When Joe Buice took office in 2005, he was the fourth sheriff to inherit the massive Donna Johnson murder file.
His predecessors, Frank Monaghan, Chuck Keadle and Larry Waller, had tried in vain to solve the now 26-year-old mystery.
What did this alleged former drug house have to do with the killing? See the 8.24.2010 Herald-Gazette to find out.
Crime Scene of an organized offender:
Planned Offense
Targeted victim
personalizes victim
scene reflects overall control
demands submissive victim
restraints used
aggressive acts prior to death
body hidden
weapon/evidence absent
transports victim or body
Murder serves as the ultimate form of sexual revenge for certain abusive types of personalities. Interpersonal violence is classified as the most prevalent form of sex related murder for this reason.
Sexual domestic disputes involve all kinds of situations and can involve third-party relationships such as "love triangles."
The motive in this category of slaying is most often based elements of rage, hate, anger, jealousy, or revenge.
An enraged lover or spouse who is acting under extreme emotional circumstances is capable of anything. There may be an attempt to destroy the victim by depersonalization. I.e. Sexual assault, over-kill, facial destruction, etc.
It is important to note that the motivation
in an interpersonal violence oriented dispute may be obscured by what was done to the body of the victim, or how the crime scene was staged or changed. Originally, what appeared to be a rape-murder, the work of a sexual psychopath, is oftentimes based on inter-personal violence.
When an offender displays behavior within the crime scene and engages in activities which go beyond those necessary to accomplish the act he is revealing his signature. These are significant personality identifiers and occur when an offender repeatedly engages in a specific order of sexual activities, uses a specific type of binding, and/or inflicts similar type injuries, displays the body for shock value, tortures and mutilates his victims, and engages in some form of ritualistic behavior.
And upload it to a photo hosting site and copy the URL here?
I never really cared for this Buice character but I will have to take my hat off to him and thank him for using COMMON SENSE.
I am also even more saddened by what happened to Donna. Please GOD...bring forth closure to this case. Please!
I have never supported him and have heard horror stories. But, by god, he was right on with regards to this case.
The results he got were something I would have thought the GBI or LCSO would have gotten a long time ago.
Let's please do not let this murder go unsolved because the man that everybody hates did something right for a change.
everybody hates??? wow,i didn't know everybody hated him.
You little punk! Some people can be unsung heros and save thousands from being hurt and cannot find a trash dumps. Geesh.
All I know about this case is what the BHG has printed and what my investigation knowledge indicates. I am smart but I can't summons information from thin air. I need a little help from time to time with the facts.
I will make an email just for you if you like though.
I can not believe you are calling me worthless because of the map. How about you send me the address she was found and I will make the damn map myself.
I was only a child when this happened. I know the general area. Near vega and the rock road, correct? There is a little white church. She was found down that road past the church, right? How far past the church?
You should watch what you do. People do not like seekers of the truth. Some people are evil enough to go after those that threaten their livelihood and freedom.
Lock and load my friend.
Practical Homicide Investigation: Tactics, Procedures, and Forensic Techniques
3rd Edition
Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S., B.B.A., FBINA
Lieutenant Commander (Retired), New York City Police Department
Practical Homicide Investigation: Tactics, Procedures, and Forensic Techniques
3rd Edition
Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S., B.B.A., FBINA
Lieutenant Commander (Retired), New York City Police Department
The guilty are getting jumpy. Court must have recessed, Karma has some free time.
You are just mad because I like Obama.
It's also a good idea to hire an out of state lawyer to keep a file of everything with instructions upon death.
I don't care how drunk I was, I would remember a reference to a local hi-profile murder.
It has been twenty-six years...will she ever die?
Cops...and how they get lost on the straight and narrow path?
I would tell you, but you already know, so I'm going to have to let you commit suicide.
Why Crooked Cops Cannot be Bent Back Straight.
(To be continued: I gotta go watch Judge Judy. The only Judge I trust.)
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH- your discussions on this website are not going to solve the case or any other problems of the world.
Why are you still reading it??
My Uncle, the Murderer was sent to prison by the Pike County System. It looks like this one may be moving in our direction pretty soon though. It may need to to get settled.Jimmy and Becky want peace of mind. Milam could not care less.
This is just too funny!
Is this right or am I off?
uh..i dont feels so good. gimme another Bud.
Am I bothering you Walter?
