Thursday, February 21, 2013

Shaniya Davis Killer Writes Letters

Q.  Did McNeil write this on his own?  See also:  http://fayobserver.com/fayobserver.com/files/f6/f66e5ffb-7e6e-411e-abe6-33c7f2b12abe.pdf

Do you believe he would say these sentences in the Free Editing Process?  Please put your thoughts in the comments section.  We have previously covered this case and will cover the trial. 

Mario Andrette McNeill denies raping and killing 5-year-old Shaniya Davis in handwritten letters sent to The Fayetteville Observer.
McNeill, 32, is scheduled to stand trial April 8 in Cumberland County Superior Court. He faces the death penalty if convicted of the November 2009 killing.
He claims innocence in two letters postmarked Feb. 15 and addressed from the Cumberland County Detention Center. The Observer received the letters Wednesday.

In one, McNeill writes: "I did not take or kidnap Shaniya Davis. I did not purchase, buy, trade, sell or exchange Shaniya Davis. I did not molest, sexually assault, rape or ravish Shaniya Davis. I did not kill, murder, or take Shaniya Davis's life, nor did I have any prior or beforehand knowledge as to what was to and/or did occur."

In the second letter, he disputes two recent charges of sexual exploitation, which he says are related to images found on his cellphone.

McNeill's lawyers could not be reached for comment about his statements.

Authorities accuse Shaniya's mother of selling her child to McNeill to settle a drug debt, then falsely reporting her child as missing. Police say McNeill assaulted the child in a Sanford hotel before killing her and leaving her body along N.C. 87 in Harnett County. Shaniya' s body was found six days later.

The case captured national attention almost immediately after the girl's mother, Antoniette Nicole Davis, reported her missing from their home off Murchison Road. McNeill became a suspect soon after when surveillance cameras at the Sanford hotel captured images of him with the missing child on the morning she allegedly disappeared.

Cumberland County District Attorney Billy West could not be reached Wednesday to comment on McNeill's letters. He has previously declined to discuss specifics of the case.

West plans to try McNeill before trying Davis. His trial had been scheduled to begin this week but was pushed back to April. He faces multiple charges including child rape, kidnapping, child abuse and human trafficking.
Davis, 28, is charged with murder, child abuse, sexual servitude, human trafficking, child rape and other offenses.

Last week, prosecutors charged McNeill with second- and third-degree sexual exploitation of a minor. An indictment Feb. 11 accuses him of possessing a photograph of a female child engaged in sexual activity.

McNeill, who pleaded not guilty to the charges, wrote in his letter that the pictures were found on his phone. He said the female is a 23-year-old who looks like a teenager. He took the pictures when she was 20, he wrote.

37 comments:

john said...

In one, McNeill writes:

"I did not take or kidnap Shaniya Davis. I did not purchase, buy, trade, sell or exchange Shaniya Davis. I did not molest, sexually assault, rape or ravish Shaniya Davis. I did not kill, murder, or take Shaniya Davis's life, nor did I have any prior or beforehand knowledge as to what was to and/or did occur."

I have to admit this is a tough one for me.

He issues a reliable denial's for what has been alledged,and yet he adds all the denial's together.Should all his denials be separate.

IE:"I did not take Shaniya Davis"

"I did not kidnap Shaniya Davis".

"I did not purchase,Shaniya Davis"

"I did not buy Shaniya Davis"

And so on.

The word RAVISH is disturbing,i would like to know what his definition of Ravish is?

john said...

OT.

Four-Year-Old 'Sexually Assaulted': Teen Held
9:59am UK, Thursday 21 February 2013

The alleged assault took place in a play centre in Dalton Square

Police have appealed for information



Email
A 13-year-old boy has been arrested on suspicion of sexually assaulting a four-year-old girl at a children's play centre in Lancaster.

The girl told her parents the assault happened whilst she was playing at The Zone on Dalton Square between 12.30pm and 1.30pm on February 16, police said.

The boy has been released on bail while detectives continue their investigation.

Lancashire Police have appealed for information.

Detective Inspector Phil Jones, who is leading the investigation, said: "This is a very sensitive investigation and we are seeking the help of the public.

