NC - Shaniya Davis, 5, Allegedly sold by mother 11/10/09 #27

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/page/6459688/?navkeyword=shaniya

Here is a link to wral page that has a link for the documents. I think the info on the picture is on the cell phone document. I can't pull it up on my phone. I hope this helps.

If you don't mind, after you read it, can you please let me know what it says. I'm not sure I'm remembering correctly.

Thanks.
 
Oh trust me, I want to see justice too. Very, very, VERY much so. Remember, we look at where this baby was found every morning.

I'm trying to be positive and hope they are finding the hand that fed the mouth, so to speak.

JTSYS
I know you are looking and praying for justice too.

but the hush hush is driving me nuts.
 
Not to change the subject, but back to the photos of the allegedly unidentified 'young black child' on MAM's cell phone that have not been formally identified as Shaniya and therefore might possibly be another abused- possibly missing, or possibly murdered child. If LE has been unable to identify this child, any theories on why they are not putting the pic out there? Even if it is graphic, it seems like they could modify it so that the public could take a look and see if it rings any bells. Why is there not even a verbal description out there? I'd like to know some more about this picture(s). Where was it sent/received from? What type of device sent or recieved it? Where was it stored in the memory on the cell phone?
Something about this aspect screams 'ring' to me.

JTSYS
I am afraid that it is of a child genitalia...How can they publish that??? :(

I wonder if that child was identified? or was it his own child, or was it Shaniya?
AND California let lose 17000 sex obusers from prisons :waitasec: :furious:
 
I am afraid that it is of a child genitalia...How can they publish that??? :(

I wonder if that child was identified? or was it his own child, or was it Shaniya?
AND California let lose 17000 sex obusers from prisons :waitasec: :furious:

BBM

Yeah, that REALLY burns my fuse!!!!! What the he** are these governments thinking? What faux-psychiatrists are they hedging their bets on, that these ANIMALS will not offend again? I guess they think our children are disposable!God, I am so angry right now!!!!!!
 
I am afraid that it is of a child genitalia...How can they publish that??? :(

I wonder if that child was identified? or was it his own child, or was it Shaniya?
AND California let lose 17000 sex obusers from prisons :waitasec: :furious:

I understand that it was probably a very inappropriate picture....but sometimes even those pictures (and the device transactions used) can help track down a ring. I think that's what JTSYS meant.

Oriah
 
Not to change the subject, but back to the photos of the allegedly unidentified 'young black child' on MAM's cell phone that have not been formally identified as Shaniya and therefore might possibly be another abused- possibly missing, or possibly murdered child. If LE has been unable to identify this child, any theories on why they are not putting the pic out there? Even if it is graphic, it seems like they could modify it so that the public could take a look and see if it rings any bells. Why is there not even a verbal description out there? I'd like to know some more about this picture(s). Where was it sent/received from? What type of device sent or recieved it? Where was it stored in the memory on the cell phone?
Something about this aspect screams 'ring' to me.

JTSYS

Publishing the photo would be the same as anyone one else publishing Kiddie *advertiser censored* I hope to GOD they never release the picture(s). It was only of genitalia - who would be able to recognize it? I know once my kids were out of diapers I no longer spent any time looking at those body parts unless they were having a problem.

Having worked in labor and delivery for 5 years I have seen more private parts than your average person on the street - while they are all more or less alike - they are also very individual. But only someone who is spending time "looking" is going to recognize an individual. IMO

I think it is possible the photo's were of Shaniya before she was abused - it was his prize. I could be wrong but I figured if it was down loaded they would be going after the source (which they maybe IDK)
 
I understand that it was probably a very inappropriate picture....but sometimes even those pictures (and the device transactions used) can help track down a ring. I think that's what JTSYS meant.

Oriah
I think JTSYS is more savvy then I :)
 
I know that people who do those kind of things are sick.
The smirk on his face is sick.
And despite the fact that MAM is a sick SOBMF.
I think God should wipe those kind of people out, they are terrorists of another kind, but sick terrorists none the less. :crazy:
I know I would not mind taking a heavy frying pan and giving him a permanent concussion - no I never hit anyone, and there is always a first time. He would be my first time.:furious:

If California is letting those people out of jail - somebody has to give them a concussion. :blushing:
 
]Publishing the photo would be the same as anyone one else publishing Kiddie *advertiser censored* I hope to GOD they never release the picture(s).[/B] It was only of genitalia - who would be able to recognize it? I know once my kids were out of diapers I no longer spent any time looking at those body parts unless they were having a problem.

Having worked in labor and delivery for 5 years I have seen more private parts than your average person on the street - while they are all more or less alike - they are also very individual. But only someone who is spending time "looking" is going to recognize an individual. IMO

I think it is possible the photo's were of Shaniya before she was abused - it was his prize. I could be wrong but I figured if it was down loaded they would be going after the source (which they maybe IDK)

Wow, I hope to God that no one thought that's what I meant by inquiring about this info. I AM however, interested in why the specialist who looked at the photo(s) was unable to determine if it was Shaniya or another child. IMO, if someone is caring for a typical 5 year old child on any kind of full-time basis, they have seen their genitalia. BL, AD, and others may have had this opportunity as well as 'babysitters' or any other caregivers at all.
My issue is not over publishing for the general public children's genitalia. It is why the public does not have any further information about this child who's picture was found on MAM's cell phone. A child that was obviously abused at some point and may still be in that situation.
Again, it leads me to wonder- where did the picture come from? Take a cell phone apart and you can easily find if the phone itself took the pic, or if it was sent or received. If it was sent or received, then from where was it sent or received to or from? What kind of device? Was it taken and distributed? Did it come off of the internet?
I would think LE would have a tech task force all over this, considering Shaniya's case. Do they? I don't know.
That was my inquiry- why is the issue of this unidentified and OBVIOUSLY ABUSED child not in the media?

JTSYS
 
I am afraid that it is of a child genitalia...How can they publish that??? :(

I wonder if that child was identified? or was it his own child, or was it Shaniya?
AND California let lose 17000 sex obusers from prisons :waitasec: :furious:

Clearly I created some confusion. Did NOT mean to imply that this childs' private area(s) should be front page news. I just want to know more about what LE is doing to find its' source of transaction....and among rings, very often predators will actually know and/or have a preference for particular types.
It makes me sick to say that, but to my understanding it is somewhat common knowledge among the sicko rings out there.

JTSYS
 
The problem is that we don't value our children nearly enough. I was shocked to find out in Gabriel Johnson's case, that if his mother had not made her statements that she had killed Gabe, but if she had simply given him away, or sold him, that she would have gotten only 5 years prison time. With good behavior of course, she'd have been out in less.

That's in the state of Arizona. After our verified attorney AZlawyer gave us that info, I spot checked other states. They're all pretty much the same.

It's okay to give away or sell our babies and children. That's not right.

We can rant and rave at the system, but... we make the system, we make the laws, we define how much - or how little - our children are worth to us.

We inherited the system, yes, from times when women and children were chattel, property. But it's 2010. Why have we not come farther?

If our children are worth more to us, then we have to show it. We have to change the laws.

Just some thoughts and my :twocents:
 
Wow, I hope to God that no one thought that's what I meant by inquiring about this info. I AM however, interested in why the specialist who looked at the photo(s) was unable to determine if it was Shaniya or another child. IMO, if someone is caring for a typical 5 year old child on any kind of full-time basis, they have seen their genitalia. BL, AD, and others may have had this opportunity as well as 'babysitters' or any other caregivers at all.
My issue is not over publishing for the general public children's genitalia. It is why the public does not have any further information about this child who's picture was found on MAM's cell phone. A child that was obviously abused at some point and may still be in that situation.
Again, it leads me to wonder- where did the picture come from? Take a cell phone apart and you can easily find if the phone itself took the pic, or if it was sent or received. If it was sent or received, then from where was it sent or received to or from? What kind of device? Was it taken and distributed? Did it come off of the internet?
I would think LE would have a tech task force all over this, considering Shaniya's case. Do they? I don't know.
That was my inquiry- why is the issue of this unidentified and OBVIOUSLY ABUSED child not in the media?

JTSYS

I'm sorry, I didn't think you meant in the media - I just responded to the thought of who ever that lil girl is. (and I still think it maybe Shaniya.) But if it was down loaded hopefully they know where it came from..
 
The problem is that we don't value our children nearly enough. I was shocked to find out in Gabriel Johnson's case, that if his mother had not made her statements that she had killed Gabe, but if she had simply given him away, or sold him, that she would have gotten only 5 years prison time. With good behavior of course, she'd have been out in less.

That's in the state of Arizona. After our verified attorney AZlawyer gave us that info, I spot checked other states. They're all pretty much the same.

It's okay to give away or sell our babies and children. That's not right.

We can rant and rave at the system, but... we make the system, we make the laws, we define how much - or how little - our children are worth to us.

We inherited the system, yes, from times when women and children were chattel, property. But it's 2010. Why have we not come farther?

If our children are worth more to us, then we have to show it. We have to change the laws.

Just some thoughts and my :twocents:

Beanie That is horrendous. And it makes no sense because if it is a slap on the hand to sell a child, it is certainly against the law to buy one.

BBM I have to respectfully disagree, I think we parents (by parents I mean those of us who give birth or adopt (or even just love) children and raise them in a nurturing environment - would give our own life to keep them safe.

I believe it is the special interest groups. They hide behind corporate names - then go home to their family - kept safe in houses behind electric fences.

Why do we have adoption agencies? Why have foster care? Why not just post a picture on Craigs list and let unwanted - abused children (that made me ill to think) go to the highest bidder. Are we walking back in time when it comes to our children? The way Asian women were "imported" and used as sex slaves in *advertiser censored* houses - not fed enough or treated if they became ill - because there were always more where they came from, making them expendable?

xin_330701240930039165724.jpg Smuggled babies found stuffed in bags on bus...

The 2003 arrest of the ringleaders of the gang exposed a network of trafficking in baby girls that spread from Guangxi to Henan, Anhui and Hubei provinces in central and eastern China, the report said. The case broke when police found 28 drugged and tied-up baby girls -- none over three months old -- in bags on board a bus bound for northern cities. One of the babies died while being smuggled, reports at the time said.

The case has been linked to China's "one child" family planning policy that has sharpened traditional values preferring boys over girls and leading to many mothers selling or giving away their baby daughters in the hopes of later having a son. Many defendants in the case refused to admit wrongdoing, insisting they were providing a humanitarian service as many of the trafficked girls went to childless couples in cities, earlier press reports on the scandal said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

follow up
Babies in tote bags lead to gang arrests

Updated: 2004-07-24 09:23 (snipped)

A court convicted 52 members of a baby-trafficking gang Friday, sentencing the ringleaders to death or life in prison. Five gang members received life in prison, while 40 others were sentenced to at least 18 months, Xinhua said.

According to Xinhua, Xie bought infants from midwives, health care workers or other baby-traffickers in Yulin and passed them on to Cui, who had them smuggled to buyers as far away as northern China.

Babies were drugged to keep them asleep while being smuggled, leading to at least one death, Xinhua said.

The Xinhua report named 12 employees of two Yulin hospitals who allegedly sold babies for $12 to $24 each.

Authorities said earlier that no families had claimed the babies rescued in March, and the report Friday gave no details of what happened to them. Local officials said they might wind up being raised in orphanages.

Communist authorities - led by Mao Zedong, who famously remarked that women "hold up half the sky" - prided themselves on raising the status of women. Upon taking power in 1949, they ended the prewar custom of selling unwanted daughters to brothels or as servants.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/24/content_351314.htm

multiple news stories of human trafficking in the following link.

http://search.yahoo.com/404handler?...chinapopulationtraffickingarrest_070619080858

 


Beanie That is horrendous. And it makes no sense because if it is a slap on the hand to sell a child, it is certainly against the law to buy one.

