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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Starry Night said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ironic topic in regards to this story! I saw that ad, so kind of confusing that stores can sell that stuff in kids stores and yet punish someone for child *advertiser censored*!! I think it ALLL needs to STOP! Maybe why there is so much of it going on. TV, NEWS, STORES all sell it, schools promote condoms.......am i confused here? And yet we look on the pedophile sites and there are more and more in our area. Sorry, just ranting
 
Hyrax said:
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?
Click to expand...

Just to possess it is a crime, intentional possession
 
MaconMom said:
Agree, but some of it was on his flash drive.. He didn't just pick that up accidentally surfing around.
Click to expand...

According to the indictment, the images were taken from the flash drive found in SM's apartment.

If SM had at least these 30 images on his flash drive, from July 2010, when he was arrested in 2011, and each charge represents a wide variety of varying images, then there is a reason for that, IMO. He kept that flash drive around a while. Why?

We aren't even talking about SM's computer here. That is important, I think. May be good, may be bad.

But, if the flash drive was the one assigned to him from the lawschool, and perhaps had a password installed on it by/through the lawschool, that would narrow things down considerably for ownership. Not to mention, if the only place SM used the flashdrive was in his apartment, his family's house etc.

JMO, pure speculation, FWIW
 
MaconMom said:
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..
Click to expand...

When he burglarized the apartments, it was late December/early January (when people were gone for Christmas break) I believe.
 
Wondergirl said:
If SM had at least these 30 images on his flash drive, from July 2010, when he was arrested in 2011, and each charge represents a wide variety of varying images, then there is a reason for that, IMO. He kept that flash drive around a while. Why?
Click to expand...

So what is the reason, do you think? Or are you just saying there has to be one? I have no idea. I wondered why there was such a variety as well (as in, varying ages and both genders). And I still wonder how the CP ties in with the murder. If he's a pedophile, why kill a grown woman? Maybe there's no link there and he's just all around a sick individual. Maybe both things are just a way to have power over people which he seemed to like.
 
November 15, 2011

Grand Jury Indicts Stephen McDaniel in Giddings Slaying
"It's kind of like a weird feeling," said Kaitlyn Wheeler, Giddings' sister. "We're relieved, but there's nothing good coming from this situation. It's becoming more real. Every time we get a step closer, the reality hits home that she's gone."

Grand Jury Indicts Stephen McDaniel for Lauren Giddings' Murder
Bibb County District Attorney Greg Winters says he has not decided if he will ask for the death penalty when the case goes to trial.
(Comprehensive article with video)

The Indictment charging Stephen Mark McDaniel with the murder and decapitation of Lauren Teresa Giddings.

The Indictment charging Stephen Mark McDaniel with thirty counts of sexual exploitation of children. (Contains disturbing descriptions of photographic images.)

McDaniel's 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.
 
November 16, 2011

Buford Cancels Bond Hearing
Defense Attorney Floyd Buford says he canceled Stephen McDaniel's bond hearing scheduled for Thursday...

Buford says he wants time to review the indictment and evaluate it before taking the next step.
 
I am trying to decipher the specific section of the Georgia Code that SM has been charged under for these 30 counts of Child Exploitation.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but, 16-12-100 (b) of the code (all 30 charges reference this section), seems to include the 8 sub-sections, to me.

I could be completely incorrect here. How do we know which sub-section the charges are referring to?

16-12-100 Section starts on Page 123:

(b)(1) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to employ, use, persuade, induce, entice, or coerce any minor to engage in or assist any other person to engage in any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual medium depicting such conduct.

(2) It is unlawful for any parent, legal guardian, or person having custody or control of a minor knowingly to permit the minor to engage in or to assist any other person to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual medium depicting such conduct.

(3) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to employ, use, persuade, induce, entice, or coerce any minor to engage in or assist any other person to engage in any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of any performance.

(4) It is unlawful for any parent, legal guardian, or person having custody or control of a minor knowingly to permit the minor to engage in or to assist any other person to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of any performance.

(5) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to create, reproduce, publish, promote, sell, distribute, give, exhibit, or possess with intent to sell or distribute any visual medium which depicts a minor or a portion of a minor's body engaged in any sexually explicit
conduct.

(6) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to advertise, sell, purchase, barter, or exchange any medium which provides information as to where any visual medium which depicts a minor or a portion of a minor's body engaged in any sexually explicit conduct can be found or purchased.

(7) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to bring or cause to be brought into this state any material which depicts a minor or a portion of a minor's body engaged in any sexually explicit conduct.

(8) 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.

National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse National District Attorneys Association

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Sexual Offenses Against Children_6-2010.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Wondergirl said:
I am trying to decipher the specific section of the Georgia Code that SM has been charged under for these 30 counts of Child Exploitation.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but, 16-12-100 (b) of the code (all 30 charges reference this section), seems to include the 8 sub-sections, to me.

I could be completely incorrect here. How do we know which sub-section the charges are referring to?

16-12-100 Section starts on Page 123:
Click to expand...
Good observation, Wondergirl. The warrant specified 16-12-100(b)(8) "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."
link to warrant: http://media.macon.com/static/graphics/0824McDanielWarrants.jpg
The indictment is broader. Could be they are still investigating and want to leave the door open for any violations of the other seven prohibitions that might come up in the future. I'm not certain. That's simply my best guess.
 
respectfully snipped
Hyrax said:
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?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Sandstorm said:
Backwoods,
I appreciate your honesty and respect your opinion in the following post # 14:

"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."
(snipped)

However, on the other hand, I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that McD is the perpetrator.
It is very difficult for me to wrap my mind around ANYONE committing this crime, but having read some of the suggested reading on Websleuth, I think I have a better idea of how a sociopath thinks.

Most enlightening: The Sociopath Next Door by Dr. Martha Stout.
I recommend this book if you have not read it yet.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Sandstorm.
 
MaconMom said:
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..
Click to expand...

Looks like you looked down some trails I've been thinking of, too.

I had trouble going far with the posts, as I didn't copy them and so many of them have disappeared, it seems.

That reminds me: At one time, some of us were compiling posts and searching for any pattern in the dates/types of posting (one theory was a type of cycling mental illness might be involved). Is anyone still posting that actually completed that project and, if so, did you find any patterns that stood out...?

I've certainly thought, too, that there is a possibility that SM took the images off someone else's computer, or even took the flash drive itself (not too far-fetched that there likely would have been lots of those school-issued drives on lanyards around...and not sure if it can be proven which belonged to who originally...? and remember, there were hints that LE had evidence of his taking stuff besides the infamous two condoms). Seems (from postings) that SM has fancied himself in the role of a vigilante at times -- possible he would take them for some sort of purpose along those lines, I've thought.

I was going with the same thinking you did about the timestamps.
 
SouthernKate said:
When he burglarized the apartments, it was late December/early January (when people were gone for Christmas break) I believe.
Click to expand...

... though, of course, there has been theorizing that he may have been creeping about at other times, as well
 
MaconMom said:
So what is the reason, do you think? Or are you just saying there has to be one? I have no idea. I wondered why there was such a variety as well (as in, varying ages and both genders). And I still wonder how the CP ties in with the murder. If he's a pedophile, why kill a grown woman? Maybe there's no link there and he's just all around a sick individual. Maybe both things are just a way to have power over people which he seemed to like.
Click to expand...

bbm#1: I think that strikes a lot of folks odd at first glance ... but we have discussed before how some serial killers (for example) have favored victims from one category but "sampled" others...:( so, I don't know...

bbm#2: IMO, it's unlikely prosecution will be able to tie the CP to the murder -- barring something like a "Lauren discovered it" scenario (which I think is unlikely though not impossible). I really don't think it will get in the door at the murder trial. And I know that if I was a defense attorney, I would be scrutinizing all the media reports, etc., that tend to "link" the CP charges with the murder in people's minds, in looking toward any motions toward change of venue or "imported jury" or whatever that I wanted to introduce.

That said, though, if SM is the killer and if he had the CP for his own, uhm, use, your last statement, IMO, is probably a good explanation of how the two fit together.
 
I've got that project almost complete, Backwoods. I went through many of the posts just the other night. I can't say that I've discerned a particular pattern is his demeanor. His mood changes depending on the topic of discussion. Chronology doesn't seem to be a factor, however.

Regarding the cp files, he was actively posting in July 2010. But as you've pointed out, we don't know if those are the actual dates the files were downloaded. Until we know, I've given up on that angle.
 
New story up on macon.com

QUOTE:

McDaniel will enter not guilty pleahttp://www.macon.com/2011/11/17/1788995/mcdaniel-will-enter-not-guilty.html

Stephen McDaniel will plead “not guilty” at an arraignment hearing sometime in the next few weeks, his lawyer said Wednesday.

McDaniel, 26, who was indicted Tuesday in connection with the murder of his Mercer University law school classmate Lauren Giddings, “wants this case resolved,” defense attorney Floyd Buford said. “His family does, too.”...


read more at:http://www.macon.com/2011/11/17/1788995/mcdaniel-will-enter-not-guilty.html
 
bessie said:
respectfully snipped

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?
Click to expand...

bbm: also FWIW -- yeah, it would be really interesting to know what else (if anything) was on the flash drive.

Also: Just one possibility, not an appealing one, but ... when we were sleuthing at some other sites, I know I read comments from some there that there are, er ... *advertiser censored* download opportunities out in cyberspace where different types of non-cp *advertiser censored* are bundled together and that sometimes there is some cp sprinkled in ...
 
bessie said:
Good observation, Wondergirl. The warrant specified 16-12-100(b)(8) "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."
link to warrant: http://media.macon.com/static/graphics/0824McDanielWarrants.jpg
The indictment is broader. Could be they are still investigating and want to leave the door open for any violations of the other seven prohibitions that might come up in the future. I'm not certain. That's simply my best guess.
Click to expand...

Thank-you, Bessie. I only looked at the Indictment, which did not specify sub-section (8).

I do not know if there are any implications to that more general charge, or not?
 
November 17, 2011

McDaniel Will Plead Not Guilty in Giddings Murder Case

 Stephen McDaniel will plead “not guilty” at an arraignment hearing sometime in the next few weeks, his lawyer said Wednesday.
McDaniel, 26, who was indicted Tuesday in connection with the murder of his Mercer University law school classmate Lauren Giddings, “wants this case resolved,” defense attorney Floyd Buford said. “His family does, too.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 247 more.
Total: 4,025 (members: 248, guests: 3,777)

Online statistics

Members online
248
Guests online
3,777
Total visitors
4,025
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,554
Messages
17,954,924
Members
228,532
Latest member
GravityHurts
Back
Top