Page 1 of 18 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 800

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

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    20,810

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

    Please continue here.

    Previous Threads:

    Thread #1
    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144363"]Thread #2[/ame]
    Thread #3
    Thread #4
    Thread #5
    Thread #6
    Thread #7

    Thread #8
    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147658"]Thread #9[/ame]

    Thread #10

    Thread #11
    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7006951#post7006951"]Media Thread[/ame]



    Lauren Teresa Giddings

    April 18, 1984 -- June 26, 2011
    Rest in Peace
    HANNAH GRAHAM TIP LINE (434) 295-3851
    EMAIL: CPDtips@charlottesville.org

    __________________________________

    Muddy water in the street
    ; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"



  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to bessie For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    20,810

    The Indictment

    The Indictment charging Stephen Mark McDaniel with the vicious murder and decapitation of Lauren Teresa Giddings.
    HANNAH GRAHAM TIP LINE (434) 295-3851
    EMAIL: CPDtips@charlottesville.org

    __________________________________

    Muddy water in the street
    ; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"



  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to bessie For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    20,810
    From the previous thread...

    Quote Originally Posted by MaconMom View Post
    http://macon.13wmaz.com/m/news/news/...ictment-relief

    Interview with Lauren's cousin just posted.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalterFGeorge View Post
    http://www.macon.com/2011/11/15/1786...-giddings.html

    Article is back up. 1 count of murder 30 counts of sexual exploitation of children
    HANNAH GRAHAM TIP LINE (434) 295-3851
    EMAIL: CPDtips@charlottesville.org

    __________________________________

    Muddy water in the street
    ; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"



  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to bessie For This Useful Post:


  7. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    27

    Unhappy

    Quote Originally Posted by bessie View Post
    From the previous thread...
    Warning! This explicit indictment regarding sexual exploitation of children under 18, prepubescent children and infants With adult males is graphic and extremely disturbing. I feel sick. Read at your own risk.

  8. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Idreamofgenie For This Useful Post:


  9. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    tomkat: I still don't know how to bring over a post from the previous thread...but before it closed, you had just posted:

    "So the Indictment repetitiously stated they do not know how or with what but that they think McD did commit her murder...............is that all you need for an indictment????? Does that mean they know NOTHING............STILL???

    I just wanted to say, no, I don't think it necessarily means LE/prosecution has no evidence toward how or with what Lauren was killed -- though it could mean that, and that they are still hoping results toward that will come in. What I think it does mean is that any evidence toward that they might have was not part of what they decided to present to the GJ. Prosecution must have felt pretty secure that an indictment would come in without it.

    Remember, too -- an indictment is really just a way of formalizing the charges and starting the trial process.
    Last edited by Backwoods; 11-15-2011 at 07:54 PM. Reason: add comment

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Backwoods For This Useful Post:


  11. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    tomkat: I still don't know how to bring over a post from the previous thread...but before it closed, you had just posted:

    "So the Indictment repetitiously stated they do not know how or with what but that they think McD did commit her murder...............is that all you need for an indictment????? Does that mean they know NOTHING............STILL???

    I just wanted to say, no, I don't think it necessarily means LE/prosecution has no evidence toward how or with what Lauren was killed -- though it could mean that, and that they are<B still hoping results toward that will come inB/>. What I think it does mean is that any evidence toward that they might have was not part of what they decided to present to the GJ. <BProsecution must have felt pretty secure that an indictment would come in without it.B/>

    Remember, too -- an<B indictment is really just a way of formalizing the charges and starting the trial processB/>.
    So we really just don't know, still....but it seems rediculously easy to indict I guess is my point. They have presented nothing more than the fact that Lauren was murdered and dismembered. I just was shocked that there wasn't more and that one only has to be accused of a crime without any real evidence presented, to be indicted for murder. I know what we all think but I'm just, well I guess I was hoping for more from the prosecution.


    But your last statement kind of put it more into perspective for me.

    I just feel for his family and of course we all feel for Lauren's family. I pray they search the grandfathers land soon. I guess that will possibly be part of the prosections efforts?

    Thanks BW

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to tomkat For This Useful Post:


  13. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by Idreamofgenie View Post
    Warning! This explicit indictment regarding sexual exploitation of children under 18, prepubescent children and infants With adult males is graphic and extremely disturbing. I feel sick. Read at your own risk.
    Where is the link to this indictment...?

    ETA: never mind... it's here:

    http://download.gannett.edgesuite.ne...indictment.pdf
    Last edited by Backwoods; 11-15-2011 at 08:23 PM. Reason: add link

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Backwoods For This Useful Post:


  15. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    559
    Ya'll please help me get my mind wrapped around the child exploitation indictment wording. Does "prepubescent" mean younger than a teenager? They all sickened me. What does the one worded "infant child" mean? A baby? There is a special place in hell for this man just based on this indictment alone, in my opinion.

    Also, glad to see ya'll returning to Lauren's thread.

  16. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to pearl For This Useful Post:


  17. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    QUOTE:

    McDaniel attorney now considering whether to seek bond



    As of Tuesday afternoon, Stephen McDaniel’s attorney had not determined whether he will continue to seek bond for McDaniel. ...



    read more at: http://www.macon.com/2011/11/15/1787...nsidering.html

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Backwoods For This Useful Post:


  19. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    2,884
    I am so terribly saddened by this case. She was beautiful and had such a promising future in store for her. She was kind to a sociopath and he killed her. I sincerely wish for Lauren's family that they could find the rest of her remains.
    This is where Sky belongs!! Proud member of the Sky Crew & proud supporter of Solomon's quest to find his precious son!

    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=195327

  20. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to cocomod For This Useful Post:


  21. #11
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,975
    That indictment makes me sick.

    Infant child, and prepubescent males and females?

    I want to know if there is a typographical error on the date.

    The dates all range between July 24 and July 29th 2010. ??????

    Also, some of the .jpeg's are numbered. Does that mean they were possibly taken by SM?

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Wondergirl For This Useful Post:


  23. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    That indictment makes me sick.

    Infant child, and prepubescent males and females?

    I want to know if there is a typographical error on the date.

    The dates all range between July 24 and July 29th 2010. ??????

    Also, some of the .jpeg's are numbered. Does that mean they were possibly taken by SM?
    The dating sure sounds like someone goofed to me... but not sure... possibly some way of dating when they were downloaded (or whatever)? Good catch.

    ETA: Well, no, the more I think about it, it MUST reflect some kind of date stamp, time of acquisition/download, mustn't it...? Because in July 2011, SM was in jail and didn't have in his possession...

    Again, great catch.
    Last edited by Backwoods; 11-15-2011 at 10:47 PM. Reason: add more; and more

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Backwoods For This Useful Post:


  25. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Macon, GA
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    Also, some of the .jpeg's are numbered. Does that mean they were possibly taken by SM?
    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.

  26. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MaconMom For This Useful Post:


  27. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by MaconMom View Post
    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.
    Snipped and bolding added -

    I see thirty separate images in the porn 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.

  28. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to NotALawyer For This Useful Post:


  29. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by MaconMom View Post
    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.
    bbm: I believe if this was being claimed there would be further (meaning differently named) charges, though not sure

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to Backwoods For This Useful Post:


  31. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Macon, GA
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    bbm: I believe if this was being claimed there would be further (meaning differently named) charges, though not sure
    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/systemwi...age=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.

  32. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MaconMom For This Useful Post:


  33. #17
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,975
    I wonder if the lawyers would be so kind as to help clarify this statement.

    Just because these things are unknown to the Grand Jury, it is still possible that LE knows the answers, correct?

    "the exact date of the offense being unknown to the Grand Jury...by inflicting bodily harm in a manner unknown to the Grand Jury at this time, including decapitation of said victim with instrument or instruments unknown to the Grand Jury..."

    http://www.13wmaz.com/news/article/1...iddings-Murder

  34. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Wondergirl For This Useful Post:


  35. #18
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    8,954
    A little off-topic-sorry....With all this child pornography 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.

  36. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Starry Night For This Useful Post:


  37. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Macon, GA
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by Starry Night View Post
    A little off-topic-sorry....With all this child pornography 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.
    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.

  38. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to MaconMom For This Useful Post:


  39. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    central Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,807
    FWIW -- seems like I remember, from when the child pornography 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.

  40. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Backwoods For This Useful Post:


  41. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods View Post
    FWIW -- seems like I remember, from when the child pornography 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.
    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 pornography. 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 pornography -- 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 pornography 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?

  42. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Hyrax For This Useful Post:


  43. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Hyrax View Post
    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 pornography. 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 pornography -- 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 pornography 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?
    Just to possess it is a crime, intentional possession

  44. The Following User Says Thank You to tomkat For This Useful Post:


  45. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    20,810
    respectfully snipped
    Quote Originally Posted by Hyrax View Post
    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 pornography 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 things we mods do for you guys. Just kidding. I was curious, myself, so I did compare the two, and yes, the original seven appear to be included in the indictment. Since the warrant doesn't include file names, I can't be sure, but the descriptions do match seven named in the indictment.

    FWIW, I'm reserving judgment on the CP charges. It's no secret that I'm 99% convinced of McD's guilt in Lauren's murder. And if he could murder and dismember a neighbor and fellow student who was kind to him, he's capable of anything. But I'm skeptical about how those files came to be on his computer and/or flash drive. If they were embedded in files he downloaded, and he transferred those files to his flash drive, wouldn't the embedded files go along?
    HANNAH GRAHAM TIP LINE (434) 295-3851
    EMAIL: CPDtips@charlottesville.org

    __________________________________

    Muddy water in the street
    ; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"



  46. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to bessie For This Useful Post:


  47. #24
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,975
    I can see the picture in my head too, that's group think?!

    But, didn't one of the Macon locals on WS take some pics and post, lol?!
    Macon Police: Video of Giddings at Zaxby's is Last Known Sighting

    NewsCentral Producer


    Story Created: Jul 10, 2011 at 6:02 PM EST
    Story Updated: Jul 10, 2011 at 9:31 PM EST

    Macon Police have confirmed that a video obtained of Lauren Giddings at Zaxby's in Downtown Macon from Saturday June 25th is the last known sighting of her since her disappearance.

    The video has not been released to the public.

    Our media partner The Telegraph reports that Giddings was caught on a surveillance camera going through at a Zaxby's at 6:30 p.m. Saturday evening.

    Macon Police confirm that a food bag and receipt were found inside her apartment.

    http://www.newscentralga.com/news/lo...125304748.html



    .

  48. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Wondergirl For This Useful Post:


  49. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    20,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Starry Night View Post
    A little off-topic-sorry....With all this child pornography 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.
    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
    HANNAH GRAHAM TIP LINE (434) 295-3851
    EMAIL: CPDtips@charlottesville.org

    __________________________________

    Muddy water in the street
    ; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"



  50. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to bessie For This Useful Post:


Page 1 of 18 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 - #14
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 756
    Last Post: 09-19-2013, 05:45 PM
  2. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #13
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 768
    Last Post: 06-24-2012, 04:13 AM
  3. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #5
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 686
    Last Post: 08-04-2011, 04:49 PM
  4. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #4
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 675
    Last Post: 08-01-2011, 02:44 PM
  5. GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #3
    By bessie in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 540
    Last Post: 07-27-2011, 12:43 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •