Found Deceased GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 2011 June 27 - #12

[bessie]

Please continue here.

Previous Threads:
Thread #1

Thread #2

Thread #2

Thread #3
Thread #4
Thread #5
Thread #6
Thread #7
Thread #8

Thread #9

Thread #9

Thread #10

Thread #11

Media Thread

Media Thread

Lauren Teresa Giddings
April 18, 1984 -- June 26, 2011
Rest in Peace

[bessie]

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

[bessie]

From the previous thread...

Originally Posted by MaconMom

http://macon.13wmaz.com/m/news/news/...ictment-relief

Interview with Lauren's cousin just posted.

Originally Posted by WalterFGeorge

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

[cocomod]

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.

[Idreamofgenie]

Originally Posted by bessie

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.

[Backwoods]

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.

[Backwoods]

Originally Posted by Idreamofgenie

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

[pearl]

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.

[Backwoods]

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

[Backwoods]

Pretty extensive coverage on 13WMAZ newscast this evening, well worth a look:

QUOTE:

Grand Jury Indicts Stephen McDaniel for Lauren Giddings' Murder

...The two-page murder indictment did not shed new light on forensic evidence collected by investigators, who sent more than 200 items to the FBI Crime Lab for analysis, according to Macon Police Chief Mike Burns. ...




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

[Backwoods]

Macon television station FOX24's coverage is pretty sparse at this point, but for the record:

QUOTE:

McDaniel Indicted By Bibb Grand Jury
a bit more at: http://www.newscentralga.com/news/lo...133880818.html

[Backwoods]

...and here is local station 41WMGT's coverage:

QUOTE:

Grand Jury Indicts Stephen McDaniel in Murder of Lauren Giddings

...Today, a Grand Jury formally charged the McDaniel on 1 count of murder and 30 counts of sexual exploitation of children. This decision means there is enough evidence for the district attorney's office to head to trial. ...


more at: http://www.41nbc.com/news/local-news...auren-giddings

[tomkat]

Originally Posted by Backwoods

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

[Backwoods]

Originally Posted by tomkat

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

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.

[bessie]

Originally Posted by tomkat

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

It's not that easy, Tomkat. The prosecutor didn't go in empty handed. What we can tell from the indictment is that there was no evidence to show cause (manner) of death, nor what instrument was used to sever her head from her body. But, the indictment doesn't tell us what evidence the GJ did see. It might have been very strong. McD's DNA might have been all over Lauren's remains. That wouldn't reveal the weapon that was used, or in exactly which way he killed LG. It would, however, strongly suggest that he is the killer.

In other words, some evidence points to how, and some evidence points to who. At this point it's only the "who" which matters.

[Wondergirl]

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?

[Wondergirl]

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

[Backwoods]

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

[MaconMom]

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

[NotALawyer]

Originally Posted by bessie

It's not that easy, Tomkat. The prosecutor didn't go in empty handed. What we can tell from the indictment is that there was no evidence to show cause (manner) of death, nor what instrument was used to sever her head from her body. But, the indictment doesn't tell us what evidence the GJ did see. It might have been very strong. McD's DNA might have been all over Lauren's remains. That wouldn't reveal the weapon that was used, or in exactly which way he killed LG. It would, however, strongly suggest that he is the killer.

In other words, some evidence points to how, and some evidence points to who. At this point it's only the "who" which matters.

BBM: I agree. My reading of the indictment is that it is simply a statement that he is indicted and for what, but not why. It doesn't give the basis for the decision, just the decision.

[NotALawyer]

Originally Posted by MaconMom

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.

[Backwoods]

Originally Posted by MaconMom

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

[MaconMom]

Originally Posted by Backwoods

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.

[Starry Night]

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.

[MaconMom]

Originally Posted by Starry Night

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.