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

[GeorgiaSunshine]

A commenter on the the most recent Telegraph article is saying that reports said SM took an overnight trip the weekend Lauren disappeared. I have never seen this reported anywhere. Would some of you take a look at the details and see if it is familiar to you? (Maybe the poster should be saying "rumored" instead of "reported"...?)

article is at: http://www.macon.com/2012/04/13/198...ek-reconsideration.html#storylink=rss#wgt=rss

That poster is referencing this article http://www.macon.com/2011/09/25/1717788/mcdaniels-grandfather-stung-by.html

Father's Day in 2011 was on Sunday, the 19th of June, when MCD visited his granfather which was a week before LG's disappearance and death.

That article sparked a fury because the family of LG thinks possibly her remains are there and McD was scoping it out. Don't think it has ever been searched yet

http://www.macon.com/2011/11/13/1783563/giddings-family-pressing-for-search.html

 

[cocomod]

In so many cases, LE keeps the "big" and sometimes even the small evidence close to the vest to keep the jury pool clean (so to speak). This case is a bit off because of the leaks of evidence all along - such as the panties in his drawer. I wonder if it was politically motivated to leak some of the evidence early to show the town that they "got their guy". But now, it may be working against them because the evidence doesnakt seem stong enough.

My hope - with others here - is that the "big" evidence is still not out in the public. My hope is that when they go to court - it is a slam dunk like many of us thought it was in the beginning. They may not have his fingerprint or a "smoking gun", but hopefully all of the pieces of evidence put together a very clear picture of her murderer.

If I am not mistaken, one of the reasons that the public cannot be aware of all of the evidence is just in case something is not allowed in to the trial. We may hear about such evidence during the trial, but the jury will not.

 

[SwissGuy]

Now that the air is cleared on the troll post, to a large degree, we have been advised by personal counsel to not make any more statements on our involvement in the proceedings from here on in beyond what has already been stated. This applies both to public forums and the news media.

I will still be available for clarification on site mechanics, history, or publicly available information already present on this forum, but will not make any further statements on our contact with any parties in the case, be they the state or defence.

Thank you all for your kind welcome, and especially thanks to the administration and moderation team here for handling our community concerns with tact and understanding.

 

[SmoothOperator]

No, I was not referring or accusing you of anything. You've beenon here long enought that you know how it went early on. I too defended him for the simple fact that I hate when people act like a pack of wild dogs, it's a frenzy and SO MANY PEOPLE were ready to hang him and no one really knew anything.

I was flabbergasted that LE went mostly on the video as proof of his guilt, maybe they will be right in the end BUT. I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Aruba's the other extreme. They wont' hold anyone until they have a body AND DNA or SOMETHING miraculous.

I just, like I stated, think it's IRONIC now that more evidence has been forthcoming, he has a right to bond out, whereas up to this point, they had only suspicion yet held him. I think I said that already.
I just think the law is sometimes contradictory.

Me either so his reaction wasn't so odd to me right away.......and I wasn't ready to jump on that wagon. I just wanted to know first if what we were hearing was rumour or fact

Areas BBM in BLACK-- As someone who has been here since day 1 of Lauren's disappearance I could not disagree MORE with this description of mentality being bandwagon of wild, frenzied dogs out for Stephen's blood.. IMO that is suggesting that those who felt strongly from early on that Stephen very likely was involved are incapable of our own personal logical thought processes, opinions, or views.. but rather are basing our opinions/views on nothing and just blindly following the "bandwagon of frenzied, wild, pack of animals" salivating for Stephens blood(or as you put it his being strung up and hanged) ..

Being a member here at WS and following many many cases I have seen people/situations that do seem extremely quick to judge when actually they entered into discussion of a case mid way through, weren't aware, nor interested to learn the facts and details of the case and "seemed" to just jump in for the sake of arguing, confrontational, jumping in on the bandwagon of those who just love to go against the grain for the purpose of stirring the big ol' pot of the proverbial poo.

Here at WS I will however state that those type situations are few and far between in comparison to other sites and IMO it is just one of the many reasons that WS is miles above the rest..

But as for here, specifically in Lauren's threads the core group of members that have been here since the onset of Lauren's disappearance that just so happen to be of the opinion that Stephen very likely was directly involved In Lauren's disappearance and subsequent brutal murder.. I say with much certainty that we were not of the bandwagon mentality whatsoever and each were capable of reaching our own conclusion for why each thought and/or felt strongly about Stephen's involvement.. to paint the picture or describe it is a mentality of blind bandwagon of frenzied animals out for Stephen to be strung up and hanged type behaviors and motives is a gross misrepresentation of the intelligent, caring, thought provoking members and their posts here at WS..

Above Highlighted in RED--
When did LE EVER state that SM's infamous on-cam interview was what they were basing their belief of Stephens guilt upon? (link?)

I'm glad to see this.

It's just amazing to me that forensic authentication of this post is such a problem.

But my question is who is saying that forensic authentication of this post IS difficult? .. no one is.. just as you have mentioned earlier as well as Hogue is also quoted as saying, for a bond hearing it is not unusual in the least to present information without presenting evidence or witnesses to back it up.. as we know its not required.. and that it is ONLY "IF" Winters chooses to use this "specific" post DURING THE MURDER TRIAL that he would be required to have proof backing up that SM was in fact the author of that very "specific" post..

There is nothing indicating that there is DIFFICULTY IN FORENSIC AUTHENTICATION OF THIS POST, except for the public under news articles and in forums such as this.. which as we saw the media FINALLY PICKED UP ON AND BEGAN RUNNING WITH THE STORY... and now here we are...

WINTERS wasn't required to present a dot more of anything than what he presented.. that's not unusual , nor is it out of the ordinary.. but rather it is standard operating procedure(even so says the defense counsel) .. THERE IS NO ONE, NOR ANYTHING INDICATING THAT THERE IS DIFFICULTY OR EVEN A PROBLEM IN THE FORENSIC AUTHENTICATION OF THE POST.. .
as is always jmo, tho!

 

[Sonya610]

THERE IS NO ONE, NOR ANYTHING INDICATING THAT THERE IS DIFFICULTY OR EVEN A PROBLEM IN THE FORENSIC AUTHENTICATION OF THE POST.. .
as is always jmo, tho!

Actually it appears there are numerous people and other things indicating there is a problem authenticating the post.

1) The website owners have clearly stated they were never notified of a warrant seizing information from the server.
2) Numerous people from this forum and reporters scoured those SoL posts after the murder and NO ONE else found that post!
3) The defense attorney has clearly stated his client did NOT have an opportunity to write the post after the murder.
4) Numerous individuals are stating they recall those posts and they were NOT written by McDaniel.
5) The post itself does NOT fit the crime nor the writing style of the defendant.

So yes, there are numerous reasons to believe that the post cannot be verified.

Also Hogue clearly stated that he expects the post and the forensic evidence to back it up WILL BE INCLUDED in the evidence that the prosecution releases to the defense on April 20th. Hogue didn't say "if it is included" he said he expects that it WILL be included.

 

[GeorgiaSunshine]

Hi Georgia,

Do you think McD wrote the post that's causing all this controversy? Hopefully you can give an opinion on that.

You know I do not have direct proof but a lot of the things I do know lead me to believe IMO that the DA and police have more evidence in regards to this post.

I just can't waste this type of energy on speculation when a beautiful friend, whose birthday is coming up, was lost.

I believe if he didn't write it and the DA did it for baiting. Well it worked, and I am happy if the prosecution threw in a little dirt. I am sure Hogue has tricks up his sleeves that no one will discuss, because it is done effortlessly, because he is used to fighting dirty, IMO.

Let the chips fall where they may on 4/20. I do think there is a lot of evidence in this case, IMO. And I am glad it has not gotten out to the public, iMo.

 

[Sonya610]

Just did a bit of research....the Bibb County DA recently dropped the death penalty in two cases...the arson that burned kids alive and the cold blooded shooting of a store clerk.

In BOTH cases they appear to have waited past 90 days to indict even though they went for the death penalty.

Most all murders in Macon are committed by thugs, stupid thugs that can't hire top knotch attorneys, maybe things are taken a bit too casually at times?

 

[pearl]

The DA could have contacted the previous administration of the website where the post occurred and served a subpoena (sp) way back before we even knew the SoL posts existed. Didn't the fellow poster who helped with the mock trial come forward before the SoL posts were known to us? Up thread, a current administrator of that site said they had been contacted by the defense and would not be forthcoming with any new information. Same thing could have happened earlier only it could have been contact by the DA. As always, just my thoughts.

 

[Sonya610]

The DA could have contacted the previous administration of the website where the post occurred and served a subpoena (sp) way back before we even knew the SoL posts existed. Didn't the fellow poster who helped with the mock trial come forward before the SoL posts were known to us? Up thread, a current administrator of that site said they had been contacted by the defense and would not be forthcoming with any new information. Same thing could have happened earlier only it could have been contact by the DA. As always, just my thoughts.

You can be sure the previous administration and the current administration are well aquainted. Web domains of a non-profit nature are not transferred without lots of personal contact, there are no ads on the site and it is not making money, which means if domain ownership was transferred it was handed over between folks that knew each other well.

Ain't no way warrants were issued to the old web host without the current owners being aware.

Things like "wow the law served a warrant and seized server records" tend to come up!

 

[SwissGuy]

No contact from either side was received by the previous administration, and our administration has only had contact with the defence.

At no time in the history of the website have we had a subpoena or warrant for information regarding data or posts made in this case.

 

[cocomod]

Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't LE have found evidence of the posts on McD's own personal computer without needing to contact the site admin?

 

[AgentFrankLundy]

Just did a bit of research....the Bibb County DA recently dropped the death penalty in two cases...the arson that burned kids alive and the cold blooded shooting of a store clerk.

In BOTH cases they appear to have waited past 90 days to indict even though they went for the death penalty.

Most all murders in Macon are committed by thugs, stupid thugs that can't hire top knotch attorneys, maybe things are taken a bit too casually at times?

Wow, Sonya I did not know that he was over 90 days late on those two either, makes you wonder how tight of a ship he is running, and any political opponent will make a lot of hay over these three cases. 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

 

[Backwoods]

In a story that ran a couple of days ago, television station 13WMAZ in Macon said SM is also facing "child endangerment" charges. Of course, that's a mistake -- it's child exploitation charges.

This is the second time this station has made that mistake reporting on this case -- you'd think they'd watch that! I think last time the mention was a little more prominent and occasioned a good bit of discussion here, before it became apparent they just goofed. (I believe they corrected themselves on their web site that time, but of course they couldn't correct that they had broadcast it.)

Here's the link to the recent story containing the repeat blunder:

http://macon.13wmaz.com/news/news/69006-stephen-mcdaniels-lawyers-ask-lower-bond

 

[SmoothOperator]

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...

 

[pearl]

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...

Good ideas, SmoothOperator. Glad to see you back posting in Lauren's forum again.

 

[bessie]

Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't LE have found evidence of the posts on McD's own personal computer without needing to contact the site admin?

Yes, Cocomod. LE uses software that can re-create webpages from a browser's cache.

 

[tomkat]

Just did a bit of research....the Bibb County DA recently dropped the death penalty in two cases...the arson that burned kids alive and the cold blooded shooting of a store clerk.

In BOTH cases they appear to have waited past 90 days to indict even though they went for the death penalty.

Most all murders in Macon are committed by thugs, stupid thugs that can't hire top knotch attorneys, maybe things are taken a bit too casually at times?

What made them drop the charges? Does MPD think thugs do not know about the 90 day limit? Were these accused able to hire a good attorney or did the DA realize their mistake the reason the death penalty was dropped?? Or did they get caught up with by an attorney in their casual methods?

 

[tomkat]

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...

I'm curious, as maybe others are, as to why certain things are done in this particular case.

BTW, If SM didnt' post ALL those posts from his computer, then what? If others used the SOL moniker, as we've possibly seen, then what? They really should/would want to, nip any doubt and that may require subpoenas if SM posted from other computers.

 

[tomkat]

In a story that ran a couple of days ago, television station 13WMAZ in Macon said SM is also facing "child endangerment" charges. Of course, that's a mistake -- it's child exploitation charges.

This is the second time this station has made that mistake reporting on this case -- you'd think they'd watch that! I think last time the mention was a little more prominent and occasioned a good bit of discussion here, before it became apparent they just goofed. (I believe they corrected themselves on their web site that time, but of course they couldn't correct that they had broadcast it.)

Here's the link to the recent story containing the repeat blunder:

http://macon.13wmaz.com/news/news/69006-stephen-mcdaniels-lawyers-ask-lower-bond

WOW, BIG difference! I sure dont' want to defend SM but I dont' wish to jump on that bandwagon either............Maybe they need someone proofing these stories who knows the law. Between the news and the DA, lots of mistakes it seems

 

[Sonya610]

Yes, Cocomod. LE uses software that can re-create webpages from a browser's cache.

It may be possible to grab SOME recent pages out of the cache yes, but people can and do clear their cache all of time, or they use browsers that will not save anything to the cache for reasons just like this. Some of those posts were over a YEAR old by the time the murder took place which means they likely disappeared out of the cache ages ago (assuming he still used the same computer!). No one would try to recapture pages from website from a pc's cache without also capturing the original website when it is sitting right there in front of them!

Besse I believe you were the one that said you noticed 3 different IP addresses, so some of those posts could easily have been made other computers, I suppose LE deciphered the IP's and grabbed those computers too?

Why would anyone even TRY to take short cuts when they have the legal power to document EVERYTHING properly? There are established procedures for gathering computer forensic data of this type and no sensible person would ignore those procedures in a capital murder case (or any case really).