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

Discussion in 'Recently Sentenced and Beyond' started by bessie, Apr 5, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bessie

    bessie Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    31,701
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. Loading...


  3. Sonya610

    Sonya610 Former Member

    Messages:
    7,175
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.

     
  4. southern_comfort

    southern_comfort New Member

    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  5. southern_comfort

    southern_comfort New Member

    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  6. Backwoods

    Backwoods New Member

    Messages:
    4,658
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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

    ...you say:


    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.
     
  7. Backwoods

    Backwoods New Member

    Messages:
    4,658
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  8. SouthernKate

    SouthernKate New Member

    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  9. Backwoods

    Backwoods New Member

    Messages:
    4,658
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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...?
     
  10. Backwoods

    Backwoods New Member

    Messages:
    4,658
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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".
     
  11. pearl

    pearl Member

    Messages:
    729
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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?
     
  12. Backwoods

    Backwoods New Member

    Messages:
    4,658
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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/2011/08/26/1678356/mcdaniel-posts-describe-torture.html#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.
     
  13. tomkat

    tomkat New Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  14. tomkat

    tomkat New Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  15. southern_comfort

    southern_comfort New Member

    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  16. southern_comfort

    southern_comfort New Member

    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Was there a response to the bond motion posted online anywhere? Thanks in advance.
     
  17. 3doglady

    3doglady Certified Coffeeaholic

    Messages:
    3,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  18. Backwoods

    Backwoods New Member

    Messages:
    4,658
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have not seen one.
     
  19. MaconMom

    MaconMom New Member

    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  20. Backwoods

    Backwoods New Member

    Messages:
    4,658
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  21. Backwoods

    Backwoods New Member

    Messages:
    4,658
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice