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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
southern_comfort said:
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
pearl said:
They have Lauren's DNA on her underwear found in SM's sock (?) drawer.
Click to expand...

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.
 
tomkat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
southern_comfort said:
Ahhh.. now we are getting somewhere... maybe... finally.
Click to expand...

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.)
 
Sonya610 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
southern_comfort said:
Ahhh.. now we are getting somewhere... maybe... finally.
Click to expand...

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.
 
pearl said:
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
Click to expand...

But probably not if it's set tooo high!
 
tomkat said:
[/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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Backwoods said:
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.)
Click to expand...

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.
 
tomkat said:
[/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
Click to expand...

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!).
 
GeorgiaSunshine said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Sonya610 said:
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!).
Click to expand...


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
 
tomkat said:
[/B]
Someone saw him in walmart on that following Monday afternoon
Click to expand...

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.
 
tomkat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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! :seeya:
 
Sonya610 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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!
 
Backwoods said:
ETA: Includes a statement from Hogue about the post!
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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...suspect-and-law-student-mcdaniel-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.
 
Backwoods said:
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.)
Click to expand...

<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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 262 more.
Total: 4,264 (members: 263, guests: 4,001)

Online statistics

Members online
263
Guests online
4,001
Total visitors
4,264
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,552
Messages
17,954,700
Members
228,531
Latest member
OwlEyes
Back
Top