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

[~SuperSleuth~]

Thanks Smooth!
I too am thinking there were many more images.
I think LE specifically picked those in order to show the diverse nature of the material he possessed.

 

[Lawette32]

I noticed this same language on the murder warrant ("on or about June 25th")
and just assumed this was due to not knowing TOD at that point...
and not wanting to have to deal with some dumb technicality later.

I assume they've used it here for similar reasons, since he was arrested early the next day.
So, I guess it's use that same language or "sometime before", etc... ?
Not sure it's all that significant. I think the point is that it was in his possession on June 30th.
At what point in time prior to that he actually acquired the images may be unknown
and is actually irrelevant at that point. But to state the offense occurred on that day
may imply that he acquired them that day, which they didn't want to do.

That's my guess anyway
There may be some better explanation for it dealing with legal language, etc...

ETA: lol I hit refresh and didn't noticed there was a another page :crazy:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/on-or-about/

This link gives a decent explanation. It appears to be used as a safety net so that the whole document won't be considered defective if the date is later changed.

 

[3doglady]

I find it strange that he had the pics on a flash drive attached to his lanyard. If they were downloaded to his computer why did he put them on a flash drive that he carries around? If there were pics on his computer wouldn't LE have charged him with those? If the pics were not downloaded from his computer SM can say someone borrowed the flash drive and he had no knowledge of the pics. Since he had a master key I'm wondering if he downloaded them from someone else's computer.

 

[Backwoods]

I find it strange that he had the pics on a flash drive attached to his lanyard. If they were downloaded to his computer why did he put them on a flash drive that he carries around? If there were pics on his computer wouldn't LE have charged him with those? If the pics were not downloaded from his computer SM can say someone borrowed the flash drive and he had no knowledge of the pics. Since he had a master key I'm wondering if he downloaded them from someone else's computer.

Hmmm, there's certainly room for a little wondering, in what we know at this point. I'm just not sure what to wonder...!

Some of the questions may be answered by the type of computer forensics bessie mentioned earlier.

 

[tomkat]

I find it strange that he had the pics on a flash drive attached to his lanyard. If they were downloaded to his computer why did he put them on a flash drive that he carries around? If there were pics on his computer wouldn't LE have charged him with those? If the pics were not downloaded from his computer SM can say someone borrowed the flash drive and he had no knowledge of the pics. Since he had a master key I'm wondering if he downloaded them from someone else's computer.

The MM

 

[3doglady]

The MM

No, I'm saying that maybe he used the master key to use someone else's computer to download the child *advertiser censored*.

 

[tut med]

I find it strange that he had the pics on a flash drive attached to his lanyard. If they were downloaded to his computer why did he put them on a flash drive that he carries around? If there were pics on his computer wouldn't LE have charged him with those? If the pics were not downloaded from his computer SM can say someone borrowed the flash drive and he had no knowledge of the pics. Since he had a master key I'm wondering if he downloaded them from someone else's computer.

or even his parent's computer....

 

[SmoothOperator]

Couple quick questions or thoughts about details being discussed..

Off hand I cannot recall for certain but I am thinking on my couple flash drives that I have loaded with thousands of fam photos and videos taken over the past couple years that when you plug in the flash drive to a computer, laptop, kiosk that my photos and video are not time/date stamped unless I, myself have labeled them with a date..

Now in speaking of computer forensics I do not know[and imagine it to be more than possible]that LE computer forensic techs have specific or alternate ways of reading a flash drive.. Honestly the more I think on it the more I am becoming convinced that similar to how when you download or save media/image to your computer it automatically stores the date and even specific time that media was saved to one's computer..so seems to me that certainly this same concept would be similar for saving or transferring media to a flash drive..IDK?

But I do agree with Lawette about the boiler plate wording of "on or about June 30th".. If you look thru many of the court docs they do not only have this boiler plate wording but even many of the times are already pre-printed and then filled in..such as:

On or about _________________, 20___

Or something similar to that example above where it is a form of sorts and is filled in with a date, year, etc...

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

I find it strange that he had the pics on a flash drive attached to his lanyard. If they were downloaded to his computer why did he put them on a flash drive that he carries around? If there were pics on his computer wouldn't LE have charged him with those? If the pics were not downloaded from his computer SM can say someone borrowed the flash drive and he had no knowledge of the pics. Since he had a master key I'm wondering if he downloaded them from someone else's computer.

Two reasons I can think of...
1. It's not something you want someone to find on your computer.
2. Collecting images like that takes up space.

As far as him claiming it's not his... I'm sure he'll try

 

[bessie]

Thanks Smooth!
I too am thinking there were many more images.
I think LE specifically picked those in order to show the diverse nature of the material he possessed.

If you really want nightmares, visit the Crimes -- Spotlight on Children forum some time. We see tons of cases relating to sexual exploitation of children on this site. "Thousands of images" is not unusual. The details of Hailey Dunn's case are very different from this one, though. The child is missing, and there is no evidence that she was murdered, for one thing. As for the sexual content of the images on Shawn Adkins' flash drive, I don't recall that the exact number involving minor children was ever revealed, but it was indicated they were few, and as Smooth said, were older teenagers, not prepubescent children.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

As for file timestamps... I wouldn't expect LE to use or rely on them. They can easily be changed.

 

[3doglady]

Two reasons I can think of...
1. It's not something you want someone to find on your computer.
2. Collecting images like that takes up space.

As far as him claiming it's not his... I'm sure he'll try

I agree, but he lived alone so the chances of someone on his computer were slim, plus I'm sure he could have hid them with a password. Seven pictures don't take that much space. I would have been more concerned with some one seeing them on my flash drive. Then again, thankfully I don't think like SM.

I do agree with Thinman that LE charging him with this now doesn't look good for evidence on the murder.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

I agree, but he lived alone so the chances of someone on his computer were slim, plus I'm sure he could have hid them with a password. Seven pictures don't take that much space. I would have been more concerned with some one seeing them on my flash drive. Then again, thankfully I don't think like SM.

I do agree with Thinman that LE charging him with this now doesn't look good for evidence on the murder.

If they filed a warrant for each picture he had, they'd probably have to outsource the paperwork.
Then, use a wheelbarrow to bring them to the judge to sign,
at which point he probably would have beat them over their heads with his gavel. :gavel:

 

[al66pine]

I find it strange that he had the pics on a flash drive attached to his lanyard. If they were downloaded to his computer why did he put them on a flash drive that he carries around? If there were pics on his computer wouldn't LE have charged him with those? If the pics were not downloaded from his computer SM can say someone borrowed the flash drive and he had no knowledge of the pics. Since he had a master key I'm wondering if he downloaded them from someone else's computer.

My Speculation:
1. Why p_rn on flash drive?
A college student, then grad./law student, living an hour or two away from his parents and grade school-aged relatives in his "permenant" household, uses a PC, Apple, laptop, etc. for classes, course work, email with parents, other students, other drama-club members, other violinests and musicians, and for G-or teen-rated games, and all around computer use.

Student wants to download p_rn, and esp. child p_rn images for himself.
Student wants to prevent parents and relatives from learning of this.

In visiting parents & young relatives household, the student sometimes or always takes laptop w. him. If the young relatives there want to play Tetris on his computer, no chance of their running across p_rn.

When parents & his young relatives visit him at student apt.-home, no chance they will run across p_rn.

Ditto, any friend who might want to borrow/use his laptop on campus "just for a minute to check my email."

Ditto, others.

2. Why flash drive on Mercer lanyard?
So student can readily ID the flash drive w. p_rn on it, can identify it from ten feet away, across a room.
So student would not lose track of his special flash drive.
------------------------------------------------------------------
(As faster typers posted above, before me. And in fewer words. )

 

[3doglady]

If they filed a warrant for each picture he had, they'd probably have to outsource the paperwork.
Then, use a wheelbarrow to bring them to the judge to sign,
at which point he probably would have beat them over their heads with his gavel. :gavel:

I understand. I just think if the pictures were on his computer, a few of those would have been the ones LE charged him with.

 

[Knox]

I am linking a search warrant from the Hailey Dunn case.

The warrant contains details that some of you may find interesting in regard to how LE is able to track electronic information from memory cards, memory sticks, camera's etc.
http://www.ktxs.com/download/2011/0322/27283525.pdf

I have to say I am not surprised about the discovery of child *advertiser censored*. McD is probably going to be more deviant than we ever imagined. Looking forward to Friday, I hope the media will be allowed to attend.

 

[3doglady]

My Speculation:
1. Why p_rn on flash drive?
A college student, then grad./law student, living an hour or two away from his parents and grade school-aged relatives in his "permenant" household, uses a PC, Apple, laptop, etc. for classes, course work, email with parents, other students, other drama-club members, other violinests and musicians, and for G-or teen-rated games, and all around computer use.

Student wants to download p_rn, and esp. child p_rn images for himself.
Student wants to prevent parents and relatives from learning of this.

In visiting parents & young relatives household, the student sometimes or always takes laptop w. him. If the young relatives there want to play Tetris on his computer, no chance of their running across p_rn.

When parents & his young relatives visit him at student apt.-home, no chance they will run across p_rn.

Ditto, any friend who might want to borrow/use his laptop on campus "just for a minute to check my email."

Ditto, others.

2. Why flash drive on Mercer lanyard?
So student can readily ID the flash drive w. p_rn on it, can identify it from ten feet away, across a room.
So student would not lose track of his special flash drive.
------------------------------------------------------------------
(As faster typers posted above, before me. And in fewer words. )

Pics on the laptop could easily have been put in a file hidden with a password so that no one else would have seen it. Pics on the flash drive are accessible to anyone who uses it, right? My son is a law student, he's always sticking his flash drive in my computer to show me something.

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

I understand. I just think if the pictures were on his computer, a few of those would have been the ones LE charged him with.

- Any computer/laptop he had is probably clean of any such material. That's what the flash drive was for.
- GBI may not be done analyzing his PC/laptop
- Flash Drives can easily be password protected.

ETA:
The GBI may find additional images within the unallocated space on the hard drives of any PC/laptop they may still be analyzing.
"unallocated space", or "slack area" as the warrant request Knox posted calls it, is where you would find data belonging to files that have been deleted. Recovering such information may require specialized software and could be time consuming.

 

[3doglady]

- Any computer/laptop he had is probably clean of any such material. That's what the flash drive was for.
- GBI may not be done analyzing his PC/laptop
- Flash Drives can easily be password protected.

Thanks, I use flash drives all the time for pictures and didn't realize they could be password protected.

 

[SouthernKate]

http://www.macon.com/2011/08/24/1675770/child-*advertiser censored*-charges-for-mcdaniel.html

Well, Mrs. McD finally decided to quit talking...

And it appears they now have finally hired the PI.