NC - Shaniya Davis, 5, Fayetteville, 10 Nov 2009 - Allegedly sold by mother #17

[smart blonde]

Is the 6:11 hotel time the time MAM first appears on camera or the time he checked in? The hotel worker who contacted LE 48 hours—UGH!!—later reported seeing a man with a child fitting Shaniya's description in lobby. Doesn't anyone recall checking him in? Of course, LE has checked hotel's records for details. Just wondering if MAM had time to check in, retrieve Shaniya from the car because he couldn't ck/in holding a child, especially one wearing no underwear, and proceed to the room for whatever activity, all in one hour? Was he possibly a long term guest at the hotel and didn't need to stop at front desk? Of course, if this is the case, wouldn't he have noticed the cameras before. Still nags at me about the hotel worker being so long with his/her tip; weren't we already talking about this case at WS by then, and this person in the same town was just hearing about Shaniya being kidnapped? Was the AA not issued right away; same day at least? Sure hope no one at hotel was overlooking questionable (and regular?) activity with children.

In my opinion...

* It is possible MAM checked into the hotel earlier, prior to picking up Shaniya. Therefore, he would already have had the key, so it would have been unnecessary to stop by the front desk with her in his arms. With the key already in his posession, he could have carried her from the car directly to the elevator, and then to the room.

* Another possibilty... someone else ( an as yet unknown person to us)actually booked and checked into the room. In this case, the person who checked into the room would only have to call MAM and tell MAM what hotel and room number. Then MAM would have had no need to stop by the front desk at all, just carry Shaniya directly from the car to the room. The other person, waiting in the hotel room already, would answer the door after hearing MAM knock, and let MAM and Shaniya in the hotel room.

* In defense of the front desk attendant (I work in a hotel), he/she may not have even seen the news reports until much later. (Most places of employment do not allow their employees to watch tv while on the clock. I know that when I get home after working all night, I get home and go to sleep, I don't watch tv). After finally seeing the news reports, the hotel employee may have gone back to the hotel, told their manager, reviewed the videos, and then called the authorities.

I hate to condemn the hotel employee for doing what was right- calling the authorities and alerting them to the existance of the surveillance video. I'm going to give this person the benefit of the doubt, and guess they alerted the authorities as soon as they realized they knew something of importance.

 

[3blackcats]

No, it doesn't matter whether or not the defendant took the stand in the trial. The trial phase and penalty phase are completely divorced from each other. Once the defendant is convicted, the jury learns for the first time about the offenders past record of arrests and convictions and a whole lot of other things that were not permitted at trial. This is done so that the defendant's past record does not influence the jury in its current verdict. But once that verdict is guilty, the defendant's entire past and entire record is admissible.

It doesn't matter at that point whether or not the defendant ever took the stand in the trial.

I had a test on this today and if Florida's rules are the same as the federal rules of evidence then Casey's conviction for forging a check would be admissible if she took the stand because it is probative of her veracity and goes to whether she is telling the truth or perjuring herself. Federally, convictions for a crime where lying is one of the elements are admissible in cross examination for ten years after the conviction or release from jail.

 

[amf1277]

I just pulled the following from this article:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/6459635/[/URL]

"Since then, authorities have struggled to resolve jurisdictional questions over who would handle the murder case. Prosecutors must prove where the girl was killed to establish legal jurisdiction to prosecute someone on a murder charge."

So.....that would tell me they are thinking she was killed in Cumberland County?? First thing I thought was that maybe he did whatever he intended to do and brought her home, they knew she would tell and someone in the home killed her and drove her back closer to Sanford since they might have known he took her there. But that wouldn't explain why he is being charged w/ her murder. I don't know.....I'm certainly perplexed.

 

[Carolina Girl]

How did she know he was going to murder her? Shaniya was still alive when AD called 911.

She didn't, but she knew he had her.

 

[luckygirl]

It looks like Utah to me. Did he get married out there? And maybe thats why he gave up Shanyia, sending her back to momster???

Just thought I would say...I'm in Az and It's for sure the Grand Canyon.

 

[Carolina Girl]

Anybody on here can access the marriage records by state?

 

[belimom]

IF there was no 3rd party involved, what was the point of going to the hotel?

Especially one almost 40 miles away when there are plenty in/around Fayetteville.

 

[belimom]

At the very least, BL appears to have problems with commitment and attachment. He has 5 (or is it 6) children with 3 different mothers, none of whom he managed to have a permanent relationship with. ...(snipped)....

One of his wives was murdered about ten years ago.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Anybody on here can access the marriage records by state?

It sometimes takes a month or 2 for states to update the marriage records. If they got married in Oct, the info might not be available to the public yet.

 

[Bobbisangel]

I don't see how the father can sue children's services when he never went to them to have them approve the home to put his child in there.And since he's had past child custody cases with the same offices in Fayetteville,and lost custody of children,I'm sure they would have investigated the whole situation.I wish NG would check into that whole thing before she remarks about it on her show.

Nancy isn't going to check anything out when it comes to the father. The most she will say is that he made a mistake. I don't think she wants to know anything more about the father or his lifestyle, kids, relationships, etc.

Tonight she almost drove me crazy. Everytime a guest would start to say something interesting Nancy would but in and take over. I get so angry at her I yell at her...wish she could hear all of us telling her to Shut Up! It doesn't do any good to complain to her station..many of us have done it many times throughout the years and are ignored. I always watch Nancy but darn she irritates me at times.

 

[karen in New York]

Especially one almost 40 miles away when there are plenty in/around Fayetteville.

Maybe this was the routine. If it happened more than once. He would take her to meet abusers at different places (hotels). But this time it was different.
Someone else said that the autopsy might be able to indicate past abuse as well as the fatal incident.

 

[SuziQ]

Did we get BL's contractor job figured out? FWIW, Contracting can apply to any field, computers, medical, military. The difference is a company hires a contractor, a company employes an employee.

IMO, if BL was in Utah and former military, he's probably a Department of Defense contractor of some sort. I have alot of them living in my town that work at the Depot or Proving grounds. In fact on my street there are some really nice new homes the builder leases to DOD employees.

 

[not_my_kids]

I just stopped in after I heard COD.
I had been hoping for something fast...so much for that.
At least it wasn't horribly violent.

 

[lbminnesota]

I noticed in the press conference that the police chief expressed sympathy only to the Davis family. May have been a slip.

 

[belimom]

I had a test on this today and if Florida's rules are the same as the federal rules of evidence then Casey's conviction for forging a check would be admissible if she took the stand because it is probative of her veracity and goes to whether she is telling the truth or perjuring herself. Federally, convictions for a crime where lying is one of the elements are admissible in cross examination for ten years after the conviction or release from jail.

Welcome to Websleuths...!

 

[redcar1]

Didn't get to see the latest press conference.
Understand new charges for MAM? How about the mom? COD: exfixiation (sp?) Choking?

Is there a link?

 

[not_my_kids]

http://www.examiner.com/x-12837-US-...sphyxiation-autopsy-shows-she-was-raped-video

COD and confirmation of sexual assault.
This is where I read it. I'm sure the link is already here, I just don't want to look for it. I'm a full thread behind.

 

[belimom]

I just pulled the following from this article:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/6459635/[/URL]

"Since then, authorities have struggled to resolve jurisdictional questions over who would handle the murder case. Prosecutors must prove where the girl was killed to establish legal jurisdiction to prosecute someone on a murder charge."

So.....that would tell me they are thinking she was killed in Cumberland County?? ...(snipped)...

Tonight the officer stressed how much they had met/worked collaboratively with the other jurisdictions to determine who would take the case. He said something to the effect that it was started in Cumberland County and they really wanted to stay with it until the end. So I don't think they necessarily believe she was killed in Cumberland County .

If I misheard him, please correct me!

 

[alwaysonmymind]

I just stopped in after I heard COD.
I had been hoping for something fast...so much for that.
At least it wasn't horribly violent.

:waitasec:

It feels pretty violent when you're a little kid and someone is smothering you or trying to choke the life out of you. jmo

 

[kiki the parrot]

At the very least, BL appears to have problems with commitment and attachment. He has 5 (or is it 6) children with 3 different mothers, none of whom he managed to have a permanent relationship with. In addition, all of this children appear to be taken care of by people other than him. That tells me he is very casual about relationships and responsibility for the outcome of those relationships. Meet a woman, have kids with her, stay a while, leave, meet a woman, have a kid with her, stay a while, leave, meet a woman, have a kid, stay while, leave. Literally. This is a man who procreates and then takes no real responsibility for his offspring, or their mothers.

There is no doubt in my mind that if he met another future baby momma the last thing on his mind was taking care of the mammas and babies he already had. He left them all in the past, why would now be any different? This is a very egocentric man without alot of concern for anyone but himself. He has no trouble moving on to the next baby mama and kid.

There does seem to be a pattern here :waitasec:

IMO, sadly, I do not think it was Shaniya's first time with that SOB.

AD was prostituting her.

Sounds like it was an ongoing thing to me.

Makes me think AD had consented to before, maybe numerous times, but the final time--maybe AD's conscience had begun bothering her or she'd paid most of her debt down, or his demands were outside the limits of what she'd allowed and/or she'd never permitted him to take Shaniya elsewhere--he took her and fled. A move that angered AD enough to report him and risk prostituting charges etc. If so she may have not realized she would be up for felony murder.

ETA This could be easily disproven of course w MH park surveillance video if they have her handing Shaniya over to MAM. We shall see.

arrot: