Intent -- What Will It Take? [Archive] - Crime Library Message Boards

MATTHEWsevenone

04-19-2006, 12:02 PM

The word INTENT has been mentioned several times. Critical element to any case when a person dies.

Over the last few days JACE has offered a completely different take on Ben Fawley from what the way I have been looking at him.

Got me thinking. For someone who has lied so much to so many ---

How can he ever prove his intent - ACCIDENT?

I know the Prosecution has to PROVE their case. But they have so much all ready with the confession, don't they? Don't they have a short walk and Ben has a long walk?

Each side says there is over 3 feet of paper to wade through --I am guessing much of it internet blogs and cyberspace writing/images --

How in the world is INTENT or any measure of it derived from cybertalk?

Will any of the online writing be credible in a court? Many are done on forums with little protections? How does one prove that the writings were in fact done by the person whose nic they appear? I know I had an instance, while my personal computer was being scrubbed, where a friend tried to create a nic on my computer and post as me- all harmless and with the best intentions. It may have been a computer in our house and one I use - we have several on different floors and in different rooms but it was not me. What is the law? Even if traced it would show the writings originated in my house, even one of the rooms with computer access, but the actual writer was not me - what does the law require to prove authenticity of cyberspeak? Can one really prove it was SO AND SO if they are using aliases and there was no one to collaborate the process? Are there laws at all? Will this case be setting/ testing the waters?

Is it possible that either Taylor or Ben's entries are not their own? I know several have wondered she even set up her account? Will the Prosecution or Defense have to prove it? What is the requirement in court for cybertalk?

And can any of it be used to help find "INTENT"? And in Ben's case, with so much NONINTERNET stuff that shows him to be INCONSISTENT and DECEPTIVE --

WAIT THOUGH -- many of us have watched and followed this case and had access to cyberspace stuff and developed a negative impression of him.. but the jurists...

What will have to be laid before them so that they see what we have seen? Of will it be possible? And will it even be it necessary?

ALL IMO. JUSTING THINKING. :seeya:

BFD - v2.0

04-19-2006, 04:02 PM

Hate to say this, but it is the prosecution's burden to prove intent, not Ben's to disprove it.

His personality has nothing to do with it. Previous lies, deceptions, etc., have nothing to do with it.

It is totally incumbent upon the prosecution to present inculpatory evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt the intent of the act.

Yes, any statements he made after the fact can be used, but the only intent we know of that Ben spoke about centered around erotic asphyxiation.

If he's made a different or conflicting account at another time, then it's possible it could be used (depending upon the circumstances of any alleged conversation) to discredit any attempt to portray what happened as an accident.

I believe his actions after Taylor went missing will be the death nail in the case. I personally don't believe it proves first degree. But I think a first degree conviction would be just. (Just not legal with what we know at this time)

MATTHEWsevenone

04-19-2006, 06:51 PM

First off - abit off topic --Just heard a segment on NPR about the Supreme Court hearing a case about a mentally ill boy who killed a policeman in Flagstaff AR - first officer killed there. The question of proving INTENT is being examined at our highest court today! I found the questions the justices asked about INTENT interesting.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5350326

Back to Ben Fawley and his defense.

BFD I understand what you wrote. Fully understand the Prosecution has to PROVE through INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE (that is what inculpatory means right?) BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THE BEN'S INTENT. RIGHT?

OK with that being said.

For me, INTENT MEANS PURPOSE/CHOICE. What is it in legaleze? - oh TN where are you?

We can't read each others minds, right. BFD you mentioned his previous lies and deceptions have no play here. WHY? It seems everyone around this guy was duped or heard lies. Wouldn't it stand to reason Taylor did too? Doesn't that open the door to her being deceived that night? And isn't it Ben's to prove she was not?

And isn't there really two INTENTS in play right now - neither proven one ACCIDENTAL DEATH in play for Ben right now and MURDER for the prosecutors.

Here are some questions: What about the way he maintained he had walked her back to her dorm? Gee, even his attorney broadcast that false statement! And can't the weird alibi and the cybertalk and the false statements to authorities/the media/friends be used by Prosecutors to develop their case and demonstrate to the jury who BEN FAWLEY IS?

ANd since Ben is asserting stangulation as ACCIDENTAL DEATH - then does not that open the door to prior partners of his and his sexual preferences? For Pete's Sake, the Defense has been given a private investigator who is trying to dig around in Taylor's past, right? Can a person just out of the blue say - AFTER THE BODY IS FOUND - WELL YOU SEE, ME AND THIS GIRL DECIDED TO GO DOWN TO THIS REALLY DARK RURAL BEACH IN HER CRAMPED FORD ESCORT AND SHE AND I DECIDED IT WOULD BE FUN IF I TRIED TO STRANGLE HER WHILE WE WERE...

I'm not talking personality. I'm talking character. Those are very different. And doesn't character have a place