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

SmoothOperator said:

Above BBM.. Sorry this is not accurate.. And this is known as fact by myself personally that if the Internet Service Provider absolutely 100% can/will provide the entire browser history time and date stamped to the second to little ol' me, nothing but a customer of the Internet service of which they provide..

Click to expand...

Well if you state it is fact then it must be true. : )

Can you verify that? US based ISP's providing second by second "browser history" without a warrant? Not sure an ISP would refer to it as "browser history". Browser history could include local web pages (i.e. those html files on your PC) that you were viewing while creating a website, browser history could also include stored offline websites that you viewed. I would think ISP's would refer to it as "server connections" or "addresses visited".

Please do post links as I am absolutely 100% sure I need to edumacate myself on this topic. : )

Another brief local news report about the discovery turnover of materials, with a little info on what's included, etc.:

McDaniel's Attorneys Receive Evidence From Bibb County District Attorney's Office

... Buford says the evidence will take about two weeks to review. ...

Click to expand...

read more at: http://www.41nbc.com/news/local-new...ce-from-bibb-county-district-attorneys-office

southern_comfort said:

At the moment, Internet service providers typically discard any log file that's no longer required for business reasons such as network monitoring, fraud prevention, or billing disputes.​

Click to expand...

Yes and if the US Government even tries to track every single thing US Citizens read, or type, or view on the interwebs the next great booming industry will be Chinese Proxy Servers.

Unless the US Government plans to block all "deemed offensive" foreign servers/websites (like third world dictators do!), foreign proxies will be the next big Internet fad!

Sonya610 said:

When you say the "LE has their man" do you mean the LE has identified the real killer? Or do you mean the LE has enough evidence to convict?

Click to expand...

In my opinion, both. I am basing my opinion on the things that I have read online, probably the same things you have read. I do not have any inside information, only visit Macon a couple times a year for doctor's appointments, do have a bit of legal knowledge, and do have respect for and trust in law enforcement. The very few items that we know as factual lead me to choose option #2. I tend to interpret a fact as just that. Until I learn another fact to go with it or against it, I hold that fact. We don't really know many facts. There has been much mention of should haves, could haves, would haves related to debate about Lauren's death. That's just what they are. They are not facts. I don't speculate what the DA might or might not have because speculations are not facts. Until and if I learn factual information otherwise, I have the opinion that option #2 is the one I choose.

George and Cindy Anthony Attny stated:

There are no fingerprints, no dna, no eyewitness, no confession, no cause of death? A problem for the state.

Someone expound on that and how it might relate to LG case?

tomkat said:

George and Cindy Anthony Attny stated:

There are no fingerprints, no dna, no eyewitness, no confession, no cause of death? A problem for the state.

Someone expound on that and how it might relate to LG case?

Click to expand...

However, There is a link in the location of the body and accused in this case, whereas in CA case there was not.
Also Baez stated that LE botched the CA case from the beginning by arresting her first without fully investigating the facts and circumstances surrounding CA death.

Just commparing notes on cases..................

Sonya610 said:

Well if you state it is fact then it must be true. : )

Can you verify that? US based ISP's providing second by second "browser history" without a warrant? Not sure an ISP would refer to it as "browser history". Browser history could include local web pages (i.e. those html files on your PC) that you were viewing while creating a website, browser history could also include stored offline websites that you viewed. I would think ISP's would refer to it as "server connections" or "addresses visited".

Please do post links as I am absolutely 100% sure I need to edumacate myself on this topic. : )

Click to expand...

Is a warrrant needed to collect PHONE records??

#1 if not for #3, definitely not #2

tomkat said:

Is a warrrant needed to collect PHONE records??

Click to expand...

Phone records are kept and that is bad enough, but at least phone records only record the numbers that were called they don't record the CONTENT of the conversations without a warrant for a wiretap.

Tracking all user activity on the internet would in many cases be like putting a camera in everyone's living room! For many internet users it would basically track everything they read, everything they post, the movies and video clips that they watch, the people they chat with online, everything they research and much of what they purchase, their sexual preferences, their religious ideologies, etc... Their political affiliations, whether they are for or against the current government administration and policies, whether they own firearms, have kids or animals, etc...

It ventures into the arena of "thought policing" and that seems very unconstitutional. Even with a wiretap you couldn't gather that much info from phone conversations!

Sonya610 said:

Phone records are kept and that is bad enough, but at least phone records only record the numbers that were called they don't record the CONTENT of the conversations without a warrant for a wiretap.

Tracking all user activity on the internet would in many cases be like putting a camera in everyone's living room! For many internet users it would basically track everything they read, everything they post, the movies and video clips that they watch, the people they chat with online, everything they research and much of what they purchase etc... Their political affiliations, whether they are for or against the current government administration and policies, whether they own firearms, have kids or animals, etc...

It ventures into the arena of "thought policing" and that seems very unconstitutional. Even with a wiretap you couldn't gather that much info from phone conversations!

Click to expand...

Answer yes or no ma'am. :floorlaugh: Just kidding. I agree with you, but you didnt' answer the question, which would make my point possibly.

Do they need a warrant to collect phone records? If so, why not for anything else? Except that maybe as you point out, collecting internet records might be more invasive into someone's privacy.

tomkat said:

Answer yes or no ma'am. :floorlaugh: Just kidding. I agree with you, but you didnt' answer the question, which would make my point possibly.

Do they need a warrant to collect phone records? If so, why not for anything else? Except that maybe as you point out, collecting internet records might be more invasive into someone's privacy.

Click to expand...

I don't think they need a warrant to seize phone records (unless of course the phone company didn't want to provide them WITHOUT a warrant) and there is a law that phone companies have to save the records. They analyzed the phone records of millions of American's in their search for "terrorists" (which is funny cause the terrorists were smart enough to buy disposable untraceable cell phones anyway).

http://www.fee.org/articles/in-brief/no-warrant-needed-for-phone-records-gonzales-says/

Sonya610 said:

I don't think they need a warrant (unless of course the phone company didn't want to provide them WITHOUT a warrant). They analyzed the phone records of millions of American's in their search for "terrorists" (which is funny cause the terrorists were smart enough to buy disposable untraceable cell phones anyway).

http://www.fee.org/articles/in-brief/no-warrant-needed-for-phone-records-gonzales-says/

Click to expand...

At what point is a warrant required?

tomkat said:

At what point is a warrant required?

Click to expand...

It was implied that a warrant would be needed for ISp records but implied it would not by another, I just always presumed a warrant would be needed for most anything if someone doesnt' willingly comply to evidence collections.

tomkat said:

It was implied that a warrant would be needed for ISp records but implied it would not by another, I just always presumed a warrant would be needed for most anything if someone doesnt' willingly comply to evidence collections.

Click to expand...

Well it also comes down to the AGREEMENT between the parties. For instance if you sign up for a PO Box the agreement with the US Postal Service states they will NOT reveal your real address unless compelled to do so by the authorities in law suits, criminal matters, etc...

Same thing with ISP's. My ISP clearly states under what circumstances they will share my information and that basically comes down to a warrant or subpoena. That is the agreement between me, their customer, and them. If they violate the agreement without changing their privacy policy I could sue them as they breached our agreement.

The phone companies likely didn't have privacy agreements in place after the fed law said they had to keep records of all the calls.

Oh by the way my comment about an ISP tracking everything a user does "without a warrant" meant they don't track it but IF the authorities showed up with a warrant then they probably COULD track all websites visited for a specific user AFTER the warrant was served, or find some way for the LE to track it.

Sonya610 said:

And yes, if the company does not WANT to hand over the data they could demand a warrant, I think the government getting phone records WITHOUT a warrant had to because the phone companies just handed it over, also the phone companies probably didn't have privacy agreements with their customers promising they wouldn't do that.

Click to expand...

There are several lawsuits out there. Judges have ruled both ways. Mostly, what I have seen, land lines still need warrants all the time. Cell phones, according to the judge and circumstances. Google all kinds of cases come up. Most fall under the Patriot Act making it all very vague as to what the rules are.

Blood, hair found in refrigerator of Giddings’ neighbor, letters say

By AMY LEIGH WOMACK and JOE KOVAC JR. — Telegraph staff

Posted: 8:54pm on Apr 24, 2012; Modified: 10:45pm on Apr 24, 2012

Blood traces turned up in a refrigerator police seized from the apartment of a downstairs neighbor of slain Mercer University law graduate Lauren Giddings, according to a letter demanding $1 million from the company insuring owners of the Georgia Avenue apartment complex where she lived.

Strands of hair that looked like they might have come from Giddings’ accused killer also were found in the otherwise “thoroughly cleaned” refrigerator, according to a letter from the apartment complex owners to their insurance company’s lawyer.

Atlanta attorneys wrote the April 9 demand letter on behalf of the Lauren Giddings estate to try and resolve issues of alleged civil liability out of court.

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2012/04/24/2001930/blood-hair-found-in-refrigerator.html

Wow, this is definitely an interesting new article with many tidbits of info...

So a pristine fridge with two hairs similar to McD's? Could indicate he grabbed and disposed of the only evidence left there in a big hurry..that could be very key evidence.

And the 1 million request from the insurance company is very interesting...definite tension between the Giddings' and the apartment owners.

Wonder how she knew BB lost the key gardening?

This latest article ...wow, this raises different emotions in me.

As far as a criminal trial, what's discussed here (at least, as far as it is discussed) is pretty much non-evidence, IMO. Traces of blood -- human? -- in an otherwise "pristine" fridge -- so no "traces" of lettuce, soda, mayonnaise, butter? And the former tenant isn't gonna tell us whether he had yet cleaned his refrigerator.... Hair that "looks like" SM's ...OK.

It's odd to me that civil cases go forward before a criminal trial commences ... I know they can, in the absence of a conviction, as with the OJ civil suit, but this really strikes me as, maybe, premature. I'm not faulting the Giddings family, it's the system of it that seems strange. The whole thing against the apartment complex (from what we read here in the article, anyhow) seems predicated on SM being the killer. What if he wasn't? Just for example, say a traveling serial killer picked Lauren up while she was out running, killed and dismembered her at a motel, returned the torso (all just for the sake of making a point here). Say the blood in the fridge is beef blood, no torso was ever there. Would the apartment complex logically bear any responsibility?

Some of you attorneys refresh my memory -- what is the standard of proof in a civil case? I know it's not "beyond reasonable doubt" -- what is the term?

And look at that headline: "Blood, hair found in refrigerator of Giddings' neighbor". What does that suggest (especially to someone who might not bother to read on and find out which neighbor). Before the bond-hearing-post-controversy clam-up, I had never thought the Telegraph appeared biased in this case... I thought accusations otherwise were not well founded. But after that -- and now this headline -- I really, really have my doubts about the paper's agenda here.

And, oh, yeah -- just how did they gain access to the contents of this letter? Did someone think it would be in their best interest to share it ...? Not disclosing that, are we.

BB is saying the master key she lost gardening was not one fitting the new master key system installed around the time Lauren and Stephen moved in, right? That, to her knowledge, no master key of that system was missing?

McMunn said:

Blood, hair found in refrigerator of Giddings’ neighbor, letters say

By AMY LEIGH WOMACK and JOE KOVAC JR. — Telegraph staff

Posted: 8:54pm on Apr 24, 2012; Modified: 10:45pm on Apr 24, 2012

Blood traces turned up in a refrigerator police seized from the apartment of a downstairs neighbor of slain Mercer University law graduate Lauren Giddings, according to a letter demanding $1 million from the company insuring owners of the Georgia Avenue apartment complex where she lived.

Strands of hair that looked like they might have come from Giddings’ accused killer also were found in the otherwise “thoroughly cleaned” refrigerator, according to a letter from the apartment complex owners to their insurance company’s lawyer.

Atlanta attorneys wrote the April 9 demand letter on behalf of the Lauren Giddings estate to try and resolve issues of alleged civil liability out of court.

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2012/04/24/2001930/blood-hair-found-in-refrigerator.html

Click to expand...

I have a feeling, just a hunch from what I have heard from a Personal injury attorney here in Atlanta, that this lawsuit is not coming from the Giddings family. This is a personal injury group who picked this up. I can't remember their name, but I was told this months ago that the firm had picked up the case and was sueing the apt complex.

Backwoods said:

And, oh, yeah -- just how did they gain access to the contents of this letter? Did someone think it would be in their best interest to share it ...? Not disclosing that, are we.

Click to expand...

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.