Was the porn BF's?

[poplife]

Do you believe the porn was in fact, BF's? Or did it belong to the dead tenant?

[csiwannabe]

I'm just now coming on board with this case so I really don't have all of the facts, but I did read in an article that the former roommate had written that the BF stated it was the former tenants, (posted on another thread, sorry I don't have the hours it would take to track it down). Who knows at this point? I have tons more reading to do, but I do believe it could be a possibility ~ renters leave behind LOTS of unusual items when they vacate.

[Cino]

It seems to me that it may well have been both. To our best guesses, the porn WAS KJ's and then BECAME Ben's. I have a feeling that you are attempting to specify kiddy porn, but you are speaking generally when there was regular legally acceptable porn too. We wouldn't care if it were only regular porn.

[Belsma]

Perhaps if it was legal porn there would not be so much to talk about, but it was kiddie porn and that's illegal. I understand bf was a computer "freak", he rebuilt them and knew his way around them. If he did get a computer from someone he knew how to clean them up and or find out what they contained. He failed to report illegal activity on a computer previously owned. He's at fault once again, but either way it does not discount the fact that he murdered Taylor, but only brings more insite to the type of person he is.

[Cino]

Of course, we all know that the kiddy porn was there too. I wasn't disputing that, nor were my words.

It takes more to be a computer guru than to build a couple of computers, and it takes more than getting a computer from someone to know how to clean them or see deleted data. That's not exactly common knowledge. Ben may have come upon most of his computer knowledge by fiddling around with computers, but that doesn't give you everything, it only gives you what you stumble across and what is necessary to do what you're trying to do. Again, I'm not defending Ben, but we have no idea in what state the kiddy porn was found. It may have already been deleted (unlikely), in which case he most likely wouldn't have looked, or necessarily known how. KJ probably had some decent equipment, and probably had a pretty nice hard drive. Given that the porn was still there, Ben would still have wanted to salvage the hard drive. KJ was dead, so there was no sense in trying to prosecute him for his kiddy porn. Ben probably wouldn't have felt it necessary, thusly, to give up this theoretical perfectly good hard drive to the authorities. If he deleted it (yes, I AM recognizing as a possibility that he found this kiddy porn and didn't delete it), he WOULD have known that evidence could still be found, but I don't imagine it would have bothered him too much--what reason did he have to think, when he came into posession of this equipment, that he was going to be arrested and have his computers siezed?

These are all things that are possibilities, whether they are extremely likely or not. I believe it important to recognize all possibilities, rather than getting ourselves stuck into an opinion that will cause us to let important things to pass us by.

[protectkidz]

Wow - look at how many votes!!! Hey - are some prople voting twice?????? :no:

[Taxgirl2006]

On one of Fawley's websites, he stated that he was trying to sell the porn that was left behind. IMO, it might have been KJ's but Fawley took ownership of it when he said he would clean the apt, and instead of throwing it out, he decided to keep it and sell it. So, as far as I am concerned, I believe he should get whatever punishment the law allows, because he took ownership. Just as another poster said months ago, it would be no different if it was a kilo of coke, and he decided to sell it and got busted. Possession is nine tenths of the law, and he definantly had possession of the porn, kiddie or otherwise. JMO

:patriot:

[jace]

Okay, someone set me straight if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will). I thought that Ben was trying to sell porn as in DVDs, magazines, etc. that he found when cleaning the other tenant's apt. While we might not approve my understanding was that it was legal. What they are charging him with is the kiddie porn that was on the computer. I don't think I ever heard it mentioned that Ben was trying to sell the kiddie porn to anyone.
If he was aware it was on there, yeah, the right thing to do would have been to destroy it (or better yet to report it so that hopefully those children could have been tracked down along with the monsters that were producing it).
It's just confusing when people say he was trying to sell the porn. Most people would assume that to mean he was trying to sell the kiddie porn.

[Cino]

Originally posted by jace
Okay, someone set me straight if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will). I thought that Ben was trying to sell porn as in DVDs, magazines, etc. that he found when cleaning the other tenant's apt. While we might not approve my understanding was that it was legal. What they are charging him with is the kiddie porn that was on the computer. I don't think I ever heard it mentioned that Ben was trying to sell the kiddie porn to anyone.
If he was aware it was on there, yeah, the right thing to do would have been to destroy it (or better yet to report it so that hopefully those children could have been tracked down along with the monsters that were producing it).
It's just confusing when people say he was trying to sell the porn. Most people would assume that to mean he was trying to sell the kiddie porn.

Yes Jace, as far as we know, the only thing that he was selling was the legal, commercial porn. As seems to be largely the way in this case, people like to take their own version of the facts and run with it. Sometimes I wonder if that's why so many people are so closedminded about this in that they refuse to see any other possible options.

[singlesix]

"As seems to be largely the way in this case, people like to take their own version of the facts and run with it."

Well, if that is in fact true, I can only say that Mr. Fawley started it with his fanciful tales. ;)

singlesix

[jadensmokes]

Originally posted by Taxgirl2006
On one of Fawley's websites, he stated that he was trying to sell the porn that was left behind. IMO, it might have been KJ's but Fawley took ownership of it when he said he would clean the apt, and instead of throwing it out, he decided to keep it and sell it. So, as far as I am concerned, I believe he should get whatever punishment the law allows, because he took ownership. Just as another poster said months ago, it would be no different if it was a kilo of coke, and he decided to sell it and got busted. Possession is nine tenths of the law, and he definantly had possession of the porn, kiddie or otherwise. JMO

:patriot:

I agree. He had it, he obviously knew about it and he didn't destroy or report it. I dunno, but if I were to inherit a computer by whatever means, I would initialize the hard drive and install my own operating system and software. To me, it would be an invasion of privacy to keep anything on that drive. Yes, even the dead deserve respect. (Then again, we're talking about the guy that dumped Taylor's body in a ravine and then kept it to himself all those months).

Even if the "software police" didn't get him on the child porn, he certainly had illegal photoshop somewhere ($800 software package that I doubt bf would have paid for).

This is my opinion and ONLY my opinion.

[Taxgirl2006]

Ok, fine. Maybe he wasn't selling the kiddie porn. He was in possession of. Period. Even if he wasn't distributing it, it was in his possession, and it is illegal. How could he not know it was there? He was savvy enough to have designed numerous websites, and he obviously knew his way around a computer. Why did he not clean the hard drives that it was on? What use did he have for it? JMO

[poplife]

YOu really don't have to be savvy to make a site. I don't know any facts about the child porn, nor do I think any of us do, so I can't say what I think happened, as I dont' even know if it was recovered off the hard drive. I do wonder if it had been deleted and was the dead tenant's will the charges stick? Will this case against him be allowed in the murder trial?

[protectkidz]

Originally posted by Taxgirl2006
Ok, fine. Maybe he wasn't selling the kiddie porn. He was in possession of. Period. Even if he wasn't distributing it, it was in his possession, and it is illegal. How could he not know it was there? He was savvy enough to have designed numerous websites, and he obviously knew his way around a computer. Why did he not clean the hard drives that it was on? What use did he have for it? JMO

I don't think he was anywhere near as savvy as he thought he was with the computers - but suffice to say, you are right in that possession is nine/tenths of the law (I think that's still the case). I'm wondering, tho - if there were 30 videos found, but there are only 16 counts against him, does anyone know why? or can anyone say why there wouldn't be 30 counts against him?

[becurious]

I've been reading this site off and on, but I don't feel like I have enough evidence to know. So, I'm a maybe, but there's not a maybe button.

[Cino]

Originally posted by becurious
I've been reading this site off and on, but I don't feel like I have enough evidence to know. So, I'm a maybe, but there's not a maybe button.

Well, at least you admit that you don't. Don't expect to know many of the facts (or at least don't expect to get just the facts and none of the misinformation) just because you're reading these message boards.

I'm a little curious about what the outcome of the poll is. The question is still to vague for me to answer. It seems obvious to me, of course, that the question is asking about the kiddy porn, but most of us are talking about the legal porn as if it were the kiddy porn, et cetera, other such misconstruements.

[singlesix]

I did a little googling, and every porn law I read contained the words "knowingly possesses".

From the little bit I've seen of Skulz over the years, ...aw, nevermind, I have better things to do than concern myself with him and his delusional stories.

singlesix

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by jadensmokes


I agree. He had it, he obviously knew about it and he didn't destroy or report it. I dunno, but if I were to inherit a computer by whatever means, I would initialize the hard drive and install my own operating system and software. To me, it would be an invasion of privacy to keep anything on that drive. Yes, even the dead deserve respect. (Then again, we're talking about the guy that dumped Taylor's body in a ravine and then kept it to himself all those months).

Even if the "software police" didn't get him on the child porn, he certainly had illegal photoshop somewhere ($800 software package that I doubt bf would have paid for).

This is my opinion and ONLY my opinion.

Jaden -

I think the first part of your post said it all:

HE HAD IT. HE DID NOT DESTROY IT.

PERIOD. MAKES IT HIS IN MY BOOK. NO NEED TO GO ANY FURTHER.

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by singlesix
I did a little googling, and every porn law I read contained the words "knowingly possesses".

From the little bit I've seen of Skulz over the years, ...aw, nevermind, I have better things to do than concern myself with him and his delusional stories.

singlesix

single --

Be careful researching some of this disgusting fetish/porn crud...
it wrecked my system a few months ago and it took many weeks and mucho denaro to grub my hard drives!

Don't want anyone here to struggle so.

And you are so right - I don't give a flip about trying to reason through anything about Ben Fawley or some of his friends - their life styles/life choices are outside the realm of reasonable thought, respectable living, or productive to society.

Let it roll off your back or kick it to the curb.

IMO.

[singlesix]

Oh no, read it again and have no fear...I was googling federal and state porn laws. :read:

"knowingly possesses"

I wonder if the pc experts have determined the last date those files were accessed? They could have that case nailed tight already.

singlesix

[becurious]

Originally posted by jadensmokes


I agree. He had it, he obviously knew about it and he didn't destroy or report it. I dunno, but if I were to inherit a computer by whatever means, I would initialize the hard drive and install my own operating system and software. To me, it would be an invasion of privacy to keep anything on that drive. Yes, even the dead deserve respect. (Then again, we're talking about the guy that dumped Taylor's body in a ravine and then kept it to himself all those months).

Even if the "software police" didn't get him on the child porn, he certainly had illegal photoshop somewhere ($800 software package that I doubt bf would have paid for).

This is my opinion and ONLY my opinion.

Was there something somewhere that said Fawley knew about the child porn? I must have missed that.

[TN_Profiler]

I don't think the poll has enough selections for me to vote in good conscious. I don't know if the porn was his (by "his" I mean it was something he mined from unknown sources).

I do know this, it was in his possession when he was arrested. In that respect you should view the porn the same as drugs. You cannot legally "hold" drugs for a dead former tenant and/or friend. The law does say that he would have had to "knowingly possess" and therein lies the question.

I don't think anyone is arguing whether he had porn on a computer in which he possessed, but did he know it was there? I assume the computer geeks have determined when it was accessed before they arrested him for it. Given the ability to track what you are using your computer for .... it appears (on the surface) that he probably knew it was there. When the time comes, it should be fairly cut and dry evidence that demonstrates what was going on with his computer .... and that will help fence riders like me decide.

I can't begin to guess what he would do with it, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt because he MAY have ultimately deleted it but had just not gotten around to it. I will wait until the trial reveals more about what was on his hard drive and exactly what he was doing with it. (if anything at all)

The adult porn is a non-issue in my opinion. Face it ... that stuff is all over the place and is usually not illegal.

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by singlesix
Oh no, read it again and have no fear...I was googling federal and state porn laws. :read:

"knowingly possesses"

I wonder if the pc experts have determined the last date those files were accessed? They could have that case nailed tight already.

singlesix

SMART COOKIE! Wish I had been more careful!

Kudos! Single.:beer:

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by TN_Profiler
I don't think the poll has enough selections for me to vote in good conscious. I don't know if the porn was his (by "his" I mean it was something he mined from unknown sources).

I do know this, it was in his possession when he was arrested. In that respect you should view the porn the same as drugs. You cannot legally "hold" drugs for a dead former tenant and/or friend. The law does say that he would have had to "knowingly possess" and therein lies the question.

I don't think anyone is arguing whether he had porn on a computer in which he possessed, but did he know it was there? I assume the computer geeks have determined when it was accessed before they arrested him for it. Given the ability to track what you are using your computer for .... it appears (on the surface) that he probably knew it was there. When the time comes, it should be fairly cut and dry evidence that demonstrates what was going on with his computer .... and that will help fence riders like me decide.

I can't begin to guess what he would do with it, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt because he MAY have ultimately deleted it but had just not gotten around to it. I will wait until the trial reveals more about what was on his hard drive and exactly what he was doing with it. (if anything at all)

The adult porn is a non-issue in my opinion. Face it ... that stuff is all over the place and is usually not illegal.

Two points (well maybe questions)

TN -

Isn't it irrelevent what he would do with it? Can't use future intentions as a defense can you?

And for me, isn't it really an issue of INTENT and CONTEXT . Let me make clear all of it disgusts me so the classification of adult versus kiddie makes no difference to me, I understand I am in the minority with that view but it is my choice.

But BF was supposedly operating a photography studio and granted I am blissfully ignorant about the defining characteristics separating adult and kiddie --could the fact he had such a business be a detriment or a help to him? I wonder about proper releases, etc. Especially considering the tyrade he went on about particular nude photos he supposed took of Erin ...

I just wonder if the line between adult and kiddie is blurred in this case ?? Still very fuzzy for me and to be honest ---

I would much rather talk about the case that started this thread - not the illegal activity the culprit was engaged in that led to other charges levied against him.

The one good thing is the discovery of this JUNK helped put him behind bars all the more quickly.

IMO.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by jadensmokes


I agree. He had it, he obviously knew about it and he didn't destroy or report it. I dunno, but if I were to inherit a computer by whatever means, I would initialize the hard drive and install my own operating system and software. To me, it would be an invasion of privacy to keep anything on that drive. Yes, even the dead deserve respect. (Then again, we're talking about the guy that dumped Taylor's body in a ravine and then kept it to himself all those months).

Even if the "software police" didn't get him on the child porn, he certainly had illegal photoshop somewhere ($800 software package that I doubt bf would have paid for).

This is my opinion and ONLY my opinion.

Not as easy as you think to just put another O/S on the system and everything is gone.

I have recovered files from systems that have been formatted numerous times. Unless someone writes 0's to the drive through various available programs or through debugging, the information is still there.

With that being said, I don't think the drive was formatted.

They will be able to tell from the creation dates, accessed dates and modified dates if Ben was aware of the porn or not. Also, depending upon the type of video files they were, it can also be possible to see how many times the video was actually played.

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


Not as easy as you think to just put another O/S on the system and everything is gone.

I have recovered files from systems that have been formatted numerous times. Unless someone writes 0's to the drive through various available programs or through debugging, the information is still there.

With that being said, I don't think the drive was formatted.

They will be able to tell from the creation dates, accessed dates and modified dates if Ben was aware of the porn or not. Also, depending upon the type of video files they were, it can also be possible to see how many times the video was actually played.

BFD -

Couldn't the investigation also include whether or not Ben showed this junk to anyone (online or off) and if YES - granted I have no knowledge one way or the other- that would be a very important?

You are the go to guy when it come to LE for me - help me understand through a primer or checklist what would have probably been included - if you don't mind.

Thanks.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone


BFD -

Couldn't the investigation also include whether or not Ben showed this junk to anyone (online or off) and if YES - granted I have no knowledge one way or the other- that would be a very important?

You are the go to guy when it come to LE for me - help me understand through a primer or checklist what would have probably been included - if you don't mind.

Thanks.

If he shared it via online, it would be traceable through the copy. Let's say you send me a photograph through email. The only way for someone to find out if you shared it with me is by knowing about my photograph and then matching up hash marks, EXIF data, IPTC data or any other possible hidden watermarks. The same can be done via a video (with different identifiers) but it would all be predicated upon knowing about the copy and then verifying that it actually did come from a particular person.

So far as sharing it offline, that's just going to be through witness testimony or by looking to see the times and dates the video was played (again, dependent upon which type of video format they are in).

Honestly, if it was me, I wouldn't worry about all of that stuff. All I'd worry about is the content of the videos, the time they were created and the last time they were accessed or modified. That's enough to know whether he knowingly possessed child porn.

I might also dig through any file sharing programs he might have had and seen if those videos were hashed. If they were that means he had them ready to share via the file sharing program, but doesn't prove they were shared. But child porn is just like drugs. It doesn't matter if you're caught distributing, it matters if you had the intent to distribute.

I can't remember what file sharing program it was that he used. I recall in one of his many entries he mentioned something about sharing files via a particular program. It might have been BitTorrent. And if it was BitTorrent, then they could easily determine if the videos were hashed to be shared on the network.

I would also check the temporary folders for each file sharing program he had to see if there were any incomplete files he was in the process of (at one time or another) downloading. That would also be an indicator of the point of origin. Thus possibly destroying any defense that it belonged to a previous owner.

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


If he shared it via online, it would be traceable through the copy. Let's say you send me a photograph through email. The only way for someone to find out if you shared it with me is by knowing about my photograph and then matching up hash marks, EXIF data, IPTC data or any other possible hidden watermarks. The same can be done via a video (with different identifiers) but it would all be predicated upon knowing about the copy and then verifying that it actually did come from a particular person.

So far as sharing it offline, that's just going to be through witness testimony or by looking to see the times and dates the video was played (again, dependent upon which type of video format they are in).

Honestly, if it was me, I wouldn't worry about all of that stuff. All I'd worry about is the content of the videos, the time they were created and the last time they were accessed or modified. That's enough to know whether he knowingly possessed child porn.

I might also dig through any file sharing programs he might have had and seen if those videos were hashed. If they were that means he had them ready to share via the file sharing program, but doesn't prove they were shared. But child porn is just like drugs. It doesn't matter if you're caught distributing, it matters if you had the intent to distribute.

I can't remember what file sharing program it was that he used. I recall in one of his many entries he mentioned something about sharing files via a particular program. It might have been BitTorrent. And if it was BitTorrent, then they could easily determine if the videos were hashed to be shared on the network.

I would also check the temporary folders for each file sharing program he had to see if there were any incomplete files he was in the process of (at one time or another) downloading. That would also be an indicator of the point of origin. Thus possibly destroying any defense that it belonged to a previous owner.

THANK YOU SO MUCH WISE BFD! I knew you would be the right one to ask!

It is so terrific to see you back on this board!!!YOu have been missed. Your clarity is always profound, no-nonsense, and -imo- ON TARGET!

:seeya:

[MATTHEWsevenone]

GET READY ROWAN - I am well rested and glad to be back. Good to see all again! Hope FOCUS and others find their way back!!! This board was once a wonderful insightful, respectful, thinking MACHINE!!!!

How I wish Taylor had made it home safely.

THE CRUX FOR ME WAS WHEN HE ROLLED HER BODY INTO A DITCH AND DROVE OFF.

GAME OVER FOR TOLERANCE- ROOM FOR EXPLANATION- WINDOW FOR COMPASSION

IT ALL CEASED TO EXIST IN MY MIND FOR BEN FAWLEY AT THAT MOMENT!

THE BELL TOLLED.

So many of us watched and inched along with the investigation - from Sept 9 to now. The pictures of Ben Fawley playing the concerned friend. ANother friend going on the word of Ben and broadcasting through media outlets that well maybe Taylor just ran away because I heard from someone else (BEN FAWLEY)...

Honestly, now is the time for accountability - not compassion for a man who snuffed out the life of a promising beautiful young girl!!

TAYLOR IS THE FOCUS FOR ME. THIS TRIAL PHASE WILL BE THE TIME TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT CAR - BOY HOW THAT BUGGED US- AND THE "GRNERTH" PLATE and where the heck that OHIO plate came from-were there prints on them?, and did they find those PEPPERIDGE FARM COOKIES/BOX- what was the deal with them, and what was it about the Blue Civic keys, and ..... That is what I want to know-- how hard the investigators worked to piece this together!

I don't give a flip about any sort of warped rationalization Ben Fawley and Co. concoct to
try and minimize his accountability. His hands are bloody- there was no one else there except poor Taylor! God rest her soul.

Maybe - maybe if Ben Fawley had done something decent - showed he had a conscience and helped authorities find Taylor but OHHHHHHHH NOOOOOOOOO

NOT HIM --- he let all of us (and more importantly her family and true friends) agonize over where she was and beat the pavement-literally to try and locate her!

What baffles me is how any on the periphery can move past such an evil, heartless, and selfish act and not be moved in word and deed to show compassion for Taylor and her family now -- at the most trying and difficult phase of this horrible tragedy -- the time when the focus shifts to the courthouse and protecting the rights of the accused!

Well here is comes... let's get this trial going and keep on task -

FOR TAYLOR!

ALL IMO.

[Dorkette]

WELL SAID M71 ! I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE !

I can tell you that the Ohio plates were stolen about 2 months before from a student at VCU and the cookies I bought for her that day.

:beer:

Dorkette

[TN_Profiler]

M71 - that pretty much sums it up for me. I know I couldn't have said it better myself.

This case has as much to do with what happened 'after-the-fact' as it did the moment Ben Fawley killed Taylor.

Nothing, not one single action on Ben Fawley's behalf did he do or say something that let's me believe this was an accident.

What he did after the fact was an indication of his character. Did he summon an ambulance? Call 9-1-1? Why not tell authorities immediately after? Why go through the trouble of trying to hide her in a place that no one, seemingly, would find? Why hide the car? Why pretend to be part of the search for her when he was the only person who knew exactly where she was? Why the concocted story of abduction? Why hide her car for 2 weeks? Why hint that Erin may have something to do with it?

I think the evidence on her would have pointed to a rape and violent death. Allowing her to decompose in a ditch, half buried is not the act of a friend who was tragically involved with an accidental death.

Those are only my opinions and I am willing to wait until the trial to hear what the evidence and investigators introduce in court. My expectation is that my personal feelings and assumptions are not going to be too far from the truth.

Had Ben decided to tell the truth the night this happened maybe then would I think about giving him the benefit of the doubt. He does have the opportunity in a court of law to answer the charges against him. I will look forward to see how he explains the many inconsistencies he has already generated with his own words and actions.

[protectkidz]

Your opinions ring true to me as well, TN. The only thing is, I'm still not sure if I would've had a good opinion of him - if he had called 911. The idea that he - a 38 y.o. man - would be willing to have and pursue a relationship with a 17 y.o. girl goes against my personal morals.

He certainly did do everything he could to deflect blame, including concoct an elaborate story to implicate Erin. I believe that parts of the story he initially told to LE (his kidnap) will have elements of the truth as to what happened to Taylor that night. I'm looking forward to hearing the details of his scheme that haven't been released due to the gag. Possibly some of the pieces of the puzzle will be more clear. Certainly, these months of speculation have taken their toll on those involved - periphery and otherwise.

[poplife]

I agree, Tn and Pk, good post w/o the superfluous use of capitals.

In my op I was questioning if indeed the child porn originated from BF, or if it came from the computer of the deceased tenant. I wasn't asking if by law, it was deemed as BF's, or if he was wrong in not turning it in. I think we can all agree, if you become aware of such a posession you should turn it in. I have felt since the charges of the porn came up, that they won't stick in court if LE can't prove that he was aware they were there. We'll just have to wait and see since we don't know anything at this point.

[protectkidz]

You're absolutely correct, Row. I'm positive that was his thinking.

I'm really wondering, too. It's been said that he didn't drink much, and Taylor didn't drink much. But the letters to Katie from Ben apparently have Ben saying that they were drinking that night. And then, he told the cops he had been drinking when he was "kidnapped". Do you think the drinking part was true? If so, it can be a major reason why Taylor lost her life that night.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by Rowan
I have to laugh at one thing. Everyone's comments on Ben deflecting blame, not admitting, etc.

No one believes his version NOW. Why on earth would he have had any reason to think it would have been believed THEN?

This scenario: Hello? Police? I just accidently killed a young woman. I'm going to dump her body out here on this deserted farm that belongs to my ex-girlfriend's family. BUT it really was an accident. So, just letting you know about it. I'll be driving home now. Later.

C'mon. He wasn't about to tell anyone, and he hoped and prayed that the body wouldn't be found. I get tickled when people say that he didn't make any effort to come clean.

IF it was an accident, as he claims, who the heck would believe it. So why come forward? Take your chances on the body not being found.

I absolutey agree and that's why I'm not into "behavioral evidence" to garner a conviction. There are no absolutes when defining behaviors, nor can one person's behaviors be compared to another's; we are all unique in that respect.

But when it comes to the point after a conviction has been handed down, based on law; I think behavioral evidence does play a role. Of course mitigating factors are often overlooked and aggravating factors focused much more intently; but that's what happens once someone is convicted.

[Taxgirl2006]

Originally posted by protectkidz
You're absolutely correct, Row. I'm positive that was his thinking.

I'm really wondering, too. It's been said that he didn't drink much, and Taylor didn't drink much. But the letters to Katie from Ben apparently have Ben saying that they were drinking that night. And then, he told the cops he had been drinking when he was "kidnapped". Do you think the drinking part was true? If so, it can be a major reason why Taylor lost her life that night.


Wasn't BF supposed to be on meds for bipolar or something? The reason I ask is that I have an inlaw who is bipolar and she is not supposed to drink with her meds. The docs actually told her that if she plans on drinking she should skip the meds due to the side effects of drinking while on the meds. Anyone know what BF was taking? Any opinions on that? (I think the meds my inlaw is on are Lithium and Prozac, but not sure, I could be totally wrong)



Taxgirl

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by Rowan
I have to laugh at one thing. Everyone's comments on Ben deflecting blame, not admitting, etc.

No one believes his version NOW. Why on earth would he have had any reason to think it would have been believed THEN?

This scenario: Hello? Police? I just accidently killed a young woman. I'm going to dump her body out here on this deserted farm that belongs to my ex-girlfriend's family. BUT it really was an accident. So, just letting you know about it. I'll be driving home now. Later.

C'mon. He wasn't about to tell anyone, and he hoped and prayed that the body wouldn't be found. I get tickled when people say that he didn't make any effort to come clean.

IF it was an accident, as he claims, who the heck would believe it. So why come forward? Take your chances on the body not being found.

ROW -

How I hope you are right that no one believes him. I was made aware of a website - have not visited it- that is known as a BEN FAWLEY APOLOGISTS site. I can PM you if you are interested in taking a peek.

As to your comments about him not coming clean --

There are some criminals who do dastardly deeds and then have a stoke of conscience BEFORE the authorities close in. Those such individuals are routinely treated differently by our criminal justice system (and the general public alike) because it shows that there is a glimmer of hope for this person.

Not the case here. though, is it. I felt it beared repeating. How I wish it had been the case. Gosh I wish it had been. But...

Because it is not - doesn't it require/determine the track Ben Fawley now finds himself is one where he will try and concoct some sort of ALIBI and/OR EXCUSE for what happened. And isn't he currently trying to use Taylor as his alibi? Adventuresome young beautiful co- ed who was curious about alternative kinky sexual fettish.. OOPS, her own choices.. I only did what she wanted... led to her "accidental" death. Isn't that what we have read and the experts allowed for the Defense plan to try and offer. Of course time will tell.

And the EXCUSE for his poor judgement afterwards could go something along the lines (grant it just my guess at this time) the stress of the event and his medical condition (maybe a doze of alcohol tossed in for good measure) and level of medicine in his body caused him judgement to be imparred...


How often have we heard or read where the scapegoat used is some twisted concocted scenario of

Well I was drinking so my judgement was impaired?? And the courts even allow and recognize some of that stuff! Repugnant to me. No one forced the alcohol down the throat - and instead of the effort to becoming voluntarily impaired working against most defendents, the impairment works in their favor!!! Doesn't it?


So for me.. the weeks that lapsed are a huge consideration that define WHO BEN FAWLEY WAS AND IS. For me, it clears away any smoke screen that might be coming our way.

I chuckled at your sarcasm. Your pragmatism is well known.

Worrying me a bit, I have read a few posts of late though that seem to open the door to stuff that may affect the daily lives of some on the periphery and even the Defendent but at no time did any of us uncover and photo, a post, a link of any kind to suggest or even hint that Taylor had any interest in fettish crud or even that she willinging ended up with Ben that night. We are all awaiting the answers to be laid out by the Prosecution.

You, Protect, TN, Focus, BFD, Nibblet, Singlesix, and others were there from the first days. I think we all need to be very careful to not allow an effort to succeed to try and twist the particulars into something they are NOT (read : something belonging to BEN's world and NOT to Taylor's) and allow wiggle room for the culprit.

Oh, sorry if the caps bug you. Helps me. Don't mean to bug anyone!

[protectkidz]

I think he told the cops he was off his meds that night, but excellent point Tax girl.

One thought: If VCU cops had connected with Richmond cops from the get-go, does anyone feel that they would've connected the dots right away to Ben's "kidnap" story, and Taylor would have been found sooner?

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


I absolutey agree and that's why I'm not into "behavioral evidence" to garner a conviction. There are no absolutes when defining behaviors, nor can one person's behaviors be compared to another's; we are all unique in that respect.

But when it comes to the point after a conviction has been handed down, based on law; I think behavioral evidence does play a role. Of course mitigating factors are often overlooked and aggravating factors focused much more intently; but that's what happens once someone is convicted.

BFD - I just posted something that I know realize might be better laid onthe desk of the DA and not the investigators.

If a culprit leads police to the body of someone he killed is that person often times offered labeled as being cooperative and often times a plea or some sort of consideration is made during the trial phase? Am I confused?

[Taxgirl2006]

Originally posted by protectkidz
I think he told the cops he was off his meds that night, but excellent point Tax girl.

One thought: If VCU cops had connected with Richmond cops from the get-go, does anyone feel that they would've connected the dots right away to Ben's "kidnap" story, and Taylor would have been found sooner?


That is a good question. I wish I knew the answer, cause maybe it would not have dragged out for a month and there might have been more evidence for LE. It scares me that no one takes it seriously right away when a college freshman is missing. I would think it would be better to be safe than sorry.JMO

[protectkidz]

Matt7:1/V:

I can see that you put a lot of thought into your posts, and I appreciate it.

One favor? If you could shorten your posts, it would be helpful. I usually am in the middle of several things at once when reading CTV, and the phone will ring or something, and when I get back I'll realize that I still haven't finished reading the first paragraph of your post, and then the phone will ring again or something, and so on, and so on.

Also, I'm afraid to quote you because I have a feeling I may end up crashing the system if I do.

Thanks tho for your input. You were missed in your absence and several were wondering if you would come back.

:seeya:

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by protectkidz
I think he told the cops he was off his meds that night, but excellent point Tax girl.

One thought: If VCU cops had connected with Richmond cops from the get-go, does anyone feel that they would've connected the dots right away to Ben's "kidnap" story, and Taylor would have been found sooner?

HUMMMMMMMMM-

I do wonder about how the various LEs played into this.
Didn't the Richmond and VCU LE have a well laid cooperative relationship in place before Taylor disappeared? Though I admit, what was in one database was not readily available for the other -- so your question should be able to answered if the time when that report became known to LE investigating Taylor's disappearance - maybe we will learn about it in the trial phase??????


I don't know though.. even if they had connected the kidnap story, all LE at that time really focused on looking for her/her car until the middle of November, right?

And let's not forget one supposedly mutual friend went on TV saying Taylor may have just run off... during this phase of the investigation.

It is a good question that deserves a closer examination. IMO.

Has that bugged you for a while Protect?

[MATTHEWsevenone]

YOu know guys - I really really try!!

Seems every time I think I have succeeded I get blasted by a poster who missed the essence or a detail that the shortened version just blunted. ASK SINGLE - happened to us over on the Tara board!

I will try!!! REALLY I will.

But it may mean using CAPS... and most all of you know, I don't mean to shout - just use caps like we all did in school - So please, don't take offense!

:seeya:


Originally posted by protectkidz
Matt7:1/V:

I can see that you put a lot of thought into your posts, and I appreciate it.

One favor? If you could shorten your posts, it would be helpful. I usually am in the middle of several things at once when reading CTV, and the phone will ring or something, and when I get back I'll realize that I still haven't finished reading the first paragraph of your post, and then the phone will ring again or something, and so on, and so on.

Also, I'm afraid to quote you because I have a feeling I may end up crashing the system if I do.

Thanks tho for your input. You were missed in your absence and several were wondering if you would come back.

:seeya:

[protectkidz]

No - I don't watch the news - too scary. Plus, I spend too much of my free time reading posts!!!!

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by protectkidz
I think he told the cops he was off his meds that night, but excellent point Tax girl.

One thought: If VCU cops had connected with Richmond cops from the get-go, does anyone feel that they would've connected the dots right away to Ben's "kidnap" story, and Taylor would have been found sooner?

No. I don't believe that would have been the case.

Think about this: There were members on this very forum that contacted the police very early in the investigation and told them they should check out every single place Ben was taking snapshots of. I can't remember the one poster's identity, but they went so far as to say they thought Taylor was near the area the picture of the old house was taken) They were dead on.

No one from any police agency (that we know of) followed any of that advice from the posters. If they did follow the advice, it sure took them a long time to question the locations of the snapshots and finally connect the dots.

Granted, I'm sure they got a lot of tips and/or leads and plenty of advice from the general public. But I think it's a pretty simple basis of fact to go through those photos and start checking the areas out. To me, that was one of the most basic things to have been done. It took them a month to figure out what it took some on here a few days to figure out.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone


BFD - I just posted something that I know realize might be better laid onthe desk of the DA and not the investigators.

If a culprit leads police to the body of someone he killed is that person often times offered labeled as being cooperative and often times a plea or some sort of consideration is made during the trial phase? Am I confused?

It can make a difference, but it's all dependent upon the DA's office.

If the DA doesn't "deal", then it doesn't matter one whit what the accused does or does not do for them.

It could play a part of sentencing; but that wouldn't be relevant in this particular case. There are no mitigating factors for Ben Fawley other than his bi-polar condition. So far I haven't heard of that being used as a part of his defense. (Though I'm sure it will at some point)

[TN_Profiler]

Originally posted by Rowan


C'mon. He wasn't about to tell anyone, and he hoped and prayed that the body wouldn't be found. I get tickled when people say that he didn't make any effort to come clean.



Yup, I'm with you on this. I think he didn't come clean because it was not an accident. I would not attribute his cover-up to anything but the knowledge that he committed a crime that he did not want discovered.

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


No. I don't believe that would have been the case.

Think about this: There were members on this very forum that contacted the police very early in the investigation and told them they should check out every single place Ben was taking snapshots of. I can't remember the one poster's identity, but they went so far as to say they thought Taylor was near the area the picture of the old house was taken) They were dead on.

No one from any police agency (that we know of) followed any of that advice from the posters. If they did follow the advice, it sure took them a long time to question the locations of the snapshots and finally connect the dots.

Granted, I'm sure they got a lot of tips and/or leads and plenty of advice from the general public. But I think it's a pretty simple basis of fact to go through those photos and start checking the areas out. To me, that was one of the most basic things to have been done. It took them a month to figure out what it took some on here a few days to figure out.

BFD - that was RESEARCHER. posted it on Oct. 17th.


I too recall how dead on he was. He also was really terrific with understanding the computer stuff. WHERE IS HE??? WE NEED HIM HERE for this trial!!!

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone


BFD - that was RESEARCHER. posted it on Oct. 17th.


I too recall how dead on he was. He also was really terrific with understanding the computer stuff. WHERE IS HE??? WE NEED HIM HERE for this trial!!!

I believe it was before that. If I'm not mistaken, Taylor was found in the first week of October.

Someone mentioned it in September. I know a lot of early posts went *poof*, so that particular one might have gone *poof* as well.

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone


BFD - that was RESEARCHER. posted it on Oct. 17th.


I too recall how dead on he was. He also was really terrific with understanding the computer stuff. WHERE IS HE??? WE NEED HIM HERE for this trial!!!

Researcher is a steady poster on the Imette St Guillen board.

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


I believe it was before that. If I'm not mistaken, Taylor was found in the first week of October.

Someone mentioned it in September. I know a lot of early posts went *poof*, so that particular one might have gone *poof* as well.

BFD -

Gosh - you are so right! Researcher and ???? both were on the right track. And it was September, not October! It is hard to go back now and find some posts...

I was recalling a post TOO LATE.

Sorry.

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Researcher is a steady poster on the Imette St Guillen board.

Thanks Hey Paula - I have it from a most reliable source that we will all see Researcher again. As August draws closer, hopefully many of those from the early days will be back to this board.

:seeya:

[Researcher]

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone
BFD -

Gosh - you are so right! Researcher and ???? both were on the right track. And it was September, not October! It is hard to go back now and find some posts...
I was recalling a post TOO LATE.
Sorry.
Hi, Matthew:seeya:
BFD on 9/23 wonders if LE should look into abandoned buildings (11:36PM):
http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?postid=7012909&highlight=abandoned#post7012909
9/24 8:22am LTuchar mentions abandoned buildings, fires, shallow graves:
http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?postid=7013698&highlight=abandoned#post7013698
(Are CTV sleuthers good or what?!)
Racerex may actually have been the first poster to mention the abandoned building here on 9/27:
Abandoned Property (http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=241472)
Thread re:
Skulz' Photobucket (http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?postid=7085094#post7085094)
Thread in which BluPrint starts a really interesting discussion on Skulz's photos (10-08-2005 02:24 AM) :
BluPrint re Skulz's Photos (http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=242486&perpage=40&pagenumber=2)

BTW, the easiest way I've found to search these boards:

Go to "search" button in upper right
In "Search by Keyword", type in word(s) you're looking for
In "Search Options", go to "Search Forum" pull-down list, and specify forum(s) you want to search
Click option to "Show results as posts"
Then click on a specific post and you will be taken to the specific post with the word(s) you searched which will appear in red

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by Researcher

Hi, Matthew:seeya:
BFD on 9/23 wonders if LE should look into abandoned buildings (11:36PM):
http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?postid=7012909&highlight=abandoned#post7012909
9/24 8:22am LTuchar mentions abandoned buildings, fires, shallow graves:
http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?postid=7013698&highlight=abandoned#post7013698
(Are CTV sleuthers good or what?!)
Racerex may actually have been the first poster to mention the abandoned building here on 9/27:
Abandoned Property (http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=241472)
Thread re:
Skulz' Photobucket (http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?postid=7085094#post7085094)
Thread in which BluPrint starts a really interesting discussion on Skulz's photos (10-08-2005 02:24 AM) :
BluPrint re Skulz's Photos (http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=242486&perpage=40&pagenumber=2)

BTW, the easiest way I've found to search these boards:

Go to "search" button in upper right
In "Search by Keyword", type in word(s) you're looking for
In "Search Options", go to "Search Forum" pull-down list, and specify forum(s) you want to search
Click option to "Show results as posts"
Then click on a specific post and you will be taken to the specific post with the word(s) you searched which will appear in red


That's it. Racerex. He/She got it right very early on in the case.

I was thinking of the abandoned buildings in Richmond. In fact, I was thinking specifically of the old trainyard where he took photos.

Thanks Researcher. Nice to see you again.

[Researcher]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0

That's it. Racerex. He/She got it right very early on in the case.

I was thinking of the abandoned buildings in Richmond. In fact, I was thinking specifically of the old trainyard where he took photos.

Thanks Researcher. Nice to see you again.
Hi, BFD. :seeya: Your welcome...and good to see you again, too.

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by Researcher

Hi, Matthew:seeya:
BFD on 9/23 wonders if LE should look into abandoned buildings (11:36PM):
http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?postid=7012909&highlight=abandoned#post7012909
9/24 8:22am LTuchar mentions abandoned buildings, fires, shallow graves:
http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?postid=7013698&highlight=abandoned#post7013698
(Are CTV sleuthers good or what?!)
Racerex may actually have been the first poster to mention the abandoned building here on 9/27:
Abandoned Property (http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=241472)
Thread re:
Skulz' Photobucket (http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?postid=7085094#post7085094)
Thread in which BluPrint starts a really interesting discussion on Skulz's photos (10-08-2005 02:24 AM) :
BluPrint re Skulz's Photos (http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=242486&perpage=40&pagenumber=2)

BTW, the easiest way I've found to search these boards:

Go to "search" button in upper right
In "Search by Keyword", type in word(s) you're looking for
In "Search Options", go to "Search Forum" pull-down list, and specify forum(s) you want to search
Click option to "Show results as posts"
Then click on a specific post and you will be taken to the specific post with the word(s) you searched which will appear in red


Researcher - Thank you so much for your incredible sleuthing.

Racerex - WHy couldn't I think of his post! He was absolutely terrific.

Gosh it is great to have you on this board again - another clear headed no nonsense poster!

KUDOS Researcher!!

[Soundandfury]

Originally posted by protectkidz


I don't think he was anywhere near as savvy as he thought he was with the computers - but suffice to say, you are right in that possession is nine/tenths of the law (I think that's still the case). I'm wondering, tho - if there were 30 videos found, but there are only 16 counts against him, does anyone know why? or can anyone say why there wouldn't be 30 counts against him?

In terms of the 30 videos and only 16 Counts, it could be that they were not able to authenticate 14 of them or establish the ages of the children on the 14 videos at the time he was charged.

In terms of possession being 9/10 of the law, the is generally a misstatement of the law. The mere fact of possession of child pornography without more is not enough for a conviction. There has to be, at the very least, knowledge of what was being possessed.

As an example, suppose I buy a used car and there is a kilo of cocaine hidden in the door panel. The police stop me, search the car with a drug sniffing dog and find the cocaine. Am I guilty of possessing cocaine? No. While it wa technically in my physicial possession, I had no knowledge of it being there. Similarly, the mere fact that child porn was found on a harddrive in Fawley's possession does not mean that he is guilty of possessing child porn. He would have had to have known that it was actually there and not taken steps to get rid of it to be guilty of a crime.

Hopefully, law enforcement can determine that Fawley accessed the videos after the person who allegedly owned the computer died. If that is the case then it would seem that Fawley is in some serious trouble. The Courts in Virginia don't cotton to that type of stuff.

[Friend of BW]

okay two things then i have to go to work...
BF had several profiles in several sites...on either DarkEvilgoth@ livejournal, or his geocities nowhere van stuff he states...
"I don't drink or smoke" I believe that page was edited shortly before his arrest so there you have it in any case to cops, in the letters he says he drinks...in posts he says he doesn't.

In addition, if he was DWI or DUI perhaps the gas station attendant would have noticed.

Secondly, hiding the car for two weeks. In his nowhere van sites he mentions that he stored vehicles in a garage he rented on Watne St...might this place or another place such as this also be where he stored the car and or other things...

Oops, third question: I know he says the Nowhere Van 3 went off to the junkyard but whatever happened to Nowhere Van 4 and the numerous cars he says he owned as late as 2004?

[Friend of BW]

oops again, typo: Wayne Street not whatever I typed

[joeb]

Since he cant use a computer in jail he is writing letters. Will they be admissible in court? And is he using these letters to get his version of events out without ever having to take the stand where he could be cross examined? And is he writing to more former friends other than Katie H? Seems to me this is his attempt to get his version into court without taking the stand. I dont think he is dumb enough to take the stand. So he writes letters which are sure to be of the highest quality fiction. And which no one in their right mind would believe. Except maybe a former friend or child.

[Soundandfury]

Originally posted by joeb
Since he cant use a computer in jail he is writing letters. Will they be admissible in court? And is he using these letters to get his version of events out without ever having to take the stand where he could be cross examined? And is he writing to more former friends other than Katie H? Seems to me this is his attempt to get his version into court without taking the stand. I dont think he is dumb enough to take the stand. So he writes letters which are sure to be of the highest quality fiction. And which no one in their right mind would believe. Except maybe a former friend or child.

The letters are hearsay unless they are offered into evidence by the Commonwealth's Attorney as an admission by the defendant. Generally one cannot introduce their own out of court statements unless to refute the assertion that your current position has been recently fabricated. But that wouldn't apply in this case since the letters were written well after the events and presumably after his jailhouse statement to law enforcement. So Fawley is not going to be able to introduce the letters himself.

The letters probably do not do anything other the corroborate the version he told the police in jail. That version was recorded and could be introduced into evidence by the Commonwealth's attorney as an admission by the defendant.

[TN_Profiler]

Originally posted by joeb
Since he cant use a computer in jail he is writing letters. Will they be admissible in court?

In a word .... yes. Letters and phone conversations from jail can be used against BF. Ecept those to his attorney, MD or priest.

Joe Smith had both letters and recorded phone conversations introduced as evidence against him in the Carlie Brucia trial.

This would only occur if the DA thought they were meaningful.

[nibblet]

I must be working too hard. Was a thread just deleted? I came on and I thought there were 3 that had postings through today. Went to my PMs, came back, and now there are 2.

I need to go home now.

:chicken:

[Soundandfury]

Originally posted by nibblet
I must be working too hard. Was a thread just deleted? I came on and I thought there were 3 that had postings through today. Went to my PMs, came back, and now there are 2.

I need to go home now.

:chicken:

You aren't going crazy. Someone launched into a fairly unnecessary ad hominem attack on another poster and the whole thread went poof.

Ironically, the thread was about disappearing threads. Now that is true irony and not the kind that Alanis Morrisette sings about.

[Soundandfury]

Originally posted by TN_Profiler
Ecept those to his attorney, MD or priest.


I would note is that the doctor-patient privilege does not generally apply in criminal cases in Virginia. The one exception is for a psychiatric evaluation of a criminal defendant is covered by the attorney-client privilege unless the mental issue is put into play by the defense.

The attorney-client privilege and priest-penitent privilege are not absolute and can be waived.

[todom]

If ben was taking efexor that can cause dilusions and fits of rage and even death if you skip or take it too late.....efexor is a bipolar drug as well, one that can make you a life long dependent on its benefits, a very strong drug.:shrug:

[jace]

Originally posted by todom
If ben was taking efexor that can cause dilusions and fits of rage and even death if you skip or take it too late.....efexor is a bipolar drug as well, one that can make you a life long dependent on its benefits, a very strong drug.:shrug:

todom,
Where did you hear that? I know someone that has been on Effexor and I haven't seen that as one of the side effects. Do you have a link? or can you tell me where you found that information?

I'm not saying you're not right but I'd like to see where that came from so I can let this person know.

[Soundandfury]

Originally posted by todom
If ben was taking efexor that can cause dilusions and fits of rage and even death if you skip or take it too late.....efexor is a bipolar drug as well, one that can make you a life long dependent on its benefits, a very strong drug.:shrug:

My running assumption is that Fawley was not taking his meds. He purportedly told Jonathan Delano, Erin Crabill's roommate, when he broke into their apartment with the hammer, that he did not take his meds because it affected him sexually.

I also recall someone close to Fawley posting that he had not seen a psychiatrist for a long-time. In order to get a refill on a prescription, such as Effexor, you generally need to see a psychiatrist on a routine basis. They generally don't give year-long scrips on such drugs.

By the way, fits of rage doesn't appear to be a side effect for Effexor and it appears to be contraindicated for Bi-Polar Disorder. Link (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/uspdi/202764.html)

[jace]

Thanks soundandfury. The person I know was prescribed Effexor for depression by their general practitioner.

Whew! You had me scared there for a minute todom.

[poplife]

Hunh? Not for bipolar?

http://bipolar.about.com/cs/sfx/a/sfx_effexor.htm
[


You'd have to be a psychiatrist to really engage in knowledgeable discussion about the meds- many drugs are given regularly for off label use. ie Topamax is a migraine/anti seizure drug used off label as a mood stabilizer.

Jace- I'm going to back up what Todom said- all psychotropics can have tragic side effects.

[jace]

:shrug:

[Soundandfury]

Originally posted by poplife
Hunh? Not for bipolar?

http://bipolar.about.com/cs/sfx/a/sfx_effexor.htm
[


You'd have to be a psychiatrist to really engage in knowledgeable discussion about the meds- many drugs are given regularly for off label use. ie Topamax is a migraine/anti seizure drug used off label as a mood stabilizer.

Jace- I'm going to back up what Todom said- all psychotropics can have tragic side effects.

First, is there any evidence Fawley was actually taking Effexor or are we speculating?

Second, off-label use is when one drug is used for a purpose other than for which it has been approved by the FDA. Off-label use is perfectly legitimate and routinely use. Off-label use, however, is not using a particular drug for something that it is contraindicated for.

Third, psychotropic drugs certainly have very powerful effects, but if you read the link, "fits of rage" are not one of the known side-effects of Effexor.

[poplife]

I don't know whether he was or not taking it or ever? So I believe the answer is speculation- however, just wondering, are you still saying Effexor is not used for bipolar disorder? And I'd imagine that brain shivers would drive many into a fit of rage. Who knows though, you're the lawyer w/ all the info, right?

[Soundandfury]

Originally posted by Rowan


You sure sound learned in the law! Thanks for guiding us along so carefully! :rose:

Just trying to help out and throw my 2 cents in when I can. :)

[nibblet]

Originally posted by AvengingAngel


Whenever I see 'peeps', I think of that song that goes like: "jeepers, creepers, where'd ya get them peepers".

That's an old, old song - you must like old movies.

[nibblet]

:D

Ahhh, and here I was thinking you liked old movies with Louis Armstrong playing from 1938!

[joeb]

Originally posted by AvengingAngel




What are brain shivers?

Is that like when I eat a Frosty from Wendy's too fast and it gives me a headache? :confused:

That is also known as an Ice Cream Headache. Somebody wrote a short story with that name.

[Taxgirl2006]

Hi, everyone...

Thought this link would answer some questions about the letters, and the Richmond City Jail's handling of them.

Katie states in this link to her livejournal:(you have to scroll down to get to it)
http://hildybrant.livejournal.com/172392.html

Quote:Richmond City Jail actually stamps each outgoing envelope to say specifically that they do not censor or inspect the outgoing mail in any way, shape, or form, nor do they take any responsibility for its contents.


Have a Great Day!!!

[TN_Profiler]

Originally posted by Soundandfury


I would note is that the doctor-patient privilege does not generally apply in criminal cases in Virginia. The one exception is for a psychiatric evaluation of a criminal defendant is covered by the attorney-client privilege unless the mental issue is put into play by the defense.

The attorney-client privilege and priest-penitent privilege are not absolute and can be waived.

Good points but Ben is the person who would have to waive these privileges. I assumed his (if any) MD conversations would be with a Psychiatrist due to his history. Not any discussions related to cuts or bruises.

Surely I would think he has been evaluated for mental illness by both the prosecution and defense. I, however, think this is going down the 'rough sex' route .... in hopes of manslaughter as a best case scenario for Ben.

I wait anxiously for the trial so I can see the evidence. I have naturally formulated my own opinions but that comes without the benefit of evidence that has been collected under the gag order.

[poplife]

Taxgirl, thanks for pointing that out= that clears things up a bit. Wonder who that lawyer is? He's so very helpful.

[becurious]

Originally posted by AvengingAngel



Or new ones. As in "Jeepers Creepers" which was on the SciFi channel not too long ago.


Is that the "Peeparoo" that used to post here? I didn't get the impression that he/she was anything like the "Jeepers Creepers" movie of today's time. I do remember the song. I was just reading about that song somewhere.

[jace]

Originally posted by AvengingAngel


yeah, good 'ole peeps

i like how she signed off on her very first post: "sayonara, suckers"

she got herself in trouble and ended up in some hot water

:beer: here's to the late great peeparoo

I know I haven't seen her post here but did something bad happen to peeparoo? You guys make it sound like something bad happened.

[becurious]

Originally posted by Rowan


Yes, that's the one :) Before your time I think .. she always had ways of making me see things in a different perspective.

I've been reading for a while. I remember some posts from her. Then she disappeared like so many have seemed to.

[jace]

Every once in a while I have to pull myself away from the board for a while and I thought maybe I had missed something.

Glad peeparoo is okay.

Thanks Rowan.

[Taxgirl2006]

Originally posted by poplife
Taxgirl, thanks for pointing that out= that clears things up a bit. Wonder who that lawyer is? He's so very helpful.


I wondered that myself...It seems more like he/she is fishing to me. JMO

[BeachPatrol]

Originally posted by Taxgirl2006



I wondered that myself...It seems more like he/she is fishing to me. JMO
I SO agree with that!!

[becurious]

Originally posted by Taxgirl2006



I wondered that myself...It seems more like he/she is fishing to me. JMO


Is there really a lawyer on here? I thought TN was in accounting or something! What lawyer would be fishing for something unless they were related to this case? Prosecution or Defense? That's really unprofessional if someone that has something to do with this case were posting on this board. I can't believe anyone would be that stupid. Isn't that against some sort of code?

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by becurious



Is there really a lawyer on here? I thought TN was in accounting or something! What lawyer would be fishing for something unless they were related to this case? Prosecution or Defense? That's really unprofessional if someone that has something to do with this case were posting on this board. I can't believe anyone would be that stupid. Isn't that against some sort of code?

Just my opinion of course, that is all I ever post - but I happen to know over 50 attorneys who are interesting in this case and NONE are involved with the case. Some peruse Riehl some peruse CTV board. SO WHAT?

Why is it that if someone who is a paralegal or attorney who would naturally be drawn to a message board on a site such as COURTTV is almost automatically piegoned holed or flagged as someone who is either PROS. or DEF. IN THIS CASE?

I have seen it on a few of the boards and a couple of times - not here - known who the poster was and known he or she was an attorney who happened to just be interested in following the case, just like the rest of us. We each bring some of our expertise to the board, why should any attorney be ostracized because of his/her talents or profession? Should that poster have to NOT include posts that help explain to those of us who are not legal eagles what the terms and processes are? I am grateful for TN and any and all others who come to this case and any of the boards who are real attorneys. I have seen a few posts on other boards where posters claim to be attorneys but their posts seem to suggest it is a ruse - at least to me. Gotta remember this is a message board, afterall and it takes all kinds and people can CLAIM to be anything here, can't they? We have to examine the veracity of their of posts, right?

Personally I am thrilled to have as many attorneys on these boards as possible because sometimes it helps to get past the legal language or bring things into focus? I want to roll out the welcome mat for them.

And getting to the point - EVEN if an attorney for Def. or Pros. was on these boards for any case- how would it be unethical? What exactly would they be fishing for? How would that work? How would it benefit them?

My way of looking at it - though with the number of attorneys we have in this country AND BETWEEN RICHMOND AND WASHINGTON DC ALONE I find it difficult to grasp the ONLY interested law professionals are intimately involved in this case - we are a much larger sampling than the jury pool of Mathews COUNTY. Our sensibilities and our take on particulars might be completely different from the way those people will view stuff - afterall we have access to all sorts of stuff that the jury might never see. PLUS we don't have all of the discovery and therefore at this time we are working with pieces... so any attorney involved with this case would not be able to get any sort of clear indicator from this board until we know all the particulars and that won't happen until the trial, right? How many times has a board shifted when something comes to light? I've seem it over and over.

Finally, just gotta ask - why does an attorney from VA or DC- or claiming to be from there- posting on Taylor's board bother anyone? TN is an attorney though he decided to pursue something other than criminal law and he's been here a long time, never seemed to bug anyone. We were grateful to him for being interested in this case, right? I don't understand this. Is there only supposed to be ONE per case?

Maybe someone else can help me to understand.

Just my opinion.

:seeya:

[listening post]

Interesting insight into Fawley's involvement in porn sites. Fawley was apparently involved in the popup ads for some of the porn sites per a comment he made on 04Feb2005 on his Line-nowhere site:

"> I sorta got a job today. My job will require me to be surfing the web for Porn! Yes, a job in Porn, life is just so hard. So if you see the iMac getting more use then I am off working on Porn. My Windows computers are not to go to sites like that, too much spy ware & too many pop-up ads. The site I will be helping with is a pop-up ad free site. It is also a local area porn site.

More dull numbers [04 Feb 2005|02:48am"

[becurious]

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone


Just my opinion of course, that is all I ever post - but I happen to know over 50 attorneys who are interesting in this case and NONE are involved with the case. Some peruse Riehl some peruse CTV board. SO WHAT?

Why is it that if someone who is a paralegal or attorney who would naturally be drawn to a message board on a site such as COURTTV is almost automatically piegoned holed or flagged as someone who is either PROS. or DEF. IN THIS CASE?

I have seen it on a few of the boards and a couple of times - not here - known who the poster was and known he or she was an attorney who happened to just be interested in following the case, just like the rest of us. We each bring some of our expertise to the board, why should any attorney be ostracized because of his/her talents or profession? Should that poster have to NOT include posts that help explain to those of us who are not legal eagles what the terms and processes are? I am grateful for TN and any and all others who come to this case and any of the boards who are real attorneys. I have seen a few posts on other boards where posters claim to be attorneys but their posts seem to suggest it is a ruse - at least to me. Gotta remember this is a message board, afterall and it takes all kinds and people can CLAIM to be anything here, can't they? We have to examine the veracity of their of posts, right?

Personally I am thrilled to have as many attorneys on these boards as possible because sometimes it helps to get past the legal language or bring things into focus? I want to roll out the welcome mat for them.

And getting to the point - EVEN if an attorney for Def. or Pros. was on these boards for any case- how would it be unethical? What exactly would they be fishing for? How would that work? How would it benefit them?

My way of looking at it - though with the number of attorneys we have in this country AND BETWEEN RICHMOND AND WASHINGTON DC ALONE I find it difficult to grasp the ONLY interested law professionals are intimately involved in this case - we are a much larger sampling than the jury pool of Mathews COUNTY. Our sensibilities and our take on particulars might be completely different from the way those people will view stuff - afterall we have access to all sorts of stuff that the jury might never see. PLUS we don't have all of the discovery and therefore at this time we are working with pieces... so any attorney involved with this case would not be able to get any sort of clear indicator from this board until we know all the particulars and that won't happen until the trial, right? How many times has a board shifted when something comes to light? I've seem it over and over.

Finally, just gotta ask - why does an attorney from VA or DC- or claiming to be from there- posting on Taylor's board bother anyone? TN is an attorney though he decided to pursue something other than criminal law and he's been here a long time, never seemed to bug anyone. We were grateful to him for being interested in this case, right? I don't understand this. Is there only supposed to be ONE per case?

Maybe someone else can help me to understand.

Just my opinion.

:seeya:

Matt - I'm sorry if I neglect to answer something, but this is just too long to read. I skimmed it. You quoted me so I guess you are directing this to me. I just popped in before and saw some questions about lawyers. If there was a lawyer on here "fishing" as someone said, then I would think they were somehow related to the case. I don't know what they'd be fishing for. I don't know enough about the case to know the answer to that. I thought TN said he was an accountant with legal knowledge. TN has had some great input - I'm not complaining about him being here. I wouldn't have any issues with any attorney being here unless they were connected to the case somehow. That, to me, seems unethical if they're related to the case and were posting here.

IMO

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by listening post
Interesting insight into Fawley's involvement in porn sites. Fawley was apparently involved in the popup ads for some of the porn sites per a comment he made on 04Feb2005 on his Line-nowhere site:

"> I sorta got a job today. My job will require me to be surfing the web for Porn! Yes, a job in Porn, life is just so hard. So if you see the iMac getting more use then I am off working on Porn. My Windows computers are not to go to sites like that, too much spy ware & too many pop-up ads. The site I will be helping with is a pop-up ad free site. It is also a local area porn site.

More dull numbers [04 Feb 2005|02:48am"

Thanks so much listeningpost --

So Ben claims he got a JOB on 2/4/05 working "a job in PORN"- a local(READ RICHMOND?)area porn site.

That would have been BEFORE Taylor visited right?

Before the DEAD GUY DIED - sorry, I don't know how else to phrase that- right?
And before CINO moved out - right?

WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE remind me when did that neighbor die? Do we know his last name - I have down three different sets of initials for that guy- KJ, TJ, or JT? I don't have a date. Should we really know who this guy was and verify when he died, not just when BEN claims he died? Shouldn't be too hard if we had a last name.

That post by Ben in FEB - shows he had an interest in PORN before the neighbor died, right?

WHat it does not say is WHAT THE JOB WAS?

It almost sounds like the stuff on HIS computer (at least the MAC) might be connected to his "job in Porn" ?

DID the LOCAL PORN site pay him? How much? DID he report that income on his April 15th taxes? IF not all porn is illegal then some is commerce and those businesses have to keep employee and subcontractor records,rigth? Might appear as a side issue BUT if he did report the income it could go to prove that he had other reasons than simply cleaning some drives from computers a dead neighbor left to be dabbling in PORN, right?

JUST MOO. SPECULATING.


:seeya:

[MATTHEWsevenone]

I pulled this one out -

http://fs7.deviantart.com/i/2005/241/6/1/Oxycontin_1024x768_by_skulz.jpg

Anyone - Here is a photo Ben took. The date says August 20, 2005.

There is a partial label of a pharmacy -almost looks like COSTCO to me, not sure.

Anyone know what drug this is a photo of? The tag says Oxycontin.

http://health.yahoo.com/topic/addiction/teen/article/pdfa/PDFA_dr_oxycontin

I pulled this and the markings seem to be consistent for Oxycontin -not sure though.

Oxycontin is given as a pain killer - not a drug to treat bipolar. And it is a tightly regulated drug!

http://health.yahoo.com/topic/mentalhealth/medications/article/healthwise/ty1913

I wonder whose prescription that is? How did Ben get his hands on that particular drug even to photo?

Many many questions about this!

ALL imo. speculating at this point...

:seeya:

[TN_Profiler]

Just a little clarification .... I do not practice law. I no longer hold a license because I have decided (years ago) to pursue a career in Corporate Finance. Specifically, mergers & acquisitions and strategic planning. I consider myself a corporate accountant and have followed this board from week two ONLY because I became interested in this case. Since I spent 4 years in College Park, I have always kept tabs on the DC area. Since Taylor was living in Vienna, this "hit home" with me even after many years separate me from my days at UM.

One more thing, the "TN" is soon to be "NV". As I have mentioned previously, NV_Profiler will be a newer, hipper version of myself since I am apparently not presenting my true age accordingly. :D

Generally speaking, my posts are not written from a legal standpoint (although I have answered a few questions along the way). I prefer to have interactive dialog with the many people who have participated over the months. I also try to do this in a positive manner so I don't get myself in hot water with, um ... Hotwater. :D

Carry on gang.

[Taxgirl2006]

My comment about a lawyer fishing for info, was in regards to a reply to my earlier post about the info in Hildy's livejournal. The info is in the earlier post. I didn't mean there was a lawyer HERE fishing for info. There is someone on the livejournal Hildy keeps who says he/she is a lawyer, and seems to be pressing her for info.

Sorry for the confusion.

Cheers, and a belated Happy Mothers Day to all the moms who post here.

:seeya:

[TN_Profiler]

TaxGirl .... no doubt there are always examples of those who are not an asset to their profession. That, of course, is not limited to those who practice law. There are plenty of shady characters amoung us.

To the extent it applies ... happy Mother's Day all.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by Soundandfury


Just trying to help out and throw my 2 cents in when I can. :) Very nice.:biggrin: