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

[theengineer]

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.

It begs the question on what happened to him during his childhood. These types of behaviors don't just happen overnight. How terribly sad.

 

[Wondergirl]

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 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?

LE charged SM with these crimes, because they are crimes.

I have stated this before, but, with the new charges, it's worth repeating.

"Lesser" charges (compared to murder), can be used to show escalation in crimes.

WTH is up with the date of "on or about June 30th". THAT is NOT an insignificant detail, IMO.

 

[GeorgiaRoyalty]

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 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?

Me, just being blunt...I have been on 2 separate juries in Bibb County within the last 40 months, and no matter what instructions the Judge/s give you on how to decide guilt/innocence in regards to the defendant ones gut feeling/natural instinct/5th sense will be there even if a person is upfront about it or conceals it, it does.

by painting these pictures in potential jurors head/s the DA's office knows and understands this very well.

when its time to go back in the that tiny room and make that 'decision' if these charges stick and are valid, someone will ask themselves what type of person murders someone in such a awful gruesome fashion?. That inner voice will start talking and talking loud- easy a pedophile

 

[Wondergirl]

In the case of missing teen Hailey Dunn, her mother's boyfriend was found to be in possession of 100,000 images of child , including bestiality. Found on memory sticks, cd's, multiple computers, lord knows where else.

To my knowledge, he still hasn't been charged. FWIW

I think LE found more images than "just" the memory stick, unfortunately, but, that was likely the item most directly attributable to SM and his own personal use. JMO

 

[pearl]

How does a change of venue work if SM requests one and it is granted? Would the Bibb County prosecutor present the case to jurors in another county or would another prosecutor present the case? If the case is moved to another county, would Macon LE continue to investigate? My thinking is that if SM requests a change of venue, he will probably get it if it is a death penalty case. I don't think the child charges could be brought up in the murder trial. Could they be brought up in the penalty phase if SM is convicted of murdering Lauren?

 

[Backwoods]

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!

about the bolded: and surely they have checked/are checking/will check this out as well

 

[SmoothOperator]

Well, for any who have followed the Hailey Dunn case this exact issue of child allegations by the only POI in her disappearance[mom's live-in boyfriend] have been dissected and discussed at great length.. Myself actually being one of the only who thought it greatly possible that with it seemingly being such a relatively small amount of the supposed child [single digits as in this case]..my thoughts were that..
It could have been teen which is huge on the internet and LE having found that one of the "teens" photoed was found to have actually been under 18yoa..therefor technically making it "child "


I personally think this man is most likely the person responsible for what has happened to Hailey but with there never having been charges filed on the supposed single digit amount of "child " found to be on his flash drive in mom's bottom dresser drawer..it does make me wonder as to what was honestly found to be the nature of the media found..

Make no mistake my opinion is strongly that even one image of child is unacceptable and should have the book thrown at the person possessing it..I am just giving my honest opinion about that even if I strongly believe an individual to be most likely the responsible party for a crime committed..I still however am perfectly capable of looking at all information that comes to light with an open mind and not a"hell yea, he did it, he's guilty of everything they come up with!".. Not the case and why I voiced my different view of how I saw this particular individual and this particular detail in the Dunn case..

So, too did I initially give that same benefit of the doubt to Stephen McDaniel when first reading about the child exploitation charges.. Again, IMO I thought it to have been a "questionable" teen possibly..

After having read with my own eyes the seven individual charges laid out and detailed of each of the images I must say my benefit of the doubt that was given Stephen immediately dissolved and was replaced with again, a very sick at the very pit of my stomach feeling that I have repeated throughout this case.. That there is something that is just not right here and that it goes deeper and further reaching than just Stephen McDaniel, himself..Much deeper and much, much darker IMO<for now I will leave it at that and patiently wait as the case continues to unfold and more comes to light>

The descriptive accounts of each of the seven charges, as someone upthread stated correctly "is not for the faint at heart".. made it very clear these were not media images possibly mistaken for a gal just shy of her eighteenth birthday!! The detectives clearly and intentionally spell it out the graphic in nature actions being displayed as well as every one of them clearly state that the images are of prepubescent children either engaging with other prepubescent children or with an adult male or female...

Sick are not the words that I yelled out when reading the words on the warrant but they will have to suffice here!!

One other thing I wanted to mention is that while some express great surprise over this I must say that me and knoxy had exchanged meassages 2 weeks ago about our grave concerns for this exact possibility..As well as the possibility several have brought up this evening about our fears being that somehow possibly the minor siblings were involved.. While i Don't see anything to suggest that is the case here it is however still not only a concern but given these new found charges I would say that it would actually make that possibility of concern not near as far fetched or out of the realm of possibilty..much the opposite..jmo, tho!!

ETA~ regarding SA in the Hailey Dunn case I will have to search a link for the specific wording of the media involved but I believe it was similar to that over 100,000 images/video were recovered of deviant which included child and beastiality..and that it wasn't that the entirety or even the majority were of child but rather a single digit number..Again, I'll to search for the specific details but to this day even tho this evidence came to light some 5+months ago zero charges have yet to have been filed..drastically different then what we have here that the media was found very recently and here we see charges already having been filed..

 

[Backwoods]

WTH is up with the date of "on or about June 30th". THAT is NOT an insignificant detail, IMO.

I snipped for focus

I am very curious about that, too.

 

[pearl]

I snipped for focus

I am very curious about that, too.

Isn't this the date given on the murder arrest warrant? I'm thinking LE used this date because it is the first date they can say they actually found anything. I may be wrong.

 

[Backwoods]

Isn't this the date given on the murder arrest warrant? I'm thinking LE used this date because it is the first date they can say they actually found anything. I may be wrong.

You could well be right, but I am also wondering about the possibility of being able to date when the drive was accessed, etc.

 

[bessie]

I snipped for focus

I am very curious about that, too.

I'm know I'm tired tonight, but what am I missing? What's peculiar about the date? His apartment was searched on June 30th, and he was booked into the jail on the burglary charges at about 5am on July 1st. So the flash drive was confiscated at that time, also. Right?

 

[Backwoods]

I'm know I'm tired tonight, but what am I missing? What's peculiar about the date? His apartment was searched on June 30th, and he was booked into the jail on the burglary charges at about 5am on July 1st. So the flash drive was confiscated at that time, also. Right?

See post right above yours for what I was wondering. I'm not sure we know when the computers, drives, etc., were taken ...? But stands to reason it could have been that first search.

ETA: I'm thinking -- if it simply reflects last opportunity he would have had to download and/or general time of his arrest, then June 30 not so significant.

If there is some kind of technical proof of when an image was first "possessed", date could be more significant.

 

[Givsmetheshivers]

LE charged SM with these crimes, because they are crimes.

I have stated this before, but, with the new charges, it's worth repeating.

"Lesser" charges (compared to murder), can be used to show escalation in crimes.

WTH is up with the date of "on or about June 30th". THAT is NOT an insignificant detail, IMO.

I noticed that too, but I didn't know if that meant that he acutally downloaded them then, or they just found them then and that's when they "time stamp" them because they don't have an acutal date. Does that make sense?

 

[ThinMan]

In the case of missing teen Hailey Dunn, her mother's boyfriend was found to be in possession of 100,000 images of child , including bestiality. Found on memory sticks, cd's, multiple computers, lord knows where else.

To my knowledge, he still hasn't been charged. FWIW

That's the very reason why "Because they are crimes" is a wholly inadequate answer to the question I asked as to why Winters & Burns chose to get a warrant on the new charges. While child is a serious felony, it's obvious that the big prize here is convicting SMD on felony/murder and/or malice/murder charges, with a possible death penalty.

Just as the boyfriend you mention has yet to be charged, another course of action for Winters and Burns was to sit on this evidence as insurance that, worst case -- they lose the murder charge or trial, they can still keep SMD behind bars and put him away for major time.

As for "WTH is up with the on or about June 30" . . . the warrant has to state a time when the offense was committed. The cops have no idea when SMD acquired the digital pictures, so they charge what they know based on when they seized the flash drive. They know SMD possessed it on or about (a bit before) June 30, so that's what the warrant says.

Looks to me like the bottom line is that Winters/Burns are trying to convince everyone that SMD is a creep and obviously did the murder. Based on comments here, they've succeeded. The fact that they chosen that step tells me their evidence in the case in chief is very weak -- probably nothing that we haven't discussed ad naseum in these threads. Darn!

SMD may never be convicted of killing Lauren Giddings ~
(hope I'm wrong!)

 

[Lawette32]

I snipped for focus

I am very curious about that, too.

If you're referring to the language "on or about," it is a pretty typical legal term, kind of boiler-plate esque. You'll find it in most legal docs, even if the exact date is known (from what I've seen, anyways.)

 

[Givsmetheshivers]

Well, could it be that LE found the memory stick, but they needed the FBI to do the computer forensics to see if they actually were produced or downloaded from McD's computer to charge him? The computer evidence just came back, so maybe that is why were are just now getting the charge.

Also, maybe that is how they know he is guilty of the crime.

 

[Backwoods]

If you're referring to the language "on or about," it is a pretty typical legal term, kind of boiler-plate esque. You'll find it in most legal docs, even if the exact date is known (from what I've seen, anyways.)

about bolding: that does help, thanks!

 

[~SuperSleuth~]

LE charged SM with these crimes, because they are crimes.

I have stated this before, but, with the new charges, it's worth repeating.

"Lesser" charges (compared to murder), can be used to show escalation in crimes.

WTH is up with the date of "on or about June 30th". THAT is NOT an insignificant detail, IMO.

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:

 

[tomkat]

That's the very reason why "Because they are crimes" is a wholly inadequate answer to the question I asked as to why Winters & Burns chose to get a warrant on the new charges. While child is a serious felony, it's obvious that the big prize here is convicting SMD on felony/murder and/or malice/murder charges, with a possible death penalty.

Just as the boyfriend you mention has yet to be charged, another course of action for Winters and Burns was to sit on this evidence as insurance that, worst case -- they lose the murder charge or trial, they can still keep SMD behind bars and put him away for major time.

As for "WTH is up with the on or about June 30" . . . the warrant has to state a time when the offense was committed. The cops have no idea when SMD acquired the digital pictures, so they charge what they know based on when they seized the flash drive. They know SMD possessed it on or about (a bit before) June 30, so that's what the warrant says.

Looks to me like the bottom line is that Winters/Burns are trying to convince everyone that SMD is a creep and obviously did the murder. Based on comments here, they've succeeded. The fact that they chosen that step tells me their evidence in the case in chief is very weak -- probably nothing that we haven't discussed ad naseum in these threads. Darn!

SMD may never be convicted of killing Lauren Giddings ~
(hope I'm wrong!)

I totally agree

In case he walks like OJ or Casey, they have something to put him away with or atleast ruin his life with being a sex offender, which we all know follows you to death.

 

[bessie]

I noticed that too, but I didn't know if that meant that he acutally downloaded them then, or they just found them then and that's when they "time stamp" them because they don't have an acutal date. Does that make sense?

June 30th (on or about) is when he knowingly possessed the images, according to the charges. The date has nothing to do with when they were downloaded or copied to the drive, and nothing to do with when he acquired the flash drive.