminating......I dont' recall this. Thanks. It's all baffling. I guess he worked worked workd Sat into Sunday and restedo on Monday, was that the day he missed class? Someone saw him in walmart on that following Monday afternoon

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


  25. #115
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    4,656
    Quote Originally Posted by tomkat View Post
    [/B]
    Someone saw him in walmart on that following Monday afternoon
    Yeah the Walmart video is the only leaked evidence rumor that hasn't been revealed as true. If he did go to Walmart they would have oodles of surveillance footage, no eye witnesses required.

    I originally thought that would be the smoking gun however the state hasn't even hinted at its existence which seems odd, no further rumors about the video have been mentioned since last summer either.

    One would think if he bought the saw around the time of the murder they would have some proof of it. If he went to a small hardware store that doesn't have video maybe he could avoid detection but on the otherhand the maintenance closet had several saws in it already....so why even buy one? And why store the used saw in the closet when every other shred of bloody evidence had been carefully disposed of? Maybe it is a guy thing and they just couldn't throw out a perfectly good tool? Very odd.

    Note: I said the DA would have made a big deal about it IF his bathroom had been recently cleaned with bleach, there was no mention of it.
    Last edited by Sonya610; 04-10-2012 at 09:35 AM.

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


  27. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by tomkat View Post
    What exactly is that getting? I just see confusion and all that SOL stuff being thrown out or not considered for bond because no one knows WHO exactly posted WHAT.......and no time to trace it all yet.........ANNNND, the fact that the prosecution threw a curve ball to the defense, says they have to play hush hush and secretive in hopes to make the judge hold SM without any REAL evidence or "WHATEVER" one needs to hold someone/no bond. Apparently, what you see is what you get, no SMcDNA...........
    Thanks in advance.
    I mean we may be getting somewhere with regard to how the defense is going to approach this and have new information about the origins of the post.

    Until now, we had suspicions, but we didn't really know whether McD wrote it. We had people's foggy recollections that they might have seen it (including my own) and a couple of anonymous posters on other sites claiming they knew it was false, but that doesn't mean a whole lot to me. For all I knew, an innocent but accused McD could have written it sarcastically before being hauled into jail, with no intention of denying it. While that would have been completely tasteless and immature, it wouldn't be illegal.
    Last edited by southern_comfort; 04-10-2012 at 09:44 AM. Reason: Stated something that wasn't in MSM... deleted it
    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~

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


  29. #117
    Kimster's Avatar
    Kimster is offline WS Adminstrator, Verified Posters Liaison
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Google Earth
    Posts
    34,821
    FYI: We don't discuss "other sites", we link to them. If the link goes *******, then that is a site banned by WS for one reason or another and we don't discuss it at all. Please delete your post right away if that happens.

    Hope that helps!
    ************************************************

    FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
    www.twitter.com/kimsterws


    In memory of Ron Pruitt

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


  31. #118
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    Yeah the Walmart video is the only leaked evidence rumor that hasn't been revealed as true. If he did go to Walmart they would have oodles of surveillance footage, no eye witnesses required.

    I originally thought that would be the smoking gun however the state hasn't even hinted at its existence which seems odd, no further rumors about the video have been mentioned since last summer either.

    One would think if he bought the saw around the time of the murder they would have some proof of it. If he went to a small hardware store that doesn't have video maybe he could avoid detection but on the otherhand the maintenance closet had several saws in it already....so why even buy one? And why store the used saw in the closet when every other shred of bloody evidence had been carefully disposed of? Maybe it is a guy thing and they just couldn't throw out a perfectly good tool? Very odd.

    Note: I said the DA would have made a big deal about it IF his bathroom had been recently cleaned with bleach, there was no mention of it.


    I was referring to someone on here who mentioned seeing him. Not the video.

    I dont' understand the not cleaning the saw and then storing it, except to hopefully frame someone else or create doubt.

    It was in parenthesis (his apartment was messy but his bathroom had just been cleaned with bleach!).
    you wrote, that wasn't clear....

    THANKS!

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


  33. #119
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    4,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    ETA: Includes a statement from Hogue about the post!
    We presume that a copy of this post and any forensic evidence that purports to tie it to McDaniel will be included in the evidence. We will review that evidence after we receive it and determine our response to it accordingly.
    So it looks like Winters might have a big problem come April 20th. As I mentioned in an earlier post I believe the standard procedure is to contact the webhost and gather all of the logs and site pages. If the DA had gotten a warrant and demanded that info from the webhost it is almost a certainty that the host would have immediately informed the webmaster of the site.

    Also that site does not display poster ip addresses even in the page source code so how would someone verify the ip address by looking at the page with no server log records? Maybe they could verify some stuff from the users computer but verify stuff that is months old? I don't see how.

    Another article about the possible fake internet post as appeared on another law site: http://www.jdjournal.com/2012/04/10/...l-may-be-fake/

    If this turns out to all be true Winters is watching his chance at re-election go down the toilet as we speak, he will never live this down, ever.
    Last edited by Sonya610; 04-10-2012 at 05:04 PM.

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


  35. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    4,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    Well, AboveTheLaw scooped The Telegraph. If Hogue gave a statement to this blog, bet he would've given one to the paper. (To be fair, maybe Telegraph has one too and the story is just not finished yet.)
    <Modsnip>

    I secretly have to wonder if this is the press choosing to play sides OR if there is another possible issue. The Telegraph ran an article with dozens of SoL posts, if the one that the DA quoted is not proven to be legit I wonder if there could be ramifications for a paper than ran dozens of quotes before a trial of this type as well. The Telegraph stated they verified the posts the same way the DA did, by reading them and seeing the photo and talking to the person that McDaniel met, which verifies that McDaniel posted as SoL but NOT that each SoL post was McDaniels.

