Found Deceased GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 27 June 2011 - 13

[bessie]

Please continue here.

Previous Threads:
Thread #1

Thread #2

Thread #2

Thread #3
Thread #4
Thread #5
Thread #6
Thread #7
Thread #8

Thread #9

Thread #9

Thread #10
Thread #11

Thread #12

Thread #12

Media Thread

Media Thread

Lauren Teresa Giddings
April 18, 1984 -- June 26, 2011
Rest in Peace

[Sonya610]

Originally Posted by southern_comfort

The defense was sitting right there and nobody objected to that. That should tell you something: molehill ------------> MOUNTAIN.

Uhhh...does the name Nifong ring a bell? Of course he was accused of making inflammatory statements to the media, not in a courtroom while presenting to a judge and the media.

Either it was a mistake or it was intentionally misleading. I believe it was the former but you apparently believe it was the later.

The Bar charged Nifong with breaking several rules of professional conduct in his handling of charges against three members of 2005-2006 men's lacrosse team.

It accused him in December of making inflammatory pretrial statements to the media.

http://dukechronicle.com/article/bar...tion-dismissal

[southern_comfort]

Originally Posted by justiceforlauren

<modsnip>

The only reason why I read this website or participate for that matter is because it is not like Macon.com

Please let's let the lawyers talk and stop condemning the police dept and the DA. We all really have no idea of the evidence and for a reason. We aren't supposed to know about it.

This was just a bond hearing.


I probably should just stop reading this site as well. It was so nice for awhile to have discussions on here, not opinions that people are stating as facts.

I hope you won't let frustration keep you away. Lauren deserves every voice that is able to speak for her, I think.

Remember that there's a reason Lauren spent 3 painful years working diligently in law school. The law is a labyrinth, but it's a puzzle John Q. Public finds fascinating and can't seem to resist trying to understand. It doesn't really matter whether laypeople (or even anonymous lawyers on message boards) speak authoritatively or fail to follow their posts with "MOO". It is always an opinion. Saying it emphatically doesn't make it so.

I frequently find myself taking the unpopular side in this case, and when I have fleeting moments of wondering whether I am doing the right thing, I remind myself that Lauren wanted to be a public defender. I also return frequently to this FB note Lauren posted. I didn't have the privilege of knowing Lauren like you do, but this note offers me glimpses on many levels - from superficial to profound - into the sparkling jewel she was. When I'm feeling frustrated or overwhelmed, I think Lauren would tell me to munch on strawberry jam and peanut butter sandwiches (or drink bloody Marys in extreme circumstances), floss my teeth, and keep on trucking.

[southern_comfort]

Originally Posted by Sonya610

Uhhh...does the name Nifong ring a bell? Of course he was accused of making inflammatory statements to the media, not in a courtroom while presenting to a judge and the media.

Either it was a mistake or it was intentionally misleading. I believe it was the former but you apparently believe it was the later.

Nifong's ethics violations arose distinctly from hundreds of statements of personal opinion, made outside a court of law and away from evidentiary safeguards, to the news media. I am not seeing a parallel to this case.

Nifong was in NC, but there's a corresponding rule in GA. It is a rule against engaging in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. I don't think the bond hearing evidence was a mistake or intentionally misleading. I think that in the context of a court proceeding, the prosecution set forth a verifiably true set of facts and the basis for authentication (weak though it may be), and that if the defense had a problem with it, they could and should have said so.

If lawyers can't speak and act persuasively in a court of law, then what is the point of being there?

[Backwoods]

It took me forever to learn how to quote a post from a previous thread and now <sigh> it has been so long since we've had a new thread, I've forgotten -- which is bad, because catching up with the last posts in the previous thread I saw several things to which I'd like to reply.

Until I figure out how to quote again, I'll improvise:

southern_comfort, in your post at:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Found Deceased GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 2011 June 27 - #12

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Found Deceased GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 2011 June 27 - #12

...you say:

Originally Posted by southern_comfort

Despite what's being claimed in comments in various places online, for now I have to believe this post was made in between the big media interview and McD being locked up - June 30 late afternoon to July 1 at 5 a.m.. I just can't think of a way to explain it for the prosecution, if it was made after that. (Thanks for the timeline, Backwoods!)

First of all, you're welcome for the timeline.

I just can't go with that thinking about when the post was made.

From the very first of the brouhaha over this post, as you've probably observed, lol, I've dug in my toenails and said something was hokey. One of the reasons was that I KNOW that if those of us WSers who were scrutinizing/saving the SoL posts back during the summer had seen this post signed SoL and dated before SM was in jail, it would have zoomed to #1 on the incriminating-posts list. (Heck, even I would have found it incriminating!)

I suppose I have to consider that our post-combing gang simply missed it somehow. (I don't believe it was spotted and removed by some LE force before we came along, BTW.) Two reasons why I don't think that's the case:

(1) It rang faint bells with some of us -- and I think the reason is that, as some of us lurked in on the ongoing-at-that-time conversation at the site in question, we saw it when it was posted, knew it was not genuine SM (since he was in jail), and recognized it for what it was and didn't pay it too much mind.