Please close this case for our community!!!!!!!!
I agree, enough is enough. You are ridiculous, tolley. However, I surely don't expect you to do anything different, as only a lady with class would have the desire to act in a more conservative and tactful manner.
Good luck in solving the conflicts of the world, one ridiculous assumption at a time.
I'm sure he'll do like roy barnes and apologize and say "I learned my lesson, y'all, i'll do good next time" -Believe that if you want to, you'll be sorry!
Getting nervous....are you? If I were you I would go on and "fess up." You may get a better deal than the rest if you turn states evidence. Happens every day.
You done come up into my body and taken control!
I still love you but it's a little too close for comfort for me. Could we maintain at least a 2 foot boundary from now on?
I may have never known Donna, but I heard the stories growing up. After the BHG coverage and after seeing on paper what was done to this young lady, I knew I had to do something.
I read it and I thought, "What in the hell? Why has all this information not been shared after all of this time. There needs to be more done here. The person responsible for this should be paying for his deeds."
The more I found out, the angrier I became.
Someone, somewhere knows something that will close this case for good. You need to tell it before you meet the Lord our God. He will not be a happy camper.
People may come on this blog and bash me and the others, but I don't give a rats a#$ about those people's opinions. THIS IS ABOUT DONNA JOHNSON WHO WAS HOG-TIED, SEXUALLY ASSAULTED & MURDERED. If you don't like our theories talk like an adult and tell us why. Why could Jimmy not be the killer? Why did his father lie about seeing Donna at 2pm? Debate it instead of asking for us to be banned. Is there no room for debate? Is everything adding up for you as well?
I still love Waller but I think this case should be a top priority.
You said I was dyslectic as well. I think that is a learning disorder. Sotp it.
That being said, I am waiting to see if he takes the bull by the horns. There is so much probable cause on this case that it is dripping off. Anyone not pushing this case and begging everyone for help is suspect to me.
This woman was tortured and abused. If you aren't working your ass off to end this 26 year old stain on our community, GET OUT.
Any more questions that you do not want answered.
I will tell you if someone posts fake stuff. I will be right there beside you hollering honey. Now go take your meds.
I call BS.
Working on an old case (unsucessfully) does not undo the countless arrogant, embarrasing and unethical things that were done when he was in office.
And using this to further your agenda, tolley (whatever it may be) speaks volumes of your character (or the lack of)
Thats why they don't do it "your way" tolley.
But how can the public ever know?
Your Co-Author and her loaded dobermans.
LOGIUDICE v. THE STATE.
39491.
(251 Ga. 711)
(309 SE2d 355)
(1983)
PER CURIAM.
SMITH, Justice, dissenting.
I dissent from the court's dismissal of the grant of certiorari in this case. We granted certiorari to consider an important Fourth Amendment question: Whether the decision in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (88 SC 507, 19 LE2d 576) (1967), modified the "open fields" doctrine first announced in Hester v. United States, 265 U. S. 57 (44 SC 445, 68 LE 898) (1924), to require a warrant for the search of a secluded field when a reasonable expectation of privacy can be shown to exist in that field. I believe that it did and, accordingly, would reverse.
Appellant Thomas LoGiudice was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of OCGA 16-13-30 (Code Ann. 79A-811). Prior to trial, he filed a motion to suppress which was denied, following a hearing, by the trial court. Appellant was convicted after a bench trial. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. LoGiudice v. State, 164 Ga. App. 709 (297 SE2d 499) (1982).
In 1979 appellant purchased a 345-acre tract of land bordering on Georgia Highway 74 in Upson County, eight miles east of Thomaston. In the summer of 1980, Upson County Sheriff Merrill Greathouse began receiving reports of activity on appellant's land. Bully McDaniel, owner of a package store located on Highway 74 near the property, told the sheriff he had heard heavy earth-moving equipment operating late at night on the land. An unidentified source reported that in the fall of 1980 appellant hired a local contractor to dig a well on the land, directed him to lay water pipe from the well some 300 yards through heavy woods, and then discharged him, explaining that he would complete the job himself.
Based on this information Sheriff Greathouse 1 entered appellant's land sometime in the fall of 1980 to search for illegal marijuana plants. At the hearing on appellant's motion to suppress, the sheriff admitted climbing both barbed wire and welded fences when entering appellant's property on this occasion. He searched the area surrounding appellant's trailer but found no marijuana. Later that fall, Sheriff Greathouse conducted an aerial search of appellant's land. He was again unable to detect any illegal activity, but noticed that appellant was constructing a new fence around his land.
