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

Sonya610 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

southern_comfort said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Backwoods said:

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?

Click to expand...

Even a screencap or a printout would show a date, no? They have captured the posts in some form, I am sure.

southern_comfort said:

Even a screencap or a printout would show a date, no? They have captured the posts in some form, I am sure.

Click to expand...

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 ...?

southern_comfort said:

Even a screencap or a printout would show a date, no? They have captured the posts in some form, I am sure.

Click to expand...

I would guess a hard copy printout because the DA was reading from something.

Sonya610 said:

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.

Click to expand...

bbm: I have heard talk both ways.

Backwoods said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Backwoods said:

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 ...?

Click to expand...

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.

Backwoods said:

bbm: I have heard talk both ways.

Click to expand...

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.

Sonya610 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

southern_comfort said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ah, I dunno -- I kind of think they were at least a little surprised. Well, maybe.

I just watched the hearing for the third time -- including running the post part over a few times in this watching -- and I do see some response. (Maybe.)

At one point, Buford leans over for a little conversation with Hogue. It comes about the time Winters has finished the "lose it on TV" part. I can't help but wonder if Buford was catching the dissonance of that part, timeline-wise, with being a genuine SM post -- I know that's one of the first things that jumped out at me. (Of course, he could have been commenting on what he had for lunch before the hearing, FAIK!)

SM does do some scribbling during part of the post-reading. And, as soon as Winters finishes up with the post and closing comments about it and moves on to something else, SM does sort of tug at Buford to get his attention and they put heads together for a conversation. (Oh, to be a fly on the defense table!)

Not related to whether the defense side was surprised ...but I also noted that, at one point before reading, Winters does say something pretty much equivalent to "He wrote this" -- though he also says something along the lines of "this was under the moniker SoL". After reading, he doesn't say anything like "he wrote this" -- seems like he starts to but then substitutes a rather awkward thing along the lines of "this is from the posting that he does".

Another random observation -- and GypsiesTramps&Thieves, I believe, touched on this a few pages back -- is that the print reports of the post Winters read, on both The Telegraph web site (macon.com) and on the web site for Macon Channel 13 TV (wmaz.com), leave out part of what Winters reads. He says (I believe), "See my sexy neighbor/classmate come home late, wasted from a graduation party." Both print accounts leave out the part I've italicized.

I expect maybe they omitted that phrase out of respect for Lauren. I certainly mean no disrespect to her by quoting it here -- after all, I think the post is a "fake" one, a joker's imagined version of events. But the omitted phrase is important, because, as far as we know, Lauren wasn't coming home from a party the night she was last heard from, and certainly probably not a graduation party, since she had graduated in May and this was late June.

Backwoods said:

He says (I believe), "See my sexy neighbor/classmate come home late, wasted from a graduation party." Both print accounts leave out the part I've italicized.

Click to expand...

Wow....good catch! Just watched the video of the hearing again and yes he DOES say that!

Up until now I thought he might have believed that post was real but now I am thinking he knew it wasn't. How could anyone that followed the case read that without thinking "hey, this doesn't sound right, are we sure this is legit?" If Winters in fact KNEW it was fake and he presented it anyway that is....well I won't even say what I am thinking.

As far as the papers editing out the "wasted from a graduation party" line because it is insulting to the victim, why would they take that out but leave in the line that said "she wanted my ___ for 3 years"? I would think that is more disparaging, regardless so much for impartial reporting.

There are at least two sites that posters are saying they were online at the Osite when the SOL post in question was made. They say McD was in jail and the Osite members were unhappy because a certain "internet sleuth" site was reading all their posts and sending SOL posts to LE. They state that one of the Osite members posted the questionable post as a joke to harass the "sleuths" site members. As Backwoods pointed out "You mad, virgins."

If Winters uses that post in trial, the DT can subpoena the people claiming to have been online when it occurred. I don't think those sites require people to register but they should be traceable through their IP address.

The last 3 trials I watched, WS posts played a part. One witness had to read his WS post on the stand.

3doglady said:

If Winters uses that post in trial, the DT can subpoena the people claiming to have been online when it occurred.

Click to expand...

Yeah I don't think Winters has to state it at trial. He said it in open court with the media blasting it all over far and wide. He claimed the defendant drugged, raped, killed and BARBEQUED her in open court.

Capital case....(possible) false statement by Prosecution....throw death penalty out. Plus no other REAL evidence to boot.

Emotion aside a public official with power and authority that lies in court in order to have a citizen convicted and executed based on false statements....well in my mind I would be more worried by that than by that than the 1 in 200 million chance of having a hacksaw murderer as a neighbor.

Call me old fashioned but that sort of thing is really really not okay.

Another thing that has me :waitasec: is Winters specifically saying "quote, unquote" before "something could have jumped on me". Does he not remember the detective's testimony about that statement?

Sonya610 said:

Yeah I don't think Winters has to state it at trial. He said it in open court with the media blasting it all over far and wide. He claimed the defendant drugged, raped, killed and BARBEQUED her in open court.

Capital case....(possible) false statement by Prosecution....throw death penalty out. Plus no other REAL evidence to boot.

Emotion aside a public official with power and authority that lies in court in order to have a citizen convicted and executed based on false statements....well in my mind I would be more disturbed by that than about than I would worry about the 1 in 200 million chance of having a hacksaw murderer as a neighbor.

Call me old fashioned but that sort of thing is really really not okay.

Click to expand...

BBM: No.... He claimed the defendant posted that on a website. He can produce an actual post and a link (which is certainly rebuttable, but a link nonetheless) to the defendant.

I don't think the DT knew about the "fake" post. Wasn't Buford the only lawyer representing McD at the time? There would have been no reason for his office to monitor the Osite after McD was in jail and the DA hasn't handed over evidence yet.

southern_comfort said:

So is "virgins" some kind of generic insult these days? Just wondering why they'd direct that term toward WS posters.

After reading the meme site about "you mad", I started thinking "you mad, virgins" was directed toward all the virgins (in the traditional sense) on the site who had just been one-upped by the loss of the v-card.

Click to expand...

I was thinking insult but ???? They thought WS members were using up all their bandwidth sleuthing the posts.

southern_comfort said:

BBM: No.... He claimed the defendant posted that on a website. He can produce an actual post and a link (which is certainly rebuttable, but a link nonetheless) to the defendant.

Click to expand...

The only link we know of now is the name SOL, right? Anyone can use that name on that site. Several people could use SOL at the same time.

3doglady said:

The only link we know of now is the name SOL, right? Anyone can use that name on that site. Several people could use SOL at the same time.

Click to expand...

Correct. The link is rebuttable, possibly very easily. I am no techie, but if the servers are gone, it may not be so easy.

I feel like I should keep adding that I am assuming this post was not made while McD was in jail. That would change things for me, since the dates of the posts are right there in plain view.