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

Status
Not open for further replies.
It also raises the question of the child *advertiser censored* data. Who collected that and how? Winters implied at the first hearing that the GBI had found something on "electronic devices" so maybe the GBI processed all of that correctly.

Course if they used the GBI for the child *advertiser censored* why didn't they use them for the internet posts? Did they hear about the posts and just get busy browsing the site and collecting them (making screen caps) on their own thinking it was so easy they didn't need the GBI's help? Sadly I suspect that is exactly what they did.
 
He does have his hands full with all the crime in Macon, and then throw the McD case in there on top of it, I would be a blithering idiot just trying to keep up with everything

There were about 25 murders in Macon last year. Most all of the murders are drive-bys or robberies and they are almost always committed by low life thugs in GROUPS or by stupid thugs that tell their friends what they did.

Once they haul the suspects in after getting tips they generally have three or four of them and I would suspect they all turn on each other and point fingers within a couple of hours (just like in The First 48).

This type of case is a totally different ballgame, no witnesses, no accomplices, plus a reasonably intelligent well-educated defendant that soon realized it was time to keep his mouth shut; I suspect this type of murder is in a different league than what they are used to dealing with. I will also point out that Greg Winters was born, raised, and educated in Macon, he has never worked outside of Macon.
 
First there is nothing.. no reason.. nothing whatsoever that required Winters to provide NOTHING, NOT A SHRED MORE than just what he CHOSE to provide for that bond hearing.. so again as has already been noted if Winters CHOOSES to present this specific post during trial, IT IS ONLY AT THAT TIME HE WILL PROVIDE EVIDENCE AND/OR WITNESSES TO BACK UP THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE POST..
people are welcome to crow til the cows come home if they like about all the conspiracy blabbing of events that have yet to even occur.. I could care less my point is not based upon speculating of what may or may not happen.. my point is that at this time under the laws of our courts Winters has not failed, come short, or any other terminology you wish to use with regards to this specific post.. the post was used at a bond hearing and it has served its purpose, period.. what happens in the future with regards to this specific post not a single one of you know and will wait along with the rest of the world to see if it comes into play in the future during the actual trial..

As far as who contacted "THE WEBSITE" from which it came I could care less what anyone has to claim(and I thought there would be no further comments regarding the defendant, his posts, or the sites past, present, or future contact with prosecution or defense counsel..)..of course I could be entirely mistaken about that as I only picked that idea up in scanning over the posts where that was discussed.. either way for me it is no matter..

But I will say this.. why exactly would prosecution need to be in contact with or serve subponeas on the website or the administration in question when they have the defendants computers and hard drives? Moo but they wouldn't regarding THIS SPECIFIC POST AND WAS STEPHEN THE AUTHOR.. They have the content of the post, the site url with which it was posted to, the moniker from which it was posted under, and the exact time of which the post was sent out onto the www..
His computers forensics will show if his computer accessed this site at the exact time of which the post was made.. they do not need to subpoena anything or anyone from the site in question to have this information...

While Winters may not have been legally compelled to present stronger evidence of authentication with regard to the post, the fact that he chose to present weak and easily rebuttable evidence of authentication is certainly fair game for discussion. He asked the court (and the viewing public, indirectly) to accept the post for the reasons he gave.

People are welcome to crow til the cows come home if they like about how the DA must have heaps of really solid evidence gathered from McD's computer proving he wrote the post, but the fact is Winters stood up in court and said they've authenticated the post through the moniker, "SoL".
 
I think this post is a red herring and may be of little importance. The fact is, we do not know what other evidence that they have against McD. They may never bring this post up again during the trial for all we know. They may have enough other evidence, it may just shock the defence team. For all we know, the evidence may be strong enough to push the defence to ask for a plea. Until I see or hear the rest of the evidence, I simply cannot say that Winters completely bungled this case. He certainly made a few mistakes such as letting the 90 day window close, but to say that the whole case is bunk is a stretch I am not willing to take.
 
