GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #12

[southern_comfort]

I don't think either mistake was intentional.

I just watched the video of the bond hearing. Wow. I do think Winters believed that post was real.

That was almost sad. Winters explains how they confirmed the identity of "SoL" via pictures and posts etc... He never even hints that the identity was confirmed by computer forensic experts, maybe some of the original posts were confirmed but apparently once the name "SoL" was identified they thought that meant it was all real.

Unless they have some really really good evidence that they are keeping a big secret Winters will likely pay for this mistake forever.

I also don't think this was an intentional lie or fraud -- or perhaps more accurately, if it was, he covered his butt well enough.

I did notice that he sort of catches himself in one spot, right before he begins reading the post. He starts off saying, "This is what one of his posts states", and then he stops himself and adds, "This is from the moniker, 'SoL'". That is a possible acknowledgment that SoL does not necessarily equal McD.

 

[Sonya610]

I did notice that he sort of catches himself in one spot, right before he begins reading the post. He starts off saying, "This is what one of his posts states", and then he stops himself and adds, "This is from the moniker, 'SoL'". That is a possible acknowledgment that SoL does not necessarily equal McD.

Yeah someone else mentioned that before I watched the video, I didn't see that "distancing" thing in the video at all.

There is a lot of awkward phrasing, things like "it is sort of like a board where you can post things". Uhhh...yeah I would say a message board is sort of like that.

Combine that with the cadaver dog comment and it comes across as very sloppy and inaccurate. When relaying a false statement regarding "things jumped on him" in the parking lot Winters actually said "quote" and did the little finger quote gesture thing, while he MISQUOTED the defendant in a rather mocking very inaccurate way.

I have to wonder if Winters or crew reads the posts on Macon.com because I posted a few times that small amounts of blood or other forensic evidence in the apartment or car could easily be explained by McDaniel stepping in, or putting his bag down on a blood stain in the parking lot.

 

[southern_comfort]

In my mind, the most likely scenario is that the prosecution is and was aware that further investigation could prove that a particular SoL post came from someone other than McD, but concluded that McD's verified posting as SoL was sufficient authentication for purposes of the bond hearing. I don't remember all of the ins and outs of criminal procedure, but I believe at a trial (and this isn't a trial, so usual rules may not apply), you've got to object to something in order to preserve an issue for appeal, and nobody did here. If the preservation of error rules apply, that means it was good enough.

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!)

 

[southern_comfort]

Trying to get caught up , I have two questions that may be dumb;
Backwoods, what April 20th deadline is there for what ?
GiveMeTheShivers , sorry you don't like us, but what about McD's dad's paint business did we get wrong?

I did find out the barbecue/v-card/lose it on TV post was from Sol and it was posted on the opchan site . I do not know when it was posted , perhaps anybody can create the same screen name , post as a joke , etc etc, as had already been discussed and theorized. What I do feel certain about though is that none of us ever saw it or it would have been a major topic of discussion. So, could have been deleted by either Sol himself, LE, or Opchan moderator, but it was not there prior to this group's discovery of that treasure trove of evil. And if Hogue could prove that this post did not come from SMcD, prosecution is done for. But even if Winters can prove it came from SMcD's computer, still doesn't prove he posted it. What if the guy that came down to help him with the mock trial (they did meet on the OpChan Site) wanted to kill her and frame him for murder ? Or the old "maintenance man in the laundry room with the hacksaw" trick ? Computer forensics are tricky, we saw that in the Casey Anthony trial when the prosecution tried to ( I think successfully) prove Cindy Anthony was lying based on when she clocked in and out on her computer. Casey is still a free woman though.

BBM... Or even someone else with macabre interests and fantasies could have discerned exactly where McD lived via his open-book online existence and decided to play a twisted game with people's lives...

 

[Sonya610]

In my mind, the most likely scenario is that the prosecution is and was aware that further investigation could prove that a particular SoL post came from someone other than McD, but concluded that McD's verified posting as SoL was sufficient authentication for purposes of the bond hearing.

This is a capital case. Any "mistaken" or "unverified" facts, any "misquoted" statements could, best case, cost the Georgia taxpayers MILLIONS in appeals should the defendant be found guilty.

Every single statement uttered by the State, every bit of evidence entered will be analyzed again and again if this defendant is sentenced to death.

That was one serious mistake and anyone that thinks "it will be forgotten, it ain't no big deal" is out of touch with reality on this one. It is a VERY big deal, combine that with the apparent lack of strong physical evidence and that smart whippersnapper Hogue will make mincemeat out of the prosecutions case.

 

[southern_comfort]

This is a capital case. Any "mistaken" or "unverified" facts, any "misquoted" statements could, best case, cause the Georgia taxpayers MILLIONS in extra appeals should the defendant be found guilty.

Every single statement uttered by the State, every bit of evidence entered will be analyzed again and again if this defendant is sentenced to death via lethal injection execution.

That was one serious mistake and anyone that thinks "it will be forgotten, it ain't no big deal" is out of touch with reality on this one. It is a VERY big deal, combine that with a lack of evidence and that smart whippersnapper Hogue will make mincemeat out of the prosecutions case.

I am not suggesting it was a mistake. I am suggesting it was within the rules.

 

[GeorgiaSunshine]

This is a capital case. Any "mistaken" or "unverified" facts, any "misquoted" statements could, best case, cause the Georgia taxpayers MILLIONS in extra appeals should the defendant be found guilty.

Every single statement uttered by the State, every bit of evidence entered will be analyzed again and again if this defendant is sentenced to death via lethal injection execution.

That was one serious mistake and anyone that thinks "it will be forgotten, it ain't no big deal" is out of touch with reality on this one. It is a VERY big deal, combine that with the apparent lack of really strong physical evidence and that smart whippersnapper Hogue will make mincemeat out of the prosecutions case.

<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.

 

[Sonya610]

I am not suggesting it was a mistake. I am suggesting it was within the rules.

Is there a rule about attorneys making "misleading or inflammatory" statements?

 

[southern_comfort]

Is there a rule about attorneys making "misleading or inflammatory" statements?

Is there? You keep saying that. Perhaps you can point me toward the rule upon which you are relying. That would help.

Everything presented in court is intended to lead minds in a certain direction and often it is intended to inflame emotions. If there is such a rule, it's probably a rule about making deliberately misleading and inflammatory statements, or submitting such evidence, to the jury during the trial. No jury and no trial here. There surely are rules against deliberately committing fraud upon the court by lying and knowingly presenting false evidence, but what is untrue about the following? "McD posted on Website X as SoL. We know this because _____. The following post was made by the moniker SoL on Website X: ______________".

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

 

[bessie]

Please continue at the new thread.

GA -- Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 27 June 2011 -- #13 Websleuths Crimesleuthing Community