GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 # 9

[~SuperSleuth~]

Those codes seem to bounce around kind of in the ballpark with NCIC codes (with an initial zero added) but don't match exactly ...? Here's a quick chart of NCIC codes, first I came across: http://www.corragroup.com/NCIC-codes.html

Does this link help any at all:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6950167_national-center-uniform-offense-classifications.html

QUOTE: "The NCIC offense codes are intended to be used nationwide, but the description listed with these codes often does not exactly match the state criminal statutes. NCIC requires the use of the uniform codes but the state may add clarifying information."

Good Job Backwoods :rocker:

This does appear to be what we're looking for.
Unfortunately, their system must be more up-to-date than these documents

Georgia Crime Information Center
http://www.georgia.gov/00/channel_title/0,2094,67862954_74028473,00.html

GCICWEB - The GCIC/CJIS SUPPORT WEBSITE
http://gcicweb.gbi.state.ga.us/cjis/ori/

CCH Criminal Codes
http://gcicweb.gbi.state.ga.us/cjis/ori/cchcodes/codes.htm

ETA:
In other words, the CCH Criminal Codes documents have the codes, linked to the relevant O.C.G.A. statues,
but none of the codes they're using are listed in any of the documents or updates that I can find.
But they do fall within the proper sequencing, so I'm thinking the computer system is ahead of these docs.

ETA #2: Just for some interesting reference...
Law enforcement to get fingerprint scanners
http://www.macon.com/2011/08/22/1673296/law-enforcement-to-get-fingerprint.html

Two of the GA Certified LiveScan vendors sites.
http://eagleadvantage.com/
http://www.crossmatch.com/

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

Is this child *advertiser censored* stuff for real?! :sick:

Regarding victimology, if we want to consider this some more:

(From AA)

also agree with an earlier poster who commented that the end of his time as a student and the beginning of life in the ''real world'' where he'd actually have to use social skills and abide certain social norms could have been part of what triggered him to act out, but victimology is far too important to ignore in a case like this, so I do believe something about Lauren in particular was also a stressor, and it was likely her impending departure, imo. Most likely, barring some event we are unaware of, it was a combination of the two.The two most common triggers are loss of job/station in life and loss of love.

I stand by my earlier feeling that one person's "taking him under her wing" is another's "making him her project," and those 2 situations have very different connotations. I found it very interesting that LG's mom said something to the effect of [broad paraphrasing here] that SM may have killed the one person who was kindest to him. Sometimes a person becomes so dependent on "the one person who is kindest to him" that it's unbearable to face life without that person. Whereas the kind person didn't intend to foster a dependent attitude, perhaps that's exactly what happened.

 

[Givsmetheshivers]

I'm not in the running to win any popularity prizes anyway, so I might as well go ahead and post this: He may not be guilty of these charges.

Well, if they weren't for his enjoyment but he was planning on planting them on MM's computer, then that is pretty messed up.

MM better check his stuff.

I have some thoughts on McD's childhood, but I am pretty sure they are not Websleuth approved so I will play word association and Bessie can clip them if I say too much.

Someone's blog photos that look like they came from
a show on Dateline:NBC with the host Chris Hassen

...and I am starting to think I should change my name to "The Mentalist"

 

[bessie]

Just posting this here for reference.

GA. CODE ANN. § 16-12-100 (2010). Sexual exploitation of children; reporting violation; forfeiture; penalties

(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.

Sexual Offenses Against Children

 

[bessie]

I'm not in the running to win any popularity prizes anyway, so I might as well go ahead and post this: He may not be guilty of these charges.

The flash drive was found in his apartment, so at a minimum, he's guilty of possessing child *advertiser censored*

ETA: I'd sure love to know if they've finished the forensics on his computer.

 

[Givsmetheshivers]

http://media.macon.com/static/graphics/0824McDanielWarrants.jpg

This is not for the faint of heart.

 

[Givsmetheshivers]

These warrants say "Prepubesent," so there is your answer....more like 5 yrs than 15.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

District Attorney Greg Winters says McDaniel will appear before a magistrate on the new charges at the jail on Wednesday.

McDaniel is scheduled for a commitment hearing on felony murder charges on Friday.
At that hearing, McDaniel's lawyer is expected to ask prosecutors for more about the
evidence they have to justify continue holding McDaniel in jail.

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/article/141134/175/McDaniel-Charged-With-Child-Sexual-Exploitation

I suppose if there were any chance Buford could refute probable cause to keep SM in jail,
it certainly won't matter now :twocents:

 

[Backwoods]

The flash drive was found in his apartment, so at a minimum, he's guilty of possessing child *advertiser censored*

ETA: I'd sure love to know if they've finished the forensics on his computer.

The key word would be "knowingly", of course. But really, my post was in response to the immediate acceptance of the charges as truth the minute any word of them was posted, before there were additional details about the nature of the images or anything (when, in fact, we were being told that NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION would be released). Sorry, folks, I'm just made that way -- I like to hear a bit more than that before I forget the possibility of innocence. No offense meant to anyone. Of interest: According to the 6 pm newscast I heard on 13WMAZ, seemed the first "additional details" were obtained from Floyd Buford.

Guess the authorities have released more now, though, what with the warrants being online. ETA: Or maybe not -- according to MPD web site, the official MPD word is still mum on further details:
link: http://maconpolice.us/?p=1189

 

[revampz]

I have kept up with this case but havent really gotten into it or posted on it yet. I just read the above charges listed and yuk, this guy is definitely not normal. What was on those sticks would make the majority of males his age sick (especially the 2 prepubescent boys)..... as someone said above, I think they better look into this guys childhood a bit more. And he doesnt seem to favor one sex, it is both on those sticks.

I read that he was into fantasy worlds and had his own elvish language, well I'm betting his fantasies delved majorly into sexual worlds.

At the beginning when I read that he had broken into other units and taken only condoms I knew then, this boy is strange and there is something wrong upstairs sexually.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

You think maybe the truth is starting to sink in around the McD household?
Still holding out some hope we'll get a confession and account of the crime from SM,
and some closure for LG's family about her remains.

 

[Givsmetheshivers]

You think maybe the truth is starting to sink in around the McD household?
Still holding out some hope we'll get a confession and account of the crime from SM,
and some closure for LG's family about her remains.

Absolutely not. I think Mama is thinking that these pictures were planted while she should be calling every pediatric psychiatrist in Atlanta trying to see if any of those children have been abused in any way shape or form.

I wish he would confess. I just can't imagine what his conversations are like with Buford. It makes me super uncomfortable just thinking about it.

It makes me a little sick thinking of his niece's picture hanging in his room.

 

[Givsmetheshivers]

If any of McD's family members are reading or posting on this site...please, drop your ego and denial and take every precaution necessary to ensure the safety of those children.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

That article also says that it was found after a search warrant was served; meaning it was not found the during the first search. Earlier today the conversation was "what was the tip about that caused LE to serve another warrant and go back into his apartment." Perhaps someone tipped off LE that they knew he had child *advertiser censored*. It says it was attached to his Mercer lanyard. Maybe someone saw it at school....

Not sure he'd be sharing that with anyone.
I'm thinking that taking his computer and all related electronics may have been part of
some standard procedure in a case like this. After all, they took LG's and sent it off too.

However, this could have been done due to their information about how he'd commented
about getting away with murder. They were (still are?) hoping to find evidence on these
devices that would support that and/or the murder case.
I think finding the child *advertiser censored* pictures were a gift, of sorts.
Probably took them a while to get those too... I bet that 1GB flash drive was packed.

 

[ThinMan]

I doubt the LE are going to risk ruining the solid case for murder they have against McD by randomly adding on sensational, but unjustified, charges for child *advertiser censored*.

If the child *advertiser censored* charges turned out to be bogus, it might very well throw the otherwise unimpeachable murder charge into doubt.

So if they are confident enough to bring charges for this, they must have a bombproof reason for doing so.

Hello again, folks -- been out of touch for a couple of days, tune in local TV & bam! There is new info!

Hyrax makes good points that the kiddie *advertiser censored* charges are likely based on solid, if not unimpeachable, evidence. But the big question for me is:

Why charge SMD with these offenses?

LE doesn't just automatically serve warrants because they have new evidence of an additional crime. The decision to make these charges tells us something about the felony murder case. Our job is to figure out what it tells us:

1) That LE has NOTHING in addition to the hacksaw package (which many here have said just isn't enough to convict and, even if it turns out to be enough in the jury's opinion, is a very weak case). At least, one might conclude that LE found nothing (yet) on SMD's computer that is usable to make the murder case.

2) LE is trying to further convince the public that SMD is such a bad guy that he must've -- therefore -- committed the murder? There are posts on Macon.com and even here that would say, if that is their motive, they succeeded.

3) LE is scared that they might not be able to convince the judge at the upcoming commitment hearing on the low probable cause standard to hold SMD for murder? On that theory, this charge will continue to hold him securely, much as the burglary charge (also probably on a weak evidentiary base) held him until a murder warrant was served.

I'm personally a bit perplexed that the next big news in this case is about a totally unrelated crime allegedly committed by the murder suspect. I fear that LE's murder evidence isn't nearly so strong as I was hoping it would be.

Thoughts?

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

If any of McD's family members are reading or posting on this site...please, drop your ego and denial and take every precaution necessary to ensure the safety of those children.

I certain agree with you.
Unfortunately, my gut says this may run deeper... I hope I'm wrong.

 

[pearl]

Well, I didn't see this coming:

Murder suspect Stephen McDaniel faces seven charges of child sexual exploitation, according to Macon police. http://www.13wmaz.com/news/article/141134/175/McDaniel-Charged-With-Child-Sexual-Exploitation
​

It appears these charges are for images of child *advertiser censored* found on his computer.

Congratulations, Mr. McDaniel. I fully believed that it was impossible for you to be any more horrible of a human being than I already thought you were. Way to prove me wrong.

I'm trying to catch up after a few hectic days away from this case. Haven't read through all posts yet. Just want to say there is a special place in hell for this man.

 

[ThinMan]

Why charge SMD with these offenses?

LE doesn't just automatically serve warrants because they have new evidence of an additional crime. The decision to make these charges tells us something about the felony murder case. Our job is to figure out what it tells us:

1) That LE has NOTHING in addition to the hacksaw package and keys (which many here have said just isn't enough to convict and, even if it turns out to be enough in the jury's opinion, is a very weak case). At least, one might conclude that LE found nothing (yet) on SMD's computer that is usable to make the murder case.

2) LE is trying to further convince the public that SMD is such a bad guy that he must've -- therefore -- committed the murder? There are posts on Macon.com and even here that would say, if that is their motive, they succeeded.

3) LE is scared that they might not be able to convince the judge at the upcoming commitment hearing on the low probable cause standard to hold SMD for murder? On that theory, this charge will continue to hold him securely, much as the burglary charge (also probably on a weak evidentiary base) held him until a murder warrant was served.

and, additional possible motives for these charges:

4) LE is trying to convince SMD & his lawyer that they WILL put him away for a long, long, time with or without the murder conviction, so SMD will confess. I personally doubt that this tactic will work and predict that SMD will NOT confess, soon or ever.

5) LE is unwillingly trying to make sure SMD wins his change of venue motion. Mentioned above by Hyrax, who didn't elaborate -- but I think it's hard to imagine SMD getting a fair trial before jurors drawn from a public that thinks "he must be guilty of murder, he had the kiddie *advertiser censored* pictures, didn't he?"

 

[GeorgiaRoyalty]

Does 7 counts mean 7 pictures ? One is too many , but 7 doesn't seem to be a whole lot for a sexual deviant to have saved, unless they are "real" pictures versus downloaded *advertiser censored*.

as someone else said...one pic is one to many....

please don't let the # of pictures mislead us.....God knows how many pictures he may have 'deleted' also simply being on child *advertiser censored* sites or images is a major felony, so if he was saving any pics then he must certainly spent alot of times browsing these sites...

no wonder he didn't get out much or have many friends, he was to busy in extra curricular activities...SMH

 

[bessie]

The key word would be "knowingly", of course. But really, my post was in response to the immediate acceptance of the charges as truth the minute any word of them was posted, before there were additional details about the nature of the images or anything (when, in fact, we were being told that NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION would be released). Sorry, folks, I'm just made that way -- I like to hear a bit more than that before I forget the possibility of innocence. No offense meant to anyone. Of interest: According to the 6 pm newscast I heard on 13WMAZ, seemed the first "additional details" were obtained from Floyd Buford.

Guess the authorities have released more now, though, what with the warrants being online. ETA: Or maybe not -- according to MPD web site, the official MPD word is still mum on further details:
link: http://maconpolice.us/?p=1189

Good luck with that defense (not directed at you, Backwoods). If the images were on his computer, he might be able to argue they were downloaded without his knowledge. Since they were on a flash drive, they had to be copied from a separate device, and they would have to be viewed on a separate device, all of which leaves a trail that can be detected by a forensic examination. So unless the drive contains no tracks leading to his other devices, and contains files that identify a different owner, I'm having a difficult time thinking of a way he could claim ignorance.

Oh wait, he could say he stole it when he stole the condoms!