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

MaconMom said:

BBM... that was a thought I had earlier when they announced the CP charges went from 7 to 30. My understanding is that it would still be sexual exploitation if he took the images. So, maybe there are not 30 images and some of the counts are that he was involved in creating the images? I don't know. Just throwing it out there.

Click to expand...

Snipped and bolding added -

I see thirty separate images in the *advertiser censored* indictment. I think there would be more charges if they suspected he had actually taken some of them (more than a single possession charge for each one). Someone else please correct me, if you are seeing or concluding something different.

MaconMom said:

BBM... that was a thought I had earlier when they announced the CP charges went from 7 to 30. My understanding is that it would still be sexual exploitation if he took the images. So, maybe there are not 30 images and some of the counts are that he was involved in creating the images? I don't know. Just throwing it out there.

I cannot read the indictment. Crimes against children, particularly infants, haunt me. I can't stop thinking about it. If possible can we please not post graphic details about the images here? The whole thing just makes me sick.

Click to expand...

bbm: I believe if this was being claimed there would be further (meaning differently named) charges, though not sure

Backwoods said:

bbm: I believe if this was being claimed there would be further (meaning differently named) charges, though not sure

Click to expand...

I thought so too, so I looked it up earlier and found this:

‘Sexual exploitation’ means conduct by any person who allows, permits, encourages, or requires a child to engage in
prostitution or sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual or print medium depicting such conduct.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.pdf#Page=2&view=Fit

But, since NotALawyer said there were 30 individual images, then it doesn't sound to me like he personally took the images.

A little off-topic-sorry....With all this child *advertiser censored* around that we hear about...WHO are the children??? Where are the photos taken? Sorry, but that has always bewildered me. I mean, as I sit here and type-is there some poor child out there being abused and no-one knows about it-someone's family members doing this to them undercover? Where does the material originate? Maybe there needs to be some sort of face-recognition implementation of children? I am just rambling but that has always intrigued me. If/when LE sees this do they go about trying to find the children in the photos? Is there a specialized group of LE detectives to try and find the children? I mean, there is just so darned much of it. Maybe it is a secret force of LE that does that. I hope so cause this stuff kills me.

Starry Night said:

A little off-topic-sorry....With all this child *advertiser censored* around that we hear about...WHO are the children??? Where are the photos taken? Sorry, but that has always bewildered me. I mean, as I sit here and type-is there some poor child out there being abused and no-one knows about it-someone's family members doing this to them undercover? Where does the material originate? Maybe there needs to be some sort of face-recognition implementation of children? I am just rambling but that has always intrigued me. If/when LE sees this do they go about trying to find the children in the photos? Is there a specialized group of LE detectives to try and find the children? I mean, there is just so darned much of it. Maybe it is a secret force of LE that does that. I hope so cause this stuff kills me.

Click to expand...

I wonder the same thing. I always had the impression that it's just all circulated around on the internet in rings of people who like this kind of junk. It could be that these images are not taken in the US also. In places like India, human trafficking is more common unfortunately.

I would hope there is some section of the FBI or other law enforcement agency that tracks these kids down. I do remember once seeing an image of a girl on the news (it just showed her face) asking viewers to help identify her as she was in danger. They did find her, and if I remember right it was her neighbor or some acquaintance of the mom who was abusing her.

That is the one thing I try to think about - now they have these images and can hopefully find these children.

Oh no! I clicked on the news to distract myself and I see an article about a store in Greely Co. selling 'crotchless panties' at a store for 'kids n teen'
Mods if I messed this up please delete....should I post a link? (Article is on Huffington Post website-can I say that?) Delete away .....I am horrified. Haven't been to Beloved Websleuths in months cause I can't take it after a while and now tonight.....naturally.....sorry everyone.

MaconMom I remember that case! That was so sad. They actually rescued this poor girl and found the perp. I am sure privacy issues come into play of course.

FWIW -- seems like I remember, from when the child *advertiser censored* first surfaced in this case, that one thing that can be confusing is that the names/labels for different aspects of producing/possessing/etc. such differ somewhat from state to state...? We might need to find definitions specific for Georgia (since at the moment we are talking charges under the state statute). But the indictment wording does say "possess and control" the images in describing the offense, so I do think that, at the moment anyway, we are talking just about possession.

Thanks for breaking that down for us Backwoods of the Cool Head........I am too faint-hearted to stay here long. But you all remain in my prayers. I have 2 daughters.......gotta go.....

Starry Night said:

A little off-topic-sorry....With all this child *advertiser censored* around that we hear about...WHO are the children??? Where are the photos taken? Sorry, but that has always bewildered me. I mean, as I sit here and type-is there some poor child out there being abused and no-one knows about it-someone's family members doing this to them undercover? Where does the material originate? Maybe there needs to be some sort of face-recognition implementation of children? I am just rambling but that has always intrigued me. If/when LE sees this do they go about trying to find the children in the photos? Is there a specialized group of LE detectives to try and find the children? I mean, there is just so darned much of it. Maybe it is a secret force of LE that does that. I hope so cause this stuff kills me.

Click to expand...

This crime is far more prevalent than the average citizen realizes. If you look over the Crimes Against Children forum under Current Events you'll find many, many instances of a perp arrested for photographing and/or selling sexually exploitative images of children. And the worst part is the perps are very often the little victims' parents and guardians.

This link is to the FBI's "Innocent Images" page. Lots of good info there.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/innocent

End of OT

Looks like the macon.com coverage from earlier today has been updated/combined, and includes some new info on Lauren's family's reactions, also a few other new things.

QUOTE:
McDaniel indicted on murder, sexual exploitation of children charges
Attorney: Accused killer of Lauren Giddings in ‘good spirits’


... Karen Giddings was at church, working with a youth group, Monday night when her husband got a call from Winters saying that McDaniel’s case would be presented to grand jurors Tuesday.

Her husband, Billy, tried to call her.

But she didn’t find out about the court proceedings until Tuesday morning, Karen Giddings said.

“It’s somewhat of an emotional whirlwind. ... All kinds of emotions have run through me,” she said Tuesday afternoon. ...


more at: http://www.macon.com/2011/11/16/1787449/mcdaniel-indicted-on-murder-sexual.html

Backwoods said:

you're welcome --

and bbm: Well, not all of us think that. I am still not convinced.

Because I'm not, this is maybe going to be a delicate time for me to continue posting here, though I want to. So, I just want to say something upfront here -- and this is to everyone -- I am not here to argue SM's innocence -- I don't feel I am privy to enough of the evidence to make me (and I'm just talking me here, not anyone else) feel justified to argue that any more than I feel I am privy to enough to argue his guilt. I am just still looking at all the angles I can find, indictment or no.

I want to know who killed Lauren, and under what circumstances. I want to follow this case as closely as I can, and WebSleuths is the best place I know of to do that, and I will continue trying to contribute here as best as I conscientiously can.

Since I also am not here for the purpose of offending anyone, though, I have taken the stance of no longer sharing all my thoughts that might be viewed as on the innocence side of the fence (though I will speak out if something seems crucial). I figure that, in most of those instances, for the most part, things I say or don't say here are going to make little to no difference in the real-world outcome -- so to risk causing a firestorm does me nor anyone else any good.

There are plenty of posters here whose intelligence, insight, and presentation I really respect, never mind that we don't hold the same position on this case right now.

back to your post, tomkat: The GJ may have heard a little more than the indictment directly reflects -- we just don't know. Don't know that I think it is "ridiculously easy" to indict, but sometimes it isn't all that hard, for sure. To me, that is why all the rules of evidence and many other legal factors that will come with the trial process are so very important in trying to deliver justice.

Like pretty much everybody else, I expect, I would like to know more at this point, but guess it just isn't the time.

Click to expand...

Yes I just want the real perp caught and convicted as I think all do but more tend toward McD's guilt than innocence, as i see it, but I do lean more towards his guilt than innocence now than in the beginning. HOWEVER, I dont want anyone hung that just appears to be guilty. I still find myself thinking how impossible it all seems for McD to have performed that. It's clear..........SOMEONE killed her. But sometimes I dont' see how he did or if I even think he did it. But it's sickening to know how easy it seems to be to indict or hold someone before the evidence is even in. I guess my frustration was vented earlier in regards to the indictment report, or whatever it's called. In my mind that's all the jurors were presented was what was on that paper. Someone killed her but that indictment report wouldn't have sold me on MCD's guilt to head to trial.

I'd also hate to think we had the guilty party still on the streets !! And the wrong guy behind bars.

I'm not debating either guilt or innocence just the possibility of either/or

JMO

WIth the sites McD visited, I"m sure his computer could have picked up much *advertiser censored* and pedophilia just in moving from one site to another. GOtta be careful what you type in your search bar too and which sites you frequent . I dont' go to shady or questionable sites or underground stuff. I'll hang on to my naivete'. Sickening stuff out there.
Just sayin'.

The timeline script at the following link was on 13WMAZ during some of their indictment-day coverage, and featured video and sound clips. Right now, I'm not getting any video at the link, just the print, but maybe they will post the video/sound portion later...

McDaniel Investigation Timeline

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/article/152149/153/McDaniel-Investigation-Timeline

ETA: OK, well ...here's the video ... at another link ... but it doesn't have any voice-over of the narration, just some parts of sound from the original clips

http://www.13wmaz.com/video/1277429641001/1/Stephen-McDaniel-Investivation-Timeline

tomkat said:

WIth the sites McD visited, I"m sure his computer could have picked up much *advertiser censored* and pedophilia just in moving from one site to another. GOtta be careful what you type in your search bar too and which sites you frequent . I dont' go to shady or questionable sites or underground stuff. I'll hang on to my naivete'. Sickening stuff out there.
Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

Agree, but some of it was on his flash drive.. He didn't just pick that up accidentally surfing around.

prepubescent
n
a person who has not yet reached puberty
adj
not yet having reached puberty

So I imagine for girls we are talking about maybe 12 or 13 and for boys a little older . Seeing the word infant used in this indictment almost made me cry. S McD was and still is an absolute monster, hidden behind a mask .

Backwoods said:

FWIW -- seems like I remember, from when the child *advertiser censored* first surfaced in this case, that one thing that can be confusing is that the names/labels for different aspects of producing/possessing/etc. such differ somewhat from state to state...? We might need to find definitions specific for Georgia (since at the moment we are talking charges under the state statute). But the indictment wording does say "possess and control" the images in describing the offense, so I do think that, at the moment anyway, we are talking just about possession.

Click to expand...

To give a quick run through of the Georgia statutory scheme...

Ga Code § 16-12-100 is the statute McD has been charged under. There are also §§ 16-12-100.1, 100.2, and 100.3, but those involve different crimes involving sexual exploitation of minors and are not implicated in McDaniel's case.

The statute that is involved here, § 16-12-100, is titled "sexual exploitation of children", and the prohibited acts are all various components of the production/distribution/use of child *advertiser censored*. Part (a) is definitions, and (b) describes prohibited acts. (And (c) gives a safe harbor for those who accidentally comes into possession of exploitative images.) Part (b) prohibits eight acts.

(b)(8) states "It is unlawful for any person knowingly to possess or control any material which depicts a minor or a portion of a minor's body engaged in any sexually explicit conduct." This is what the indictment is charging him with.

The images the investigators found probably had time stamps indicating they were downloaded or modified from July 24 to July 29 of 2010. That gives them a date for when McDaniel must have knowingly possessed and controlled the prohibited images -- he obviously kept them for some time after, but they can prove that on those dates he had the images and knew he had the images.

So McDaniel is not charged with sharing, making, trading, or transporting child *advertiser censored* -- just for knowingly having thirty of the images in his possession.

I do wonder if the 7 images found on a flash drive that were mentioned in the original charges are part of the 30 in the indictment, but I really don't have the stomach to go and cross-reference between them. It is also curious that all the images have timestamps within a five day period. Explanations that come to mind: (1) McDaniel only downloaded child *advertiser censored* this one time, then decided never to again? Then why did he keep it? Or (2) Did McDaniel usually cover his tracks better, but for whatever reason, during this five day period failed to adequately delete/overwrite the images from his computer, and a forensic recovery by the investigators was able to pull up the images? Or maybe they were all on the flashdrive?

The dates on the images strike me as odd. I wonder what he was doing on those days. I looked at his forum posts for those days but it all seemed irrelevant.

Does anyone remember when it was that he was burglarizing the other apartments? I can't remember the dates/time periods and was wondering if it was the same time frame. I doubt it though.

I assume the time stamps being referred to are the dates the images were saved to the flash drive or hard drive by SMD, and not the dates they were actually created..

Buford cancels McDaniel's bond hearing:

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/article/152275/175/Buford-Cancels-McDaniels-Bond-Hearing