"I would ask the parents or relatives of any children who were at The Zone on Saturday between 12.30pm and 2pm to contact the police."

DI Jones said there was no suggestion that any other children had been victims or were potentially at risk.

"We do believe this to have been an isolated incident. However, we are seeking any witnesses that may have seen something suspicious or out of the ordinary.

"The young girl and her parents are currently being supported by specially trained officers and The Zone is fully cooperating with our investigation."

http://news.sky.com/story/1054916/four-year-old-sexually-assaulted-teen-held

dadgum said...

John..
I thought people were using 'ravish' when they meant 'ravage'..but when I looked it up years ago, I found ravish means more than 'you look ravishing', meaning 'stunning', or 'beautiful'. It also means to 'carry off by force', and 'to rape'.

However, I live here in NC. I don't think he used this word on his own.

Anonymous said...

McNeill issued a strong but carefully worded denial. Maybe McNeill delivered Shaniya Davis to someone who he is afraid to implicate? They have shown the photos of McNeill carrying the child towards a hotel room but nothing of either's departure. There should be photos of him leaving with her or a large bundle containing her body.

sidewalk super said...

McNeil has way way too many elements in his (?) written denial. Uses terms lifted from so-called romance novels in prison library?
And then they (he had help) turn around and write another letter denying a charge they didn't cover in the first letter?
Shaniya's mother is where?

emerald said...

Maybe his attorney fed him these lines in attempt to impact potential jurors? I live here and this letter does not sound genuine to me.

john said...

OT.

Oscar Pistorius: 'No Forensic Evidence For Murder'
The quality of evidence against Pistorius exposes "disastrous shortcomings" in the case against the athlete, his lawyer says.12:52pm UK, Thursday 21 February 2013
There is no forensic evidence to prove that Oscar Pistorius murdered his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, the Olympian's lawyer has told the court.

Barry Roux, acting for Pistorius, today attempted to pick apart the prosecution's claims arguing that the athlete better known as Blade Runner should be granted bail.

He said that the quality of the police evidence against the 26-year-old was poor and exposed "disastrous shortcomings" in the case.

Mr Roux outlined his case on the third day of Pistorius' bail hearing as the sporting hero sobbed in the dock.

Speaking from the court in Pretoria, Sky's Alex Crawford said: "He (Mr Roux) has started going point-by-point through each of the charges, or points, that the state has made as to why he (Pistorius) should not get bail.


Oscar Pistorius clutches at a tissue as the defence outlines its case
"He has basically tried to steer the magistrate towards thinking that Oscar Pistorius has exceptional circumstances why he should be granted bail.

"The defence appears to be saying: this is not premeditated murder, there is no evidence of premeditated murder, there is no evidence of murder; the state cannot prove that Oscar Pistorius knew that his lover, Reeva Steenkamp, was in that toilet; that the state has produced an investigating officer, who has carried out a number of bungles, and not collated evidence properly; and that Oscar Pistorius is no flight risk."


Sky's Alex Crawford says lawyers claim Pistorius is "no flight risk"
The defence also pointed out that:

* Pistorius tried to save Miss Steenkamp's life by carrying her downstairs and calling Netcare.

* Pistorius didn't know the toilet door was locked when he shot - addressing the prosecution question over why a burglar would lock themselves in the bathroom.

* Lead investigating officer Hilton Botha "did not show honesty" when giving evidence.

* Botha tailored his evidence to incriminate Pistorius as much as possible.

* Pistorius and Miss Steenkamp had a loving relationship and the prosecution had not proved otherwise.

john said...

Cont..

* If Pistorius had waited for police to arrive after Miss Steenkamp's death, why would he abscond now?

Magistrate Desmond Nair asked Mr Roux: "Do you think there will be shock if the accused is released?"

Mr Roux replied: "No, after hearing his defence I think there will be shock if he's not."

The defence laid out its case amid scenes of high drama as proceedings were halted because of a "threat outside the court". However, no threat emerged and the court reconvened with no explanation from the magistrate over the adjournment.


The family of Pistorius watch intently
Earlier in the morning it had emerged that Botha is himself facing seven charges of attempted murder.