BBM I have to respectfully disagree, I think we parents (by parents I mean those of us who give birth or adopt (or even just love) children and raise them in a nurturing environment - would give our own life to keep them safe.

I believe it is the special interest groups. They hide behind corporate names - then go home to their family - kept safe in houses behind electric fences.

Why do we have adoption agencies? Why have foster care? Why not just post a picture on Craigs list and let unwanted - abused children (that made me ill to think) go to the highest bidder. Are we walking back in time when it comes to our children? The way Asian women were "imported" and used as sex slaves in *advertiser censored* houses - not fed enough or treated if they became ill - because there were always more where they came from, making them expendable?

View attachment 8910 Smuggled babies found stuffed in bags on bus...



multiple news stories of human trafficking in the following link.

http://search.yahoo.com/404handler?...chinapopulationtraffickingarrest_070619080858


God that is awful! However, nothing surprises me anymore. To certain people
children/human lives ARE expendable! They are nothing more than a commodity. It makes me sick and I am fearful about what is happening in this world. I feel that we are destroying ourselves.

I also hope that LE are investigating the child on the cellphone.
 
I'm sorry, I didn't think you meant in the media - I just responded to the thought of who ever that lil girl is. (and I still think it maybe Shaniya.) But if it was down loaded hopefully they know where it came from..

No apology necessary- just didn't want people to misunderstand what I was wondering about. Pictures of child *advertiser censored* pop up all over the place now thanks to the various ways and means of transmissions available. I have a friend who works on a federal internet child *advertiser censored* task force and through him, have come to understand that among certain cultures, the cell phone is the primary source for distribution. Among others, it is the internet, among others it is iTouches, etc.
So it has me alarmed that LE released info about this child to the public but provided no further information about her, except to say they couldn't tell for certain if it was Shaniya. I tend to agree with you that it was probably Shaniya- however- I still want to know the contacts that revolved around it and where it was sent or received from. I want to know the cell phone provider. I want to know if there is a task force on it, etc, etc. I want to know if there were any distiguishing marks in the picture AT ALL. If it is NOT Shaniya, then we have another poor baby out there that we need to find. And if it WAS Shaniya, we need to know if any distribution took place, kwim?

Sorry for the rant- Shaniya is close to my heart.
I still want to know if they cleared everyone who was at the hotel that night/morning.

JTSYS
 
Your face is still etched in my memory little angel. We have not forgotten sweety. Still hoping for real justice for Shaniya.
 
http://www.wral.com/news/local/page/6459688/?navkeyword=shaniya

Here is a link to wral page that has a link for the documents. I think the info on the picture is on the cell phone document. I can't pull it up on my phone. I hope this helps.

If you don't mind, after you read it, can you please let me know what it says. I'm not sure I'm remembering correctly.

Thanks.

Thank, Kimberlyd125.
It says essentially this:

§ 14‑190.17A. Third degree sexual exploitation of a minor.

(a) Offense. – A person commits the offense of third degree sexual exploitation of a minor if, knowing the character or content of the material, he possesses material that contains a visual representation of a minor engaging in sexual activity.

(b) Inference. – In a prosecution under this section, the trier of fact may infer that a participant in sexual activity whom material through its title, text, visual representations or otherwise represents or depicts as a minor is a minor.
(c) Mistake of Age. – Mistake of age is not a defense to a prosecution under this section.

(d) Punishment and Sentencing. – Violation of this section is a Class I felony. (1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c. 1022, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 1198; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

I wonder if there is any aspect of the pic(s) or transmission of pic(s) that would fall into the (a) Offense category.

JTSYS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
1,608
Total visitors
1,808

Forum statistics

Threads
589,966
Messages
17,928,431
Members
228,022
Latest member
Jemabogado
Back
Top