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
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.
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:
ETA: Includes a statement from Hogue about the post!
Last edited by Backwoods; 04-09-2012 at 11:23 PM. Reason: add info
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
Thanks in advance.
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.
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!).
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.
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.
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!
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....
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.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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
new from 13WMAZ in Macon:
read more at: http://macon.13wmaz.com/news/news/68...d-bond-requestMcDaniel 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. ...