He is alleged to have shot at seven passengers as he attempted to stop a minibus in October 2011 while drunk on duty.

The charges were initially dropped but the state prosecutor reinstated them in the days before Miss Steenkamp was killed.

Police said that they were only informed of the reinstated charges yesterday and had subsequently bolstered the team investigating the killing of Miss Steenkamp.

Botha, who will himself appear in court in May, denies that he had been drinking and said that the people he was shooting at were suspects in an investigation.


Nike has suspended its endorsement of Pistorius
The officer was summoned to the court by the magistrate this morning, however, the attempted murder charges were not addressed.

Instead Botha was asked about mobile phone records for Miss Steenkamp and Pistorius around the hours of the shooting.

Under cross-examination on Wednesday, Botha was accused of contaminating the crime scene in the Paralympic star's home and backtracked on key details, including the distance of witnesses from the house.

In his often confused testimony, Botha, who was described as a 24-year police veteran with 16 years experience as a detective, conceded that police had left a 9 mm slug from the shots that killed Miss Steenkamp inside a toilet at the scene.

Police also lost track of illegal ammunition found inside the house, Botha said, and the detective himself walked through the crime scene without wearing protective shoe covers, potentially contaminating the area.

He also claimed in court that police found boxes of testosterone and needles in Pistorius' bedroom following the Valentine's Day shooting last week, but then said later he wasn't sure what the exact name of the substance was.

Miss Steenkamp, 29, was hit by three bullets - one in the head, the hip and arm, Pretoria Magistrates Court heard.

Pistorius has admitted shooting the model with a 9mm pistol pulled from under his bed, but claims he did so thinking she was a burglar who was in the bathroom.

After realising his mistake, he said he broke down the door with a cricket bat and carried her downstairs.

As today's hearing started, Nike confirmed that it had suspended its endorsement contract with Pistorius.

A spokesman said: "We believe Oscar Pistorius should be afforded due process and we will continue to monitor the situation closely."

*The family of the athlete have devoted his official website to updates about the bail hearing and messages of support.

"We will issue at least two statements a day, in order to provide the media with the freshest news, taking into account the time differences," said Janine Hills, the chief executive of Vuma corporate reputation management.

john said...

Link:

http://news.sky.com/story/1054862/oscar-pistorius-no-forensic-evidence-for-murder

Red Ryder said...

OP hit the jackpot with having Botha be the responding detective to his case! So many errors were made defense will be Ae to drive trucks through the holes in the prosecutions case. That is if their judicial system is similar to ours though. I know there is no jury, only a judge, so perhaps not so easy to sway. Hmmm, time to check out the trial system of South Africa.

Peter Hyatt said...

RR,

I hope justice is still served.

She was executed.

Peter Hyatt said...

John, it should all be taken together, as written, and puts him in to the rarest of rare liars.

I think he is someone we should follow closely.

He is the type of liar who is brought to the point of being asked,

"You have denied killing her. Please give us one reason why?"

Recall that humans appear to be unable to lie about a lie; that is, they cannot lie against reality and then affirm, "I told the truth."

Ivy said...

This was written by a lawyer to deny specific charges. It is not at all unusual for lawyers to "draft" affidavits/delclarations (for and with clients) that are then reviewed and signed by clients. All such documents are at the very least reviewed by lawyers to make sure they don't include any problematic statements, but I think a lot of the time they are written by lawyers too. Not usually this badly, and blandly though. This is not a very helpful document -- it almost serves the same purpose as a "not guilty" plea. Usually affidavits/declarations provide factual information/details that support a denial whereas this denial while also "fact based" (saying I did not rape someone, or murder someone is a fact even if it can also be a not guilty plea or a legal conclusion) provides almost no information at all.

Red Ryder said...

Oops! I forgot what thread I was in! Re: McNeil's letter, if he is the true author and not parroting lawyer fed lines, I think it would be easier to lie in writing than verbally (except for sociopaths). How would this work investigating a person who knew SA, if you took a written statement they would be sure to alter it to make themselves appear uninvolved in whatever the investigation was about?
Looking back on MN's statement I see that in all his denial he does not say he wasn't "given" Shania and while he denies prior knowledge as to what was and/or did occur, he doesn't deny at the moment of occurrence or post knowledge. Hope that made sense.

Deejay said...

He and the mother will be found guilty- there are pictures clear as day and forensic/behavioral evidence. Sadly, she was just a little girl failed by people who should have loved her...

QChick said...

I did not take or kidnap Shaniya Davis. I did not purchase, buy, trade, sell or exchange Shaniya Davis.

Shaniya was given to him by mom, or in his mind, she went with him willingly

"I did not molest, sexually assault, rape or ravish Shaniya Davis."

If he is a true pedophile, these terms do not exist for him in regards to what happened with Shaniya.

"I did not kill, murder, or take Shaniya Davis's life, nor did I have any prior or beforehand knowledge as to what was to and/or did occur."

Accidental death, I would think by suffocation? I cant rememebr if cause of death was released, sorry.

Anita said...

Ravish!? Who would say that!? Who would choose that word in their defense!? He might as well have said, "I ravished her!"

That's like saying, "I did not salivate, savor, and luxuriate over all the missing cookies."

john said...

Peter Hyatt said...

John, it should all be taken together, as written, and puts him in to the rarest of rare liars.

I think he is someone we should follow closely.

He is the type of liar who is brought to the point of being asked,

"You have denied killing her. Please give us one reason why?"

PLEASE GIVE US ONE REASON WHY?

Peter,

Given that its very rare for liars to lie twice and he gave the answer BECAUSE I TOLD THE TRUTH to the above question, are we dealing with a very serious liar.?

Peter Hyatt said...

John,

I have never heard a liar say "I told the truth" and when I say "never", I mean:

in person,
in writing,
or even someone telling me that they heard it.

This is why LSI teaches "no one can lie twice" meaning that if they lie about reality, they won't lie about their lie.

It is strange and I have zip experience with it!

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Do many of you recall that horrifying video of him carrying in the still living child, up to be raped and killed?

john said...

It is very strange one Peter,are there any examples by Avinoam Sapir that you are aware of?

Lemon said...

I recall the video. I wish I didn't.

Anita said...

No, I just saw it on Youtube. It's awful.

Sus said...

I think he wrote it and he is not lying...to himself.

In his mind, he did not take, purchase, etc. He was given Shaniya, and maybe even went with him willingly because her mother said to.

He is a pedophile. He sees himself as having a relationship with Shaniya. He "courted" her, thus he could not have raped or sexually assaulted her. John Ramos, long thought to be Etan Patz killer, thought the same way.

He doesn't see it as his problem or fault that Shaniya died. She wanted to be with him.

Doesn't the last sentence mean her death "did occur " but he had no idea beforehand it would?

Anonymous said...

If he didn't do any of those things, then what was he doing in the motel picture? Was he identified as the man that was holding her? Does he claim to have taken her to someone else? If so, he could have assumed nothing good was going to happen. So then he did have knowledge of SOMETHING proir. I think I could shoot him myself!

shmi said...

Peter,
I would love an example of a liar not able to lie about lieing. My brain cannot grasp this!

Hobnob said...

reading the letter i see it has him being coached, these are not his words, these are the words of a lawyer.
Every base and option is covered, something guilty people never do, they always miss something out.

Ravish is not a common usage word, it is seen in b movies and romance novels, where is he likely to have come across the word ravish and would he be able to tell us what it meant?

This is the process of free editing in his handwriting, it is however not his free editing.

The language is formal and screams education, how far did he go through school, could he tells us what any of the word he used meant and thus what he is admitting to or denying.

Lis said...

I tried to post my comment but I got an error and lost my comment, so I'm trying again. I hope it doesn't double post.

Peter, I remember that video well, it is horrifying.

"I did not take or kidnap Shaniya Davis. I did not purchase, buy, trade, sell or exchange Shaniya Davis. I did not molest, sexually assault, rape or ravish Shaniya Davis. I did not kill, murder, or take Shaniya Davis's life, nor did I have any prior or beforehand knowledge as to what was to and/or did occur."