(2) I remember from combing the site in question that it took a while for conversation to even break on that site that a former poster was in jail, linked with a heinous murder. To me, all the "details" incorporated into that hoax-post show that it wasn't made before SM was in jail --for example, info wasn't released at least until after SM was in custody that the body was dismembered. Unless we DO go with the theory that someone other than SM posting on that board was the killer or knew details directly from the killer -- and I don't seriously consider that likely -- I don't think the joker-poster could, during the time frame you posit, have formulated a post that hit on all the details the post does, because some of them were just not known/publicized yet.

Shortly after the folks on that site first started making the connection with SoL/murder in Macon, we WSers showed up ... and the rest is history. That's when those folks got motivated to post most of this kind of thing.

[Backwoods]

Just gonna reply in a general way to some of the conversation at the end of the last thread about whether or not Winters knew he was quoting a non-SM post, legal/ethical issues, and a few generalities mentioned.

I still pretty much think he knew ... though I have had moments of doubt about that. Just very hard for me to think the investigation of the posts/chain of information could be so weak as for him to not know! I do see "careful wording" going on when he is speaking about the post during the hearing.

If he knew, I do wonder whether, when he was "preparing" the Giddings family part of the audience for rough details about to be presented, as stated in that one interview with them, he let on that some of those details might not be exactly what actually happened ... how would he have handled that??

I only know about "legalities" from a layperson's fairly-well-informed (JMO) viewpoint, so can't speak to that authoritatively. Assuming Winters did know what he was doing, I feel he probably is in the clear, though I'm not sure, if I were the judge, I'd appreciate it all that much. I'm not a judge, though -- guess judges are well-versed in the kind of slippery stuff that can show up, especially at something like a bond hearing, expect it, and pretty much take it all in stride, part and parcel, unless it gets very clearly out of bounds.

I don't personally like what Winters did (assuming it was intentional). I feel it was not only pushing for a high bond but also, maybe largely, for media impact. It is hard to measure the amount or type of impact that can have on a case, but I think most of us do think it plays a part, however intangible. Realistically though: I see defense attorneys vilified in case discussions all the time for "tricky" legal maneuvers, but it would be naive to think that the prosecution doesn't use a few tricks as well.

[SouthernKate]

I've been trying to comb over most of the posts for the last day or two and catch up..

Something that struck me as odd was the absence of the McD's at the hearing. They were present early on and this hearing was much more in depth. Especially with all of the family mentions, etc as his reason to get bond, it just strikes me as odd that they wouldn't be there.

And as I type this, I am now recalling her early press interviews and am thinking that might be a lawyer tactic to keep them quiet and away from press.

I am curious to see how long the judge will wait before making his ruling. I would think he must make it fairly soon.

[Backwoods]

Originally Posted by SouthernKate

I've been trying to comb over most of the posts for the last day or two and catch up..

Something that struck me as odd was the absence of the McD's at the hearing. They were present early on and this hearing was much more in depth. Especially with all of the family mentions, etc as his reason to get bond, it just strikes me as odd that they wouldn't be there.

And as I type this, I am now recalling her early press interviews and am thinking that might be a lawyer tactic to keep them quiet and away from press.

I am curious to see how long the judge will wait before making his ruling. I would think he must make it fairly soon.

I imagine the defense attorneys may have advised the McDaniel family to consider skipping this hearing -- or they may have reached that decision independently -- because the benefits of attending likely would be outweighed by the possible negative effects, even simply the stress on them, and their efforts/strength would be better saved for possible later court sessions. SM himself may have wanted them to spare themselves the experience. Whatever you believe regarding SM's guilt or innocence ... I know this is a horrible experience for that family. And they do not have widespread public support and sympathy to equal that being shown (understandably) the Giddings family.

I, too, have been meaning to ask if anyone knows when the judge is likely to make a ruling. Also -- will he just issue it, or will it require another courtroom session...?

[Backwoods]

Originally Posted by southern_comfort

Nifong's ethics violations arose distinctly from hundreds of statements of personal opinion, made outside a court of law and away from evidentiary safeguards, to the news media. I am not seeing a parallel to this case.

Nifong was in NC, but there's a corresponding rule in GA. It is a rule against engaging in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. I don't think the bond hearing evidence was a mistake or intentionally misleading. I think that in the context of a court proceeding, the prosecution set forth a verifiably true set of facts and the basis for authentication (weak though it may be), and that if the defense had a problem with it, they could and should have said so.

If lawyers can't speak and act persuasively in a court of law, then what is the point of being there?

bbm: If it wasn't a mistake (and I, too, think it most likely wasn't), I do think it was "intentionally misleading" -- sorta big-time, actually. But I agree with you (only from my layperson's knowledge though) that it still is probably "within bounds".

[pearl]

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?

[Backwoods]

Originally Posted by pearl

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?

pearl, I can't answer your question with a number of days, but the Telegraph article at the link below may give you enough clues to figure it out fairly accurately, if the man from the website they talked to is the same one LE talked to or may have talked to. (It's a long article -- the part I'm referencing is under the subhead "SoL's identity confirmed".)

http://www.macon.com/2011/08/26/1678...#ixzz1W6iRioq0

Personally, I don't believe any posts were "removed" by LE forces before we discovered the site.

Also, alone, I can't speak to a consensus, of course -- but I was 99 percent sure the post read at the hearing was a joke post written by someone else after SM was in jail, even before anyone (purportedly) from that website came forward to confirm that as the case. For myself, yes, I believe that/those confirmation(s) is/are genuine and true, and I appreciate that it/they is/are being made.

[tomkat]

Apparently one of McD's attorneys is handling a new case in WR area, the murder of Jessica Wolfe by boyfriend HOLT, does anyone know anything more on this and it was interesting to note, if anyone's heard of this case, that he may be using the same attny as McD..............Holt shot her in the torso after having assaulted her one night after partying. So teh papers had read.

Delete if this is inappropriate for some reason. THANKS

[tomkat]

Franklin Hogue representing HOLT, probation officer. Not sure what Hogue can do with this case because this seems to have more direct evidence against HOLT

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/local/art...Murder-Charges

[southern_comfort]

Originally Posted by Backwoods

bbm: If it wasn't a mistake (and I, too, think it most likely wasn't), I do think it was "intentionally misleading" -- sorta big-time, actually. But I agree with you (only from my layperson's knowledge though) that it still is probably "within bounds".

I am one of the people who thinks they remember this post, so I follow your reasoning regarding why it had to be posted while McD was in jail. I'm still trying to reserve a conclusion because there are possible, however unlikely, explanations.

If it was intentional, they are skating on a very thin line. I see a difference between (i) fudging a little or being lazy with authentication and letting the defense worry about poking holes in it, which happens all the time and (ii) intentionally standing before a judge and giving him evidence that they know could not possibly be accurate or relevant. Even though it was worded in such a way as to avoid an outright false statement of fact, I think number (ii) moves into the area of false evidence.

Perhaps more than anything, I am puzzled by the lack of reaction by the defense. They didn't seem surprised by what was said, but they didn't do anything about it.

[southern_comfort]

Was there a response to the bond motion posted online anywhere? Thanks in advance.

[3doglady]

Originally Posted by southern_comfort

I am one of the people who thinks they remember this post, so I follow your reasoning regarding why it had to be posted while McD was in jail. I'm still trying to reserve a conclusion because there are possible, however unlikely, explanations.

If it was intentional, they are skating on a very thin line. I see a difference between (i) fudging a little or being lazy with authentication and letting the defense worry about poking holes in it, which happens all the time and (ii) intentionally standing before a judge and giving him evidence that they know could not possibly be accurate or relevant. Even though it was worded in such a way as to avoid an outright false statement of fact, I think number (ii) moves into the area of false evidence.

Perhaps more than anything, I am puzzled by the lack of reaction by the defense. They didn't seem surprised by what was said, but they didn't do anything about it.

I'm wondering if the DT did not do anything because they had never heard about this particular post. The DT knows that there were some awful posts made by sol so if they were unsure and objected, the DA could have produced the post, which if true, would have been worse for McD. (Never ask a question you don't know the answer to) As it is, we are left questioning whether there really was such a post by McD.
If there is not a illegitimate post, that leads me to believe there is little evidence against McD that we don't know about.

[Backwoods]

Originally Posted by southern_comfort

Was there a response to the bond motion posted online anywhere? Thanks in advance.

I have not seen one.

[MaconMom]

New article up:

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/article/1...n-Bond-Request

[Backwoods]

Also a new one at www.macon.com:

Defense: McDaniel doesn’t have to prove his mental health

Lawyers representing the man accused in the June slaying of Lauren Giddings filed a written argument Friday to buttress their position that Stephen McDaniel shouldn’t be required to prove he won’t harm himself if released on bond.

read more at: http://www.macon.com/2012/04/06/1977...nk=rss#wgt=rss

[Backwoods]

Originally Posted by southern_comfort

I am one of the people who thinks they remember this post, so I follow your reasoning regarding why it had to be posted while McD was in jail. I'm still trying to reserve a conclusion because there are possible, however unlikely, explanations.

If it was intentional, they are skating on a very thin line. I see a difference between (i) fudging a little or being lazy with authentication and letting the defense worry about poking holes in it, which happens all the time and (ii) intentionally standing before a judge and giving him evidence that they know could not possibly be accurate or relevant. Even though it was worded in such a way as to avoid an outright false statement of fact, I think number (ii) moves into the area of false evidence.

Perhaps more than anything, I am puzzled by the lack of reaction by the defense. They didn't seem surprised by what was said, but they didn't do anything about it.

bbm: In the case of this post, the distinction between the two does seem to be a delicate operation, doesn't it? It seems to me that even if your #(ii) is the truth, the DA could easily claim #(i) -- remember that poor intern we were hypothesizing?

[McMunn]

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.

[southern_comfort]

Originally Posted by McMunn

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/laurengiddings...ng-Up-Security

[McMunn]

Originally Posted by southern_comfort

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

http://www.13wmaz.com/laurengiddings...ng-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.

[southern_comfort]

Originally Posted by McMunn

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.

[McMunn]

Originally Posted by southern_comfort

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.