On July 6, 1981, acting on a tip from an unidentified source, the sheriff and several Georgia Bureau of Investigation agents again entered appellant's land without a warrant to search for marijuana. According to Sheriff Greathouse, the group entered by a back route by crossing a creek, climbing a barbed wire fence, and following an old logging road some 200 yards until they reached a clearing. There they discovered a half-acre field of marIjuana. The plants were surrounded by dense chicken-wire fencing material and were visible only from a distance of ten feet or less. A 35-foot path led from the field through dense undergrowth to a travel trailer owned by appellant and occupied by Tammy Harms. The officers conducted a "stake-out" of the field, remaining there for four and one-half to six hours. While there they observed Ms. Harms come onto the field and "fondle" the marijuana plants. No arrests were made at this time. The officers returned to the field on the morning of July 7, 1981 and observed appellant, Ms. Harms and Stephen Karlovich on the field. A search warrant was obtained, 2 and appellant, Harms and Karlovich were arrested. 3
Evidence introduced at the suppression hearing showed that the front entrance to LoGiudice's land was guarded by two locked, welded iron gates and posted with "no trespassing" signs; that the marijuana field was not visible from adjoining property or any public road, and was located 300 feet from appellant's nearest boundary line; that Sheriff Greathouse, while disclaiming prior knowledge of any "no trespassing" signs, was fully aware that he had climbed a fence or fences and entered appellant's land without his permission. 4
The Court of Appeals, citing Giddens v. State, 156 Ga. App. 258 (274 SE2d 595) (1980), affirmed the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress. In so doing, the court relied on the "open fields" doctrine of Hester v. United States, supra. In Hester, federal revenue agents with prior information that Hester was trafficking in illegal moonshine whiskey hid near Hester's residence and observed him come out of the house and hand one Henderson a bottle of moonshine. The agents sounded an alarm. Hester grabbed a gallon jug from a nearby automobile, and he and Henderson fled on foot across a field, with the officers in pursuit. In their haste to escape the two suspects dropped the containers, which broke and were later determined to have contained illegal moonshine. On appeal of the trial court's refusal to suppress the agents' testimony concerning what had transpired in the field, the Supreme Court rejected Hester's Fourth Amendment claim. In a short opinion, Justice Holmes wrote for a unanimous Court that "the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their 'persons, houses, papers and effects,' is not extended to the open fields. The distinction between the latter and the house is as old as the common law." 5
In the sixty years since the decision in Hester, courts have, based on the above language, fashioned an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement known as the "open fields" doctrine. Simply stated, that doctrine holds that the Constitution's protection of "persons, houses, papers, and effects" does not extend to activities conducted in any area beyond the curtilage of a home.
Now if you and the people in your head don't like this, you're welcome to go puke. Or call Ni wun wun and have Bubba send out the folks with the straight jacket again. I will personally call the democrats for you and have your disability check re-routed to the asylum. Okay?
They would have just capped her in the head.
Speculation is suicide.
The house in this photo looks like something her ex-husband allegedly would have been a participant in back then.
If not, please put your copies of the Leroy "Encyclopedia" Brown
Detective series back in the box and go back to Southern Living.
All these wild suppositions make good copy but garner no results.
Move on folks, nothing else to see here at this train wreck.
BTW: Good articles, Walter.
Buice said he has heard more about the Donna Johnson case in recent weeks than at any time in recent memory.
Meanwhile, The Herald-Gazette series on the case has resulted in multiple leads. Agents Tom Davis and Cayce Ingalls of the GBI are known to have conducted interviews based on tips prompted by the newspaper’s reporting and as many as 10 more interviews are scheduled.
Comments are also part of the record.
Sound's to me like they struck a nerve.
I know who the first woman was he spent the night with after Donna's death.
I attended a party that they attended at Doug and now the late Maggie Smith's house when Doug lived off Chapman Road in the old Charles Dooley home.
I probably still have some of the newspapers articles from back then to refresh my memory on what the media published back then.
P.S.
How did you feel about the first, Vickie. I actually knew her also. She was a hoot. We had some good times working together as waitresses at different places. I know what she went through.
PROFESSIONAL COOPERATION:
Sheriff's Office employees will at all times cooperate with all lawful agencies and their representatives. We will fully assist them, according respect and consideration in all matters.
No innocent man should ever be found guilty, even if that unfortunately results in some guilty ones walking free. It isn't a perfect system, but I would much rather wait until there is proof beyond reasonable doubt as to who did it, before trying to convict someone. Oh wait, that is required anyway, isn't it?
They were dragging their feet on this case until it hit the news.
IT'S CALLED POLITICAL PRESSURE!
WE WANT FACTS! WE WANT THEM NOW! WTF IS GOING ON?
I don't even want Millam's office to try the case at this point.
Many people want justice, BUT many more want the judicial wheels to rotate ethically and legally.
It's the DA's job to prosecute, it's the sheriff's job to gather evidence....and as far as I know, you are neither sheriff nor DA. You're just a tax paying citizen whose wishes are certainly not as important as Donna's relatives.
Since you so habitually ask what are people afraid of, and indirectly imply some sort of guilt....let me ask you, "Me thinks tho doth protest too much" so what are YOU afraid of? That the REAL truth will finally come out?
You're turning what happened to Donna into a mockery, that's just sick.
Prev | Next
§ 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
How Current is This?
(a)
(1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to—
(A) prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(B) prevent the production of a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(C) prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).
(2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to—
(A) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(B) cause or induce any person to—
(i) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(ii) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding;
(iii) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(iv) be absent from an official proceeding to which that person has been summoned by legal process; or
(C) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).
(3) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is—
(A) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112;
(B) in the case of—
(i) an attempt to murder; or
(ii) the use or attempted use of physical force against any person;
imprisonment for not more than 30 years; and
(C) in the case of the threat of use of physical force against any person, imprisonment for not more than 20 years.
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to—
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
(2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
(3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or
(4) causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.
(e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.
(f) For the purposes of this section—
(1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and
(2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.
(g) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance—
(1) that the official proceeding before a judge, court, magistrate judge, grand jury, or government agency is before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a Federal grand jury, or a Federal Government agency; or
(2) that the judge is a judge of the United States or that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the Federal Government or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal Government or serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant.
(h) There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.
(i) A prosecution under this section or section 1503 may be brought in the district in which the official proceeding (whether or not pending or about to be instituted) was intended to be affected or in the district in which the conduct constituting the alleged offense occurred.
(j) If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
(k) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
[1] So in original.
Do not be afraid.
Who was doing constuction on the house?
The Bible says love is strong as death and jealousy is cruel as the grave.
Maybe someone close to Donna was affiliated with it.
Maybe it was unrelated completely.
I bet the cartel was none to pleased with all of the law enforcement presence in the area.
That doesn't bode well for chainsawing bails of weed for distribution.
Prohibition doesn't work, it creates violence and lots of money for those involved.
I keep reading all these arguments about whether or not there is enough evidence, but there are two things everybody seems to have missed.
This Richard Walter guy is a member of Vidocq. He's one of 82 inducted into this society- picked from a pool of the tens of thousands of investigators, profilers and forensic psychologists all over the world. This guy is no small potatoes. He's seen his share of complex murder cases- I dare-say he's seen ten times as many as Milam will ever see.
This guy has seen every detail of the case- every interview, every bit of evidence, every photo. If anybody knows when there's sufficient evidence to present to a Grand Jury, don't you think somebody like Walter would be qualified to make that call? Walter says he begged them to open the case to the Grand Jury. WHY does Milam continue to ignore the judgement of a world-renowned expert?
Also, everybody seems concerned with the possibility of an aquittal and double-jeopardy. If the Grand Jury finds there isn't sufficient evidence to go to trial, that's not the same as a "not-guilty" verdict- just means they have to gather some more evidence before they bring it to trial. What would be the harm in presenting it to the GJ to see what they say?
Is there any relevance with this?
So, did the case get tossed?
So with that said....I elect Sheila Tolley to start the petition. Im sure everyone will be glad to sign it. Lets get this case in court.
Now go find your pacifier and suck on that for a while. Cry baby.
Twenty six years is a slow damn wheel rotation, isn't it? How big is that wheel?
I don't believe I would have chosen that quote for this case. If Milam does not think in his own mind that he has sufficient evidence, fine. Then the Vidocq Society society came in and reviewed the same evidence. They designated a person who they HIGHLY SUSPECT in the case. If these two people are the same, any DA worth the air he breathes would be man enough to say, "The smart thing for me to do is present this before The Grand Jury so that I can have even more unbiased opinions." Why does anyone have a problem with this case going before The Grand Jury? That is the simple question that no person will answer. I will be glad to shut the HELL up if someone with a complete brain will answer that for me. I will even take the answer from one of the gutless Anonymous people if it makes sense.
You did it to yourslef.
The local-yocal DA won't take it to trial, because he wants a slam dunk. This isn't about him, or us, or anybody else. It's about justice for a woman who was brutally murdered and didn't deserve to have her life ended that way and a family who lived for 26 years with her killer walking free.
Would you want that to happen to your mama? Your daughter? Your sister? Your wife? Remember, a killer who gagged Donna, gouged her eyes out, ran over her, and stuck a pipe up her privates still walks free. Nobody is safe until the offender(s) is/are brought to trial.
WHY do you have a problem with that?
This woman was murdered 26 years ago. This family has waited 26 YEARS. What is the problem? Protect the people of Lamar/Pike counties.
Sh-- or get off the pot.
From what I read on here I would think most of the posters are from Pike County and thus we don't have any legal way to take this case to trial or before Grand Jury of Lamar County.
But I'd be glad to rally or protest to get the Grand Jury to start something on this case.
Not only is it not your business past "concerned citizen", but with your prior knowledge on the case, you could never serve on the jury.
Pacifier?
I guess we need to take the emotion out of it, huh?
On one hand, you've got three sherriffs,a guy from the GBI and an world-renowned expert from Vidocq who reviewed this case pro bono. I'm thinkin' he would know what constitutes sufficient evidence.
Without even reading the case file, there's been enough details printed in the paper to create a very compelling case.
Can I ask you one question: After 26 years do you think this case is ever going to get any easier? I mean, this guy isn't going to wear a neon sign that flashes, "It's me! I killed Donna Johnson."
The longer it goes, the more difficult it is to prosecute.
I'll leave judgement up to the professionals, as opposed to you folks that watch too much tv and think you know everything about how it is done.
OUT WITH MILLAM!
You are a hoot. Millam needs to go.
(1) Confidential sources.
The Act exempts law enforcement records the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of a confidential source, endanger the life or physical safety of any person or persons or disclose the existence of a confidential surveillance or investigation. O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(3).
(2) Records of pending investigations or prosecutions.
The Act exempts records relating to any pending investigation or prosecution. O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(4). The statute, however, specifically provides that "initial police arrest reports and initial incident reports" are public records and must be disclosed. O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(4). These reports may be redacted, however, to exclude information that would reveal a confidential source, endanger the life of any person, or disclose the existence of a confidential investigation. See Atlanta Journal and Constitution v. City of Brunswick, 265 Ga. 413, 457 S.E.2d 176 (1995). Investigative records may be withheld from disclosure pursuant to the exemption only if the investigation is ongoing. McBride v. Wetherington, 199 Ga. App. 7, 403 S.E.2d 873 (1991). The Georgia Supreme Court has held that once the investigating agency has completed its report, the investigation is complete and the report must be publicly disclosed, even if the report is undergoing review by other authorities. See Harris v. Cox Enter. Inc., 256 Ga. 299, 348 S.E.2d 448 (1986). The exemption itself states that "an investigation or prosecution shall no longer be deemed to be pending when all direct litigation involving said investigation and prosecution has become final or otherwise terminated." O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(4). To justify non-disclosure under the pending-prosecution exemption, a law enforcement proceeding must be "an imminent adjudicatory proceeding of finite duration." Parker v. Lee, 259 Ga. 195, 378 S.E.2d 677 (1989). Habeas corpus is not such a proceeding. Napper v. Georgia Television Co., 257 Ga. 156, 365 S.E.2d 640 (1987) (affirming disclosure of Wayne Williams investigatory files). See also Dye v. Wallace, 274 Ga. 257, 553 S.E.2d 561 (2001) (Rape Confidentiality statute held unconstitutional and cannot therefore serve to exempt lawfully obtained information from disclosure); Parker v. Lee, 259 Ga. 195, 378 S.E.2d 677 (1989) (fact that death row inmate could yet be tried for alleged rape, for which an indictment against him is outstanding, does not justify non-release of records).