This seems to be a complete list covering everything but there can easily be some term not included which is how he defines what happened. I.e., was he *given* Shaniya? Did he *give* her to someone else? Or does he imagine she *chose* to go with him or someone else? Is there some other term that he would use to explain what happened?

These read as legal definitions to me, and he is listing out all the legal acts he could be charged with.

Saying he did not "have any prior or beforehand knowledge as to what was to and/or did occur" implies that there was something that was planned to occur and did occur but that he didn't have knowledge of it beforehand. "Was to and/or did occur" is a strange wording.

Maybe he is going to claim someone else is responsible and he was just a patsy who didn't know what was going to happen ahead of time.

Jo said...

shmi, I remember having the same question about that. I jotted down the following regarding "lying about a lie"

Why should I believe you?
Correct answer from truthful person would be:
Because I told the truth.

A person who lied, cannot lie again about their lie so instead will say something like:
Because there is no proof.
Believe what you want.
Because there is no evidence.
Because I don't lie.
Because I said so.
I don't care if you believe me or not.

They will use the word lie again but not the word truth.

Jo said...

"I did not take or kidnap Shaniya Davis. (take or kidnap would imply without the parent's knowledge or consent, so he can make this statement without it being a lie) I did not purchase, buy, trade, sell or exchange Shaniya Davis. (Shaniya was given in payment for a past debt, so he did not technically purchase her, trade her or exchange her) I did not molest, sexually assault, rape or ravish Shaniya Davis. (his definition of what he did with Shaniya may be very different than rape or sexual assault - legally it was, but his personal definition may be very different) I did not kill, murder, or take Shaniya Davis's life, nor did I have any prior or beforehand knowledge as to what was to and/or did occur." (he did not know the debt would be settled as it was beforehand. He also may not have had prior knowledge that Shaniya would die or be killed. He does not say he does not have knowledge of her killing, just that he did not know about it beforehand. I do not have knowledge of what my drive to work will be like before I actually drive the route but I know I will be making the drive, I am aware of the drive at the time I am doing it and I have knowledge of what happened as it happens and after. So I could safely say "I had no prior knowledge of my drive to work this morning" that doesn't mean it didn't happen or that I didn't have knowledge of it during or after.)

shmi said...

Thanks, Jo, I can understand it now. Your analysis of his statement makes perdect sence.

Anonymous said...

nor did I have any prior or beforehand knowledge as to what was to and/or did occur."

sounds like to me he took her there but he didn't know why he was taking her there. he may have been mislead as to the reason for taking her there.

but i thought when they caught him, he said he heard on the radio or somehow found out that LE was looking for him and the girl and he got scared and pulled off the road and choked her to death and dumped her body. i remember thinking that if they would have just waited for him to get back, or if the mother hadn't filed the false report, he would have taken her home and she would have been just fine.
imo, it was the mother who caused all this and she should be strung up in the worst way.

Anonymous said...

We know Jodi Arias murdered Travis Alexander. But should she be put to death? Life in prison, ok. But death! Come on!

This scumbag molested and murdered a CHILD! HE should get the death penalty. Is the death penalty even on the table here? Probably not. This trial will be done quietly cuz it's horrific and disgusting.

So much easier to discuss Jodi Arias and not these ugly-ass pedophiles, child abusers and child killers. It was a sad day when She Who Should Not Be Named walked scot free. She murdered a child!

Jodi Arias and Anthony are not one in the same.

rob said...

You didn't do it? OK, start talking. Who did? Where? Why did you give her to someone else?

If he had a story to tell, he would have been crying the first nite he was arrested.

The video hangs him.

Periwinkle Paisley said...

I would have to hear how he speaks in his everyday life. I shouldn't assume because he's a drug dealing, murdering, filthy pedophile that he isn't articulate. Seeing the word RAVISH is unusual. You usually only see that word in romance novels. Not a word that I'd expect to hear from a 26 year old man even if he is well spoken. If he doesn't speak like this in his everyday speech I'd say someone else (his lawyer?) wrote it for him.

Anonymous said...

I just cry...I just cry..i don't understand this world. this saddens me so much that I had to stop watching news.

Peter Hyatt said...

this was one of the most horrific crimes we have covered. The video was heart wrenching.