I think this post is a red herring and may be of little importance. The fact is, we do not know what other evidence that they have against McD. They may never bring this post up again during the trial for all we know. They may have enough other evidence, it may just shock the defence team. For all we know, the evidence may be strong enough to push the defence to ask for a plea. Until I see or hear the rest of the evidence, I simply cannot say that Winters completely bungled this case. He certainly made a few mistakes such as letting the 90 day window close, but to say that the whole case is bunk is a stretch I am not willing to take.

Now with this, I will agree -- well, partially. I've thought since the beginning that this post was never intended to be (and won't be) in evidence at trial. Personally, I don't think they have any intention of using any of the internet posts at the trial. IMO, of course.

I do think it could come into play later as grounds for a venue change, or something of that nature.
 
Now with this, I will agree -- well, partially. I've thought since the beginning that this post was never intended to be (and won't be) in evidence at trial. Personally, I don't think they have any intention of using any of the internet posts at the trial. IMO, of course.

I do think it could come into play later as grounds for a venue change, or something of that nature.

At this point I don't think they can use the posts at trial.

However if there are no ramifications for reading hidiously shocking false "confessions" in court with the media recording it I do expect that will set a very dangerous new precident.

As I mentioned, it seems like this would mean from now on Prosecutors can claim the defendants confessed to rape, murder, dismemberment, cannibalism, necrophilia, etc.... or any other crazy thing they like in front of judges and the news media without any serious repercussions?
 
Just thought of something that hasn't been brought up before...

What if the DA used some of the intenet posts at the grand jury hearing? I don't think he used THAT post as obviously McDaniel and attorneys would have likely freaked out over it a while back, although they DID file several motions regarding the grand jury and asked that the indictment be thrown out, but I think (?) those motions were public, or were they?

But what if Winters presented OTHER posts to the grand jury that can't be verified? Seems in the past that has overturned convictions....

Prosecutors, for example, are prohibited from presenting false information to a grand jury, and convictions stemming from an indictment based on false information are overturned on appeal.

http://system.uslegal.com/u-s-const...pretation-and-scope-of-the-grand-jury-clause/

Since Winters seems to be presenting everything BUT the kitchen sink in this case it seems quite likely he DID possibly bring up some internet posts too.
 
I think this post is a red herring and may be of little importance. The fact is, we do not know what other evidence that they have against McD. They may never bring this post up again during the trial for all we know. They may have enough other evidence, it may just shock the defence team. For all we know, the evidence may be strong enough to push the defence to ask for a plea. Until I see or hear the rest of the evidence, I simply cannot say that Winters completely bungled this case. He certainly made a few mistakes such as letting the 90 day window close, but to say that the whole case is bunk is a stretch I am not willing to take.

ita coco. I could see the second bold being a possibility because imhoo they have a solid case/lots of evidence (time will tell of course)
:moo:
 
At this point I don't think they can use the posts at trial.

However if there are no ramifications for reading hidiously shocking false "confessions" in court with the media recording it I do expect that will set a very dangerous new precident.

As I mentioned, it seems like this would mean from now on Prosecutors can claim the defendants confessed to rape, murder, dismemberment, cannibalism, necrophilia, etc.... or any other crazy thing they like in front of judges and the news media without any serious repercussions?

Well, I think prosecutors have always been able to claim whatever they want to claim. Their ethical obligations and (in many proceedings) the defense's opportunity to rebut would presumably preclude them from telling outright lies. Assuming it turns out that the post is phony and they knew it, if the defense thinks it's had a sufficiently negative impact, I have confidence that they can and will do something about it (such as file an ethics grievance with the bar, move for a change of venue, etc.).
 
Just thought of something that hasn't been brought up before...

What if the DA used some of the intenet posts at the grand jury hearing? I don't think he used THAT post as obviously McDaniel and attorneys would have likely freaked out over it a while back, although they DID file several motions regarding the grand jury and asked that the indictment be thrown out, but I think (?) those motions were public, or were they?

But what if Winters presented OTHER posts to the grand jury that can't be verified? Seems in the past that has overturned convictions....



Since Winters seems to be presenting everything BUT the kitchen sink in this case it seems quite likely he DID possibly bring up some internet posts too.

That has certainly crossed my mind ... even the post currently in dispute.
 
Now with this, I will agree -- well, partially. I've thought since the beginning that this post was never intended to be (and won't be) in evidence at trial. Personally, I don't think they have any intention of using any of the internet posts at the trial. IMO, of course.

I do think it could come into play later as grounds for a venue change, or something of that nature.

This is exactly what I'm thinking, too. The posts did their work with public impact, I believe.
 
This is exactly what I'm thinking, too. The posts did their work with public impact, I believe.

I think they planned to use every darn thing they have at the trial (or even if they don't need to use it they still want to have it available just in case) up to and including putting "Hunter and Chase" the cadaver dogs on the stand if they needed to!

If they KNEW they couldn't use the posts because they were not verified it was taking a big risk to use a fake one at the hearing.

I DO believe he wrote the westboro baptist church massacre post in which he said he would look "stunned and out of it" after he was arrested for murder which is EXACTLY how he acted for weeks, that would have been powerful in front of a jury (IF they had actually verified the posts). He also talked about how gruesome extremely graphic movies did not bother him in the slightest, that would ALSO be powerful. I surely would have wanted to use those in court if I were the DA!
 
I think they planned to use every darn thing they have at the trial (or even if they don't need to use it they still want to have it available just in case) up to and including putting "Hunter and Chase" the cadaver dogs on the stand if they needed to!

If they KNEW they couldn't use the posts because they were not verified it was taking a big risk to use a fake one at the hearing.

I DO believe he wrote the westboro baptist church massacre post in which he said he would look "stunned and out of it" after he was arrested for murder which is EXACTLY how he acted for weeks, that would have been powerful in front of a jury (IF they had actually verified the posts). He also talked about how gruesome extremely graphic movies did not bother him in the slightest, that would ALSO be powerful. I surely would have wanted to use those in court if I were the DA!

Winters has to turn over discovery on the 20th, so if there is a lot of evidence I don't understand why he would use the unverified post. I've never thought they had much forensic evidence and this tends to confirm that. Hopefully I'm wrong, if he did it. Either way, I would have thought the DA would want to verify the posts.:waitasec: If the post is a fake couldn't the DT use it against the state's case when McD goes to trial for the child *advertiser censored*?
 
I think they planned to use every darn thing they have at the trial (or even if they don't need to use it they still want to have it available just in case) up to and including putting "Hunter and Chase" the cadaver dogs on the stand if they needed to!

If they KNEW they couldn't use the posts because they were not verified it was taking a big risk to use a fake one at the hearing.

I DO believe he wrote the westboro baptist church massacre post in which he said he would look "stunned and out of it" after he was arrested for murder which is EXACTLY how he acted for weeks, that would have been powerful in front of a jury (IF they had actually verified the posts). He also talked about how gruesome extremely graphic movies did not bother him in the slightest, that would ALSO be powerful. I surely would have wanted to use those in court if I were the DA!

bbm: me, too, if I were the DA. And if I were a defense attorney, I surely would be challenging the relevance -- because I'm just not sure it's there.

I think the prosecution would like to be able to use the posts, but I don't think they have ever counted big on getting them before a jury. I think maybe that's a reason they possibly slipped into the bond hearing the post we've been discussing, perhaps under slippery rules and with slippery wording. JMO
 
Winters has to turn over discovery on the 20th, so if there is a lot of evidence I don't understand why he would use the unverified post. I've never thought they had much forensic evidence and this tends to confirm that. Hopefully I'm wrong, if he did it. Either way, I would have thought the DA would want to verify the posts.:waitasec: If the post is a fake couldn't the DT use it against the state's case when McD goes to trial for the child *advertiser censored*?

bbm: I think the defense might try, depending on how all this post stuff turns out, but I really think that may not work too well.

We know that the prosecution claims the child *advertiser censored* was found on a flash drive found in SM's apartment -- physical evidence gathered, physical evidence that can be displayed. The nebulous (from what we know as of now) circumstances surrounding the bond-hearing post are nowhere comparable, IMO.
 
bbm: I think the defense might try, depending on how all this post stuff turns out, but I really think that may not work too well.

We know that the prosecution claims the child *advertiser censored* was found on a flash drive found in SM's apartment -- physical evidence gathered, physical evidence that can be displayed. The nebulous (from what we know as of now) circumstances surrounding the bond-hearing post are nowhere comparable, IMO.

I agree it's two entirely different things. But couldn't the DT say that Winters used a fake post as evidence in the hearing so why should the jury trust
Winters to tell the truth about the flash drive? I've seen the state accused of planning evidence on a pc before and it almost worked. Computer evidence can be difficult for the average juror to understand even if it is on a flash drive. The DT can find an IT to testify and muddy the whole flash drive evidence, especially if they can claim Winters used a fake post as evidence. Most of us know about the infamous CacheBack program in the Anthony trial. There was the invalid time stamp on the Google map search in the Cooper trial. A lot of people were scratching their head over that evidence.
 
Originally Posted by Sonya610 He also talked about how gruesome extremely graphic movies did not bother him in the slightest, that would ALSO be powerful.

Why?

It is not unusual for the prosecution to bring up the defendant's preference for violent movies or violent *advertiser censored* in trials. When the defense is trying to portray the defendant as "pure as the driven snow, a good Christian, good student, no criminal history etc..." then their preference for hard core torture films will influence the jury.

I am not judging, I love hard core horror films and have watched plenty of real gore as well. I am actually rather surprised that he never mentioned real gore, he talks about how mainstream movies didn't bother him but never mentions real video clips which strongly implies he never took much interest in them as I would think he would have come across some during his internet travels.

Plus I recall someone mentioning one of the posts referenced disposing of a body in the trash, that would be a handy bit of info to share with a jury!
 
I agree it's two entirely different things. But couldn't the DT say that Winters used a fake post as evidence in the hearing so why should the jury trust
Winters to tell the truth about the flash drive? I've seen the state accused of planning evidence on a pc before and it almost worked. Computer evidence can be difficult for the average juror to understand even if it is on a flash drive.

Yeah well if the defense CAN bring up the internet post during the CP trial then it would surely influence the jury.

Also if they processed the CP the same way that they processed the Internet evidence then they are in big trouble. Winters suggested the GBI processed the CP so it might be admissable. Plus there are numerous ways people really can pick up cp images without realizing it, especially if they hang out on message boards like 4chan (which is very similar to the other forum in many ways).

Most of the CP cases I have read about involve backtracking, they discover that the person had connected to certain sites or clicked certain links to willfully download illegal images. Now of course they probably don't NEED to have the evidence of intentionally seeking it out and downloading it but that seems to be the norm.

Child *advertiser censored* charges dropped against former United Way executive

Defense attorney Alan Roscetti had complained to State Supreme Court Justice Richard Kloch Sr. that he could not file a so-called alibi defense because he didn’t know exactly when prosecutors claimed the child *advertiser censored* was downloaded. After prosecutors said the four images of kiddie *advertiser censored* were downloaded on April 26, 2010, Roscetti claimed Buffone was at a hockey game at the time and he would call witnesses who saw him there.

Faced with Buffone’s alibi, prosecutors offered the deal.

“I’m comfortable (with the plea),” Zucco said. “We didn’t get a firm explanation of the (download date), but the fact remains the (kiddie *advertiser censored*) was on (Buffone’s computer). But could we prove to a jury he (downloaded) it and when? Facing that problem, this is a fair resolution.”

http://niagara-gazette.com/local/x2...s-dropped-against-former-United-Way-executive
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
129
Guests online
965
Total visitors
1,094

Forum statistics

Threads
589,930
Messages
17,927,806
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top