    I tend to think they are playing sides here but there are other possible motivators too.
    Last edited by bessie; 04-10-2012 at 10:11 PM. Reason: rumor

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


  37. #121
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    523
    I have a hypothetical question here that someone may can answer. I would ask my husband who is an IT person, but he is asleep. I know that someone who knows how to do so can search my personal computer and find out all the websites that I have visited whether one time or a hundred times. They can find out the date and times I visited the sites. I know that when I visit a website, my IP address is logged into their system. My question is what if my computer's info and the website's info do not match? This maybe could happen because of a glitch or it could be intentional manipulation of a website's data. Whose records would be believable in a court of law?

  38. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pearl For This Useful Post:


  39. #122
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    4,656
    Quote Originally Posted by pearl View Post
    They can find out the date and times I visited the sites. I know that when I visit a website, my IP address is logged into their system. My question is what if my computer's info and the website's info do not match? This maybe could happen because of a glitch or it could be intentional manipulation of a website's data. Whose records would be believable in a court of law?
    I ain't no IT expert but it wouldn't involve your computer all that much. It would involve the server IP logs, and the ISP logs. Most all of us have dynamic IP addresses, which means every time we shut down our computer or reboot our ISP gives us a fresh IP address (within a group of IP addresses that they own).

    So if server logs showed connections from certain ip addresses, the suspect IP addresses would be compared to the originating ISP logs (your internet provider keeps logs of who used what ip at what time) and that would identify who specifically connected to the server.

    The actual home computer might show websites visited, and cached pages that were visited, and of course auto login info for those sites, but actually IP info? Nope do not think so.

    For instance if the Feds were running a fake child porn site or whatever, they would log every IP address that connects to that server, then they would look up IP number group and get a warrant for the ISP that owns those numbers so they could check the IP logs and therefore they would know WHO specifically used that IP address at that time specific time to connect to their fake child porn site.

    In simple language, it wouldn't be the home computer vs the website server, it would be the website server logs compared to the internet service provider logs and most likely warrants would be issued to get the info for either, well in the case of a capital murder trial you can be sure warrants would be issued by serious folk, they wouldn't call up the host or the internet provider and just ask for confidential information in a sweet way.
    Last edited by Sonya610; 04-10-2012 at 10:04 PM.

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


  41. #123
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    523
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya610 View Post
    I ain't no IT expert but it wouldn't involve your computer all that much. It would involve the server IP logs, and the ISP logs. Most all of us have dynamic IP addresses, which means every time we shut down our computer or reboot our ISP gives us a fresh IP address (within a group of IP addresses that they own).

    So if server logs showed connections from certain ip addresses, the suspect IP addresses would be compared to the originating ISP logs (your internet provider keeps logs of who used what ip at what time) and that would identify who specifically connected to the server.

    The actual home computer might show websites visited, and cached pages that were visited, and of course auto login info for those sites, but actually IP info? Nope.

    For instance if the Feds were running a fake child porn site or whatever, they would log every IP address that connects to that server, then they would look up IP number group and get a warrant for the ISP that owns those numbers so they could check the IP logs and therefore they would know WHO specifically used that IP address at that time specific time to connect to their fake child porn site.

    In simple language, it wouldn't be the home computer vs the website server, it would be the website server logs compared to the internet service provider logs (not likely either are faked, really really not likely).
    Let me see if I've got this right now. I connect to my internet service provider which issues me an IP address which connects with whatever websites I visit during that particular internet surfing session. This IP address will change each time I connect with my ISP. So, my computer can be traced by a techie to particular websites at particular times through these IP addresses. I know that my husband has to maintain the webserver where he works. He has to physically keep it running. Can one of the webservers be manipulated to show different IPs than the actual ones used? I've read about techonologically inclined people bouncing a message from webserver to webserver all over the world to the point that the original IP address cannot be traced. I realize that most people would not have a reason to try to hide what they send over the internet or what they receive over the internet. However, some people might have reason to try to tamper with this information. Basically what I'm asking is (before I probably went about it in the wrong way) what would happen if the sender computer system and the receiving computer system showed a contradiction?

  42. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pearl For This Useful Post:


  43. #124
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia -- Redneck Country
    Posts
    4,656
    Quote Originally Posted by pearl View Post
    Can one of the webservers be manipulated to show different IPs than the actual ones used? I've read about techonologically inclined people bouncing a message from webserver to webserver all over the world to the point that the original IP address cannot be traced.
    You are sort of thinking two different things (spoofing vs hacking). Yes of course server logs can be manipulated/hacked to show different IP addresses.

    Would a psycho killer post weird things and then regret it and use their astounding hacking abilities to break into the servers and change the ip logs? Errrm....not likely...but possible.

    Even supposing they did, were warrants and server logs gathered? Because if there were no warrants issued, or server logs gathered by the DA then I think worrying about a psycho hacksaw killers that confessed in odd posts and then decided to hack the servers and manipulate the logs is pretty...errrm....pointless.

    If the computer forensic/server log info was gathered at all then maybe theories regarding hackers/spoofers can be explored, and the home PC would probably have a Linux operating system and....well that ain't the situation in this case.
    Last edited by Sonya610; 04-11-2012 at 12:00 AM.

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


  45. #125
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,739
    new from 13WMAZ in Macon:

    McDaniel Prosecutors Won't Respond to Bond Request

    ...Winters noted the defense brief came after Superior Court Judge Phil Brown conducted a bond hearing and that prosecutors don't have anything further to say. ...
    read more at: http://macon.13wmaz.com/news/news/68...d-bond-request

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


Page 5 of 31 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 ... 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
  •