Gag order: but Janet will still talk

[Nealus]

The date of Oct.16 on the TimesDispatch.com/taylor_behl/ index page brings one to this article dated today. October 18th

Gag order issued for witnesses in Behl case (http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128767598684)

In another thread I read:

"Richmond cops need to learn not to not talk so much."

Yes, I agree. I was suprised last week that whatever Ben said - got leaked - by whom - cops or clerks around the jailhouse?

Not good.

I hope Janet is the only one talking from now on until the Grand Jury is finished.

I grew up on the Eastern Shore of Maryland - near the Chesapeake. An area VERY similar demographically to Mathews County.

Lemme tell you. First off, 9 out of 10 of those folks are probably clueless about any sex games involving asphyxiation and two, you are spot on that family and God come first in their lives. I think this will be a VERY difficult defense in Mathews County. JMO.

BTW, did you clean out your PMs yet? :rolleyes:

The PM thing was for AA :)

As far as individual county laws - I don't believe that is what the Court would go by .. this is a criminal cause, which would be a STATE law, I don't believe that individual counties can nullify or modify something that exists statewide. I believe that they can enact laws that affect their community - like trash pick up - but not something that is mandated by the State constitution.

I think the thing to review would be the Commonwealth of Virginia Code. That should be the governing law.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by AvengingAngel


As far as I know, my inbox is empty. It usually is - nobody loves me (lol).

The question I have is why he said it happened in Mathews. Was it because he thought it would make him look even worse if he drove with a dead body all the way to Mathews. Or does he think the Chambers defense has a greater chance of working in rural Mathews County??

Remember, he is going to do his BEST to make Taylor look like the bad girl. The aggressive 17yr old bad girl - into things that would shock her mom. Maybe he thinks that strategy has the best chance of working in Mathews.

The creep. The worthless miserable creep.

I'll close now before I start ranting.

I think the first thing to keep in mind is that Ben Fawley has always made the other person out to be the "bad guy" whenever a relationship went south or a break-up or anything along those lines.

He has left numerous messages about different women in his life, and in ever instance he has made them out to be the problem, not himself.

By focusing on Taylor's actions or inactions, he is just perpetuating the same behaviors he has done for years, evidenced by his numerous journal entries over time.

Fawley may think a trial in Mathews would benefit him; but I don't see how. I think people "want" Taylor's death to have happened in Richmond just to justify their belief that Ben Fawley is lying and deserves the worst punishment possible.

We've had people state as fact that he raped and then murdered her. Granted, each person can have their own opinion, but it's not rooted in fact. It's rooted in speculation. Some can't envision Taylor wanting to have sex with him. Well, she did at some point and it was consensual. Whether people like it or not. Irregardless of her age and his age. She was a willing participant at some point in the past. No one has any proof to say she was or was not a willing participant this time. Only speculation and the intense desires of people to either paint Taylor in a good light and/or paint Ben in a bad light. Mix the two together and you have a very biased opinion. But no facts.

If this goes to trial, I cannot fathom a defense attorney not asking for a change in venue. It's a very small community and some of the witnesses will be from the area. The possibility of nepotism exists and will be a very strong argument for a venue change.

[RugerDog]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


I think the first thing to keep in mind is that Ben Fawley has always made the other person out to be the "bad guy" whenever a relationship went south or a break-up or anything along those lines.

He has left numerous messages about different women in his life, and in ever instance he has made them out to be the problem, not himself.

By focusing on Taylor's actions or inactions, he is just perpetuating the same behaviors he has done for years, evidenced by his numerous journal entries over time.

Fawley may think a trial in Mathews would benefit him; but I don't see how. I think people "want" Taylor's death to have happened in Richmond just to justify their belief that Ben Fawley is lying and deserves the worst punishment possible.

We've had people state as fact that he raped and then murdered her. Granted, each person can have their own opinion, but it's not rooted in fact. It's rooted in speculation. Some can't envision Taylor wanting to have sex with him. Well, she did at some point and it was consensual. Whether people like it or not. Irregardless of her age and his age. She was a willing participant at some point in the past. No one has any proof to say she was or was not a willing participant this time. Only speculation and the intense desires of people to either paint Taylor in a good light and/or paint Ben in a bad light. Mix the two together and you have a very biased opinion. But no facts.

If this goes to trial, I cannot fathom a defense attorney not asking for a change in venue. It's a very small community and some of the witnesses will be from the area. The possibility of nepotism exists and will be a very strong argument for a venue change.

If a girl or boy, who is under the age of consent (18 in the commonwealth of Virginia), says "yes" or even initiates sex with a man or woman, who are themselves over the age of consent (a legal adult); the law says it's statutory rape because that younger person has NO LEGAL RIGHT TO GIVE CONSENT.

Fawley has admitted to having sex with Taylor, as has she with him. Therefore, Ben Fawley is guilty of rape.

True, my frequent statements as fact that Fawley has commited murder is 'speculation. ' However, he has admitted to killing her by aspyhxiation, hiding her body, lying to police, and fabricating a completely false alibi. In addition, he has an extensive criminal background with several convictions for battery against other women. Does this automatically make him a murderer? Nope, not by legal definition.

Perhaps I should henceforth refer to him as Taylor Behl's killer instead, at least until after the trial?

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by RugerDog


If a girl or boy, who is under the age of consent (18 in the commonwealth of Virginia), says "yes" or even initiates sex with a man or woman, who are themselves over the age of consent (a legal adult); the law says it's statutory rape because that younger person has NO LEGAL RIGHT TO GIVE CONSENT.

Fawley has admitted to having sex with Taylor, as has she with him. Therefore, Ben Fawley is guilty of rape.

True, my frequent statements as fact that Fawley has commited murder is 'speculation. ' However, he has admitted to killing her by aspyhxiation, hiding her body, lying to police, and fabricating a completely false alibi. In addition, he has an extensive criminal background with several convictions for battery against other women. Does this automatically make him a murderer? Nope, not by legal definition.

Perhaps I should henceforth refer to him as Taylor Behl's killer instead, at least until after the trial?

You need to bone up on Virginia law before stating what Ben Fawley did or did not do.

The term statutory rape does not exist in Virginia Code. If they are over the age of 15, it is contributing to the deliquency of a minor and nothing more than a misdemeanor.

[RugerDog]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


You need to bone up on Virginia law before stating what Ben Fawley did or did not do.

The term statutory rape does not exist in Virginia Code. If they are over the age of 15, it is contributing to the deliquency of a minor and nothing more than a misdemeanor.

BFD, taking your suggestion I 'boned up' on the Commonwealth of Virginia Penal Code.

In terms of Statutory Rape (not a legal term in Virginia) there are two statutes that apply.

The first statute deals with carnal knowledge of a child between thirteen and fifteen years of age. Therefore, if you are 18 years of age or older and have sex with a 13 or 14 year old minor, that is a Class 4 felony and punishable by 2-10 yrs and up to $100,000 fine.

The second statute deals with someone 18 years of age or older having sex with someone age 15, 16, or 17 years of age, which is a class one misdemeanor and punishable with up to one year in jail and a $2,500.00 fine.

Statutes covering sexual relations between minors can be understood by the second paragraph in statute § 18.2-63

"However, if such child is thirteen years of age or older but under fifteen years of age and consents to sexual intercourse and the accused is a minor and such consenting child is three years or more the accused's junior, the accused shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. If such consenting child is less than three years the accused's junior, the accused shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor."

§ 18.2-63. Carnal knowledge of child between thirteen and fifteen years of age.
If any person carnally knows, without the use of force, a child thirteen years of age or older but under fifteen years of age, such person shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.

However, if such child is thirteen years of age or older but under fifteen years of age and consents to sexual intercourse and the accused is a minor and such consenting child is three years or more the accused's junior, the accused shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. If such consenting child is less than three years the accused's junior, the accused shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor.

In calculating whether such child is three years or more a junior of the accused minor, the actual dates of birth of the child and the accused, respectively, shall be used.
For the purposes of this section,

(i) a child under the age of thirteen years shall not be considered a consenting child and

(ii) "carnal knowledge" includes the acts of sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anallingus, anal intercourse, and animate and inanimate object sexual penetration.

§ 18.2-371. Causing or encouraging acts rendering children delinquent, abused, etc.; penalty. Any person eighteen years of age or older, including the parent of any child, who

(i) willfully contributes to, encourages, or causes any act, omission, or condition which renders a child delinquent, in need of services, in need of supervision, or abused or neglected as defined in §16.1-228,or

(ii) engages in consensual sexual intercourse with a child fifteen or older not his spouse, child, or grandchild, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This section shall not be construed as repealing, modifying, or in any way affecting §§ 18.2-18, 18.2-19, 18.2-61, 18.2-63, 18.2-66, and 18.2-347.
(Code 1950, § 18.1-14; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1981, cc. 397, 568; 1990, c. 797; 1991, c. 295; 1993, c.
411.)"

Consider myself corrected - Ben Fawley has contributed to the the deliquency of a minor and has admitted killing same, although it may or may not be murder. How's that?

All sarcasm aside, you were right, I was wrong.

[Nealus]

As far as I'm concerned - Ben Fawley is just plain and simply a sexual predator [first] and a host of other things secondarily. God help us when we find out about other children that he has perpetrated crimes against. He was grooming Taylor - period.

I shouldn't be surprised at Virginia's laws - with respect to crimes against children. They should be ashamed.

At minimum - they should be following other states' lead - in getting the Jessica Lunsford Act/Bill passed or something similar.

Who's protecting the children of Virginia with laws as you see outlined in the post before this.

Tragic - very tragic.

[poplife]

I saw Jonathan Delano on local DC station ABC 7 last night; nothing new that we don't already know, but don't you think he'd be testifying at the courthouse today and be under the gag as well?

He just talked about the breakin, the hammer and mace and how BF kept him up all night long w/ his "life story," how he has lived a life of crime and knows no other, how many women he slept w/, etc.

Seems these local "exclusives" don't provide any real new details at all.

Originally posted by RugerDog


BFD, taking your suggestion I 'boned up' on the Commonwealth of Virginia Penal Code.

<snip>

Consider myself corrected - Ben Fawley has contributed to the the deliquency of a minor and has admitted killing same, although it may or may not be murder. How's that?

All sarcasm aside, you were right, I was wrong.

:beer:

He had sex with a minor. He admitted "restricting her breathing" so as to cause her death. He hid her body. He created an alibi. He hid her car and switched the license plates. He lied time and time again when questioned by police.

This makes him not guilty how? These are the FACTS of what happened BFD. Doesn't matter WHY he did them. He did them.

And if its proven that he laid in wait for her, that's premeditation in ANY state, which is first degree and a death penalty offense.

It's all there. It's just a matter of how LE can connect the dots. But at this point in time, with the information that is available from BF himself, I don't think its reasonable to expect anyone to believe that there is any mistake or that BF is not guilty of murder.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by Rowan Again


:beer:

He had sex with a minor. He admitted "restricting her breathing" so as to cause her death. He hid her body. He created an alibi. He hid her car and switched the license plates. He lied time and time again when questioned by police.

This makes him not guilty how? These are the FACTS of what happened BFD. Doesn't matter WHY he did them. He did them.

And if its proven that he laid in wait for her, that's premeditation in ANY state, which is first degree and a death penalty offense.

It's all there. It's just a matter of how LE can connect the dots. But at this point in time, with the information that is available from BF himself, I don't think its reasonable to expect anyone to believe that there is any mistake or that BF is not guilty of murder.

Not guilty? He hasn't even been charged, therefore you don't know what he could be guilty of or not be guilty of.

Best case scenario is he's guilty of manslaughter.

I was addressing the fact people are saying he raped Taylor. There is no evidence pointing to rape other than people who think they "know" Taylor and what she would or would not do.

It gets a little old to see every victim become a saint and that there were no character flaws in their life whatsoever. It doesn't excuse Ben Fawley for his behaviors or what he may or may not have done. But at the same time, I wish people wouldn't automatically put the victim on a pedestal and make them out to be completely defenseless in every perceivable scenario a person can think of.

If he was "lying in wait", then he's pulled off a pretty good trick down on the streets of Richmond. 3 days prior to her going missing, Ben wrote a comment on someone else's journal talking about a friend of his that was excited about turning 18 the next month. He did not refer to her as a "girlfriend" or someone he was "dating". (As he did other girls/women he became obsessed with)

Right now, every bit of evidence I've seen points to Taylor and Ben still being friends. It is not unreasonable to think she willingly went with him anywhere. Only unreasonable to those who wish to see Ben Fawley pay the ultimate price.

Does he deserve getting death? Possibly. But they need to get a hell of a lot more evidence than a bunch of people saying, "Taylor wouldn't willingly go with him". That's not going to cut it.

With all due respect, it is offensive to some of us to hear you continually try to make Ben Fawley sound as though he is a man who had a little problem that got out of control.

You're correct that he has not been charged. And if LE does not do their job correctly, you MAY be correct that manslaughter is the most heinous offense he can be charged with.

He has admitted to causing her death. And lying and hiding evidence and many other things that have been enumerated ad nauseaum.

He ADMITTED those things. So yes, I believe we can say that is GUILTY of those things, regardless of whether or not he has been charged.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by Rowan Again
With all due respect, it is offensive to some of us to hear you continually try to make Ben Fawley sound as though he is a man who had a little problem that got out of control.

You're correct that he has not been charged. And if LE does not do their job correctly, you MAY be correct that manslaughter is the most heinous offense he can be charged with.

He has admitted to causing her death. And lying and hiding evidence and many other things that have been enumerated ad nauseaum.

He ADMITTED those things. So yes, I believe we can say that is GUILTY of those things, regardless of whether or not he has been charged.

Then I suggest you continue to be offended. There is an option to ignore particular posters when you feel their posts are offensive. Use it.

I don't necessarily find it "offensive", but I do find it disturbing when things become black/white or on/off to justify one's distaste over something.

All things Ben Fawley are not evil. Never met the man, but reading through the various journals of different people have shown he's not the devil incarnate that has come to rape, pillage and destroy our world.

There are gray areas in life. There are many shades of gray in each person's personality. There are many questions that are left unanswered. Because I choose not to jump on the "stick the needle in his arm" bandwagon, doesn't mean anything one way or another. (Except for those that view it as a "defense" of the person because I don't blindly follow their path without demanding full facts to know one way or another)

What happens is people choose to believe in something so adamantly that they close their mind to any other possibility. I am not one of those individuals. We have very few facts that have come out in this case. Right now everything is rumor and innuendo. The Richmond PD has not confirmed anything, other than the fact that the body they found was Taylor's.

If you choose to believe Taylor is an innocent angel and that Ben Fawley is an evil devil, so be it. It's not reality though.

[RugerDog]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


Then I suggest you continue to be offended. There is an option to ignore particular posters when you feel their posts are offensive. Use it.

I don't necessarily find it "offensive", but I do find it disturbing when things become black/white or on/off to justify one's distaste over something.

All things Ben Fawley are not evil. Never met the man, but reading through the various journals of different people have shown he's not the devil incarnate that has come to rape, pillage and destroy our world.

There are gray areas in life. There are many shades of gray in each person's personality. There are many questions that are left unanswered. Because I choose not to jump on the "stick the needle in his arm" bandwagon, doesn't mean anything one way or another. (Except for those that view it as a "defense" of the person because I don't blindly follow their path without demanding full facts to know one way or another)

What happens is people choose to believe in something so adamantly that they close their mind to any other possibility. I am not one of those individuals. We have very few facts that have come out in this case. Right now everything is rumor and innuendo. The Richmond PD has not confirmed anything, other than the fact that the body they found was Taylor's.

If you choose to believe Taylor is an innocent angel and that Ben Fawley is an evil devil, so be it. It's not reality though.

Sorry, BFD, but I'm with Rowan on this. Fawley has personally admitted to killing this child and throwing her body out beside a dirt road. Her remains were ravaged by insects and scavenging animals to the point where her skull was decapitated from the rest of her body. She could only be indentified through dental records.

Fawley then detailed a battery of extensive lies to both the police and this child's family in order to protect himself. He has shown absolutely no remorse for his actions and indeed, his actions were henious. No civilized human being behaves in this way.

Evil can be defined as being morally reprehensible. Ben Fawley by definition is evil, whether you agree or not.

Taylor Behl was a 17 year old girl and yes, she no doubt made her share of mistakes and mis-judgements in her brief life. A teenage girl's behavior as such is on a totally different plane in comparision to that of Ben Fawley. She did nothing to deserve a violent death; her family did nothing to deserve the wretched uncertainty of not knowing the fate of their only child for a month of incomprehensible agony.

If I've offended you, please feel free to ignore me too. If not, I invite you to be offended by me. :seeya:

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


Then I suggest you continue to be offended. There is an option to ignore particular posters when you feel their posts are offensive. Use it.

I don't necessarily find it "offensive", but I do find it disturbing when things become black/white or on/off to justify one's distaste over something.

All things Ben Fawley are not evil. Never met the man, but reading through the various journals of different people have shown he's not the devil incarnate that has come to rape, pillage and destroy our world.

There are gray areas in life. There are many shades of gray in each person's personality. There are many questions that are left unanswered. Because I choose not to jump on the "stick the needle in his arm" bandwagon, doesn't mean anything one way or another. (Except for those that view it as a "defense" of the person because I don't blindly follow their path without demanding full facts to know one way or another)

What happens is people choose to believe in something so adamantly that they close their mind to any other possibility. I am not one of those individuals. We have very few facts that have come out in this case. Right now everything is rumor and innuendo. The Richmond PD has not confirmed anything, other than the fact that the body they found was Taylor's.

If you choose to believe Taylor is an innocent angel and that Ben Fawley is an evil devil, so be it. It's not reality though.

Well then, we will agree to disagree. I understand the black and white issue, or pre-judgment issue. In fact, while dodging MANY slings and arrows, I gave Scott Peterson the benefit of the doubt far longer than most.

Having said THAT, and NOT being a DP proponent, in this case, there can be no question but that Ben Fawley took advantage of a situation where HE was the adult and thus the one who should have known better. Therefore, I can and DO place the responsibility for this tragedy on his shoulders.

Even if Taylor Behl threw herself on him, even if she provoked him, even IF, IF, IF .. he was the ADULT and HE was responsible.

While I surely cannot say that Taylor was an "innocent", I find your final paragraph condescending, judgmental and thoroughly revolting.

[memap1965]

IMO.....LE wasn't leaking anything. I believe it was friends of BF's that visited him in jail, and then talked to the media about it. I also believe his friends were telling him all the different "stories" and speculations that have been out here in cyberspace and the media. Maybe that's where BF got his information to fabricate another story. Who knows? I just thought it totally odd that EA was speculated as the cause of death.....and, next thing you know....BF is admitting this is what happened. I'm not saying there aren't some excellent cybersleuths out there, this is just my gut feeling. Unfortunately, when someone lies, you tend to not believe them any longer. Kind of like 'crying wolf'.

Once again....JMO