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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not meaning to deviate from the current conversation, but I was driving by the Barrington Hall apartments today, and kind of got stuck in traffic right in front of the AT&T building next to the apartments. As I was waiting for traffic to move, I noticed the security camera on the front right side of the roof of the building, and how the dumpsters are somewhat visible from that angle. There is one fir-type tree there near the dumpsters, but there seems to be several spaces where I'm guessing that the camera could possibly have caught something that evening. I am really anxious to find out whether or not a part of the evidence is video footage from that security camera.
 
Not meaning to deviate from the current conversation, but I was driving by the Barrington Hall apartments today, and kind of got stuck in traffic right in front of the AT&T building next to the apartments. As I was waiting for traffic to move, I noticed the security camera on the front right side of the roof of the building, and how the dumpsters are somewhat visible from that angle. There is one fir-type tree there near the dumpsters, but there seems to be several spaces where I'm guessing that the camera could possibly have caught something that evening. I am really anxious to find out whether or not a part of the evidence is video footage from that security camera.

Unfortunately, I think those cameras were installed after the murder.

http://www.13wmaz.com/laurengidding...wners-at-Giddings-Complex-Beefing-Up-Security
 
No, this was actually the security camera on the AT&T roof. It was there during the time of the murder, but I never had the opportunity to stop and view from that angle for very long, because traffic was always moving.

Ahh, sorry... I misunderstood. That will be interesting! It'd be awesome to have something concrete.
 
Ahh, sorry... I misunderstood. That will be interesting! It'd be awesome to have something concrete.

Yeah, I probably didn't word that very well in my original post. I actually could see the dumpster from the AT&T side (well, at least from my angle in the road). I pray that they have some good footage from that, and they are saving it for the trial.
 
Not meaning to deviate from the current conversation, but I was driving by the Barrington Hall apartments today, and kind of got stuck in traffic right in front of the AT&T building next to the apartments. As I was waiting for traffic to move, I noticed the security camera on the front right side of the roof of the building, and how the dumpsters are somewhat visible from that angle. There is one fir-type tree there near the dumpsters, but there seems to be several spaces where I'm guessing that the camera could possibly have caught something that evening. I am really anxious to find out whether or not a part of the evidence is video footage from that security camera.

I remember that this particular camera has been mentioned before as a possible source of evidence. Let's hope (as I think we did in discussion before) that it was operating and had something of the right vantage point to be helpful. I wonder, too, if it was and does -- but the footage shows nothing toward the state's case -- will we ever know?
 
Just another little observation about the post Winters read at the bond hearing.

At the very end are the words "you mad virgins". In the courtroom, Winters read this with the intonation that it is almost a bizarrely poetic phrase of address.

But now I'm thinking it was actually a variation of the familiar trolling card, "You mad?" In other words, "You mad, virgins?"

That would sure fit with the claim that irritated posters at the other site were aiming this post largely to taunt WSers, I think.

Maybe some of you saw this right away -- but I didn't. (I obviously am not as 'net-world savvy as, say, my daughter, who probably would have made the connection right away -- I was "hearing" it in the same style Winters presented it.)
 
Just another little observation about the post Winters read at the bond hearing.

At the very end are the words "you mad virgins". In the courtroom, Winters read this with the intonation that it is almost a bizarrely poetic phrase of address.

But now I'm thinking it was actually a variation of the familiar trolling card, "You mad?" In other words, "You mad, virgins?"

That would sure fit with the claim that irritated posters at the other site were aiming this post largely to taunt WSers, I think.

Maybe some of you saw this right away -- but I didn't. (I obviously am not as 'net-world savvy as, say, my daughter, who probably would have made the connection right away -- I was "hearing" it in the same style Winters presented it.)

I haven't had the slightest idea how to interpret that. I figured it was some sort of slang that I just don't get. That's an interesting perspective. I'll have to think about that.
 
Bessie,
Please move this post if it should not be on this forum and should be on another.

Can someone answer this question? How much time elapsed from when Lauren's remains were found and SM arrested and when he man who had come to Macon to help SM with his project first talked to LE? If the man came forward very soon after the arrest, he could have told LE about SM's posts, LE could have contacted the website, and this particular post (and maybe others that no one on WS has read) could have been removed. Have we came to a consensus on the reliability of the poster claiming that the particular post in question was a bit of fun on someone's part?

Your post is fine here, Pearl. I posed the same ideas the other day, myself. We don't know when the OpChan poster initially spoke to LE. As for the reliability of the claim, I honestly can't say. There is no proof that it was a hoax posted after McD was incarcerated. Nor is there proof to show it wasn't a post quoting an earlier one made by McD. We can speculate, but I'm wary of allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the DA without a screenshot or cached version of the post in question. Afaik, to date, no one has been able to produce one.
 
Great stuff in here lately sleuthers. Good catch on the You Mad meme, SouthernComfort, I don't think I have seen (or read lately, getting forgetful in my old age) those 25 things about Lauren, that again really brings home that we are dealing with the horrible death of a wonderful young lady. And good observation, one I hadn't noticed about the McDaniels not being present . Perhaps Amy Leigh and Joe can try to contact or tell us why they wouldn't be there with their son on trial for his life. Judge Brown is focusing on whether McD might "harm himself" in his bond deliberation, whether McD Is a "person" under OCGA 17-6-1 . I could help him out there, but I will save the jokes for later. Let's keep it up. Thanks to all contibutors. :blowkiss:
 
I've been thinking some about the mental health evaluation asked for by this judge. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. Didn't the judge ask one of his lawyers at an earlier hearing something about his mental fitness to stand trial? Maybe not that exactly, but something similar?

http://www.41nbc.com/news/local-news/10061-mcdaniels-defense-team-challenges-searches-in-giddings-case
McDaniel did not speak at Wednesday's hearing. Judge Brown also asked about McDaniel's mental state. His attorneys said there was no issue

This makes me think his honor might think SM has mental issues.
 
From what I have read when it comes to computer evidence and Internet posts....

The prosecution/leo either seizes the actual computer/server OR they contact the server owner and get a complete copy of all logs, ip addresses, times, along with a complete duplicate of the original website.

Printing stuff out doesn't count.

If the post is legit and verifiable either the server, or a digital copy of the server logs and the entire website will be entered when evidence is disclosed to the defense.

If the prosecution cannot produce the evidence to back up the fact they vetted that ONE post...well I guess they weren't planning to present any ANY other SoL posts either! Plus....

If the post is not legit then trust me all heck will break loose. Stating things like he said....he.... "drugged, raped cut her limbs off and barbequed them while throwing out the torso because I don't eat organ meat" in front of a judge with reporters recording every word and broadcasting those statements to the public/jury pool....not good. Really not good in any circumstance, even if they had smoking gun evidence.
 
From what I have read when it comes to computer evidence and Internet posts....

The prosecution/leo either seizes the actual computer/server OR they contact the server owner and get a complete copy of all logs, ip addresses, times, along with a complete duplicate of the original website.

Printing stuff out doesn't count.

If the post is legit and verifiable either the server, or a digital copy of the server logs and the entire website will be entered when evidence is disclosed to the defense.

If the prosecution cannot produce the evidence to back up the fact they vetted that ONE post...well I guess they weren't planning to present any ANY other SoL posts either! Plus....

If the post is not legit then trust me all heck will break loose. Stating things like he said....he.... "drugged, raped cut her limbs off and barbequed them while throwing out the torso because I don't eat organ meat" in front of a judge with reporters recording every word and broadcasting those statements to the media....not good. Really not good in any circumstance, even if they had smoking gun evidence.

bbm: Sonya, I think you may have hit on part of this puzzle!

Now that you have said that -- I'm thinking maybe they have indeed decided against presenting the internet posts as evidence. I've never thought they would be good evidence -- not related to the crime at all -- (and yes, I know many others here feel differently). The posts have already done all the work they reasonably could, probably, in public impact --'cause Lord knows they have been publicized.

The bond hearing might have been a last opportunity to showcase them again -- and, if it was "tricky but legal" (which I am not entirely clear about) to present that one as authored "by SoL", even if the prosecution knew it was not authored by SM -- this was the golden opportunity. Unlike SM's actual posts, this one obviously refers to the crime and in fact pretty much "sums up" all the atrocities involved, both fact and not-proven theory.

But the thing is, of course, the post is not genuine.
IMO. I believe (and hope) that truth will come to public light, eventually.
 
I'm thinking maybe they have indeed decided against presenting the Internet posts as evidence.

So if it is okay for Winters to broadcast made up Internet posts at a hearing in front of a Judge and the media I guess that means from now on it is okay for prosecutors to claim "He posted he tortured 16 babies" and "He posted this was his two thousandth rape victim" and "He stated in an Internet post he sodomized 14 children and then disemboweled them before burying them in his backyard".

And then after 100 or 1000 statements of that nature in the media they select the jury pool.

It is not okay.

Would you want to be accused of a crime you did not commit and have the prosecutor start blaring made up statements like that about you to the media? Really really horrid fake statements all over the press, read by people that will be on the jury? Think on that.
 
So if it is okay for Winters to broadcast made up Internet posts at a hearing in front of a Judge and the media I guess that means from now on it is okay for prosecutors to claim "He posted he tortured 16 babies" and "He posted this was his two thousandth rape victim" and "He stated in an Internet post he sodomized 14 children and then disemboweled them before burying them in his backyard".

And then after 100 or 1000 statements of that nature in the media they select the jury pool.

It is not okay.

Would you want to be accused of a crime you did not commit and have the prosecutor start blaring made up statements like that about you to the media? Really really horrid fake statements all over the press, read by people that will be on the jury? Think on that.

bbm: I don't have to think on it. I think I've made it pretty clear that I wouldn't approve of that approach, with me or anyone else in the defendant's seat.

Perhaps, though you are quoting my post, you are not directing all the "It is not okay" stuff at me. But just in case: Let me point out, I didn't say it was OK. :fence:

If the theory that they don't plan on using the posts as evidence proves true, they will probably not be mentioning them again in the courtroom. And it may be, after this latest, they may not rely on referring to them much outside the courtroom. As I said, the posts may have already done their work.
 
bbm:Perhaps, though you are quoting my post, you are not directing all the "It is not okay" stuff at me. But just in case: Let me point out, I didn't say it was OK. :fence:

If the theory that they don't plan on using the posts as evidence proves true, they will probably not be mentioning them again in the courtroom. And it may be, after this latest, they may not rely on referring to them much outside the courtroom. As I said, the posts may have already done their work.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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 or really, in any way but we saw it and the nick was "SoL".

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.

That is how the law works, it is a Roman legal thing written in Latin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
198
Guests online
1,442
Total visitors
1,640

Forum statistics

Threads
589,952
Messages
17,928,094
Members
228,013
Latest member
RayaCo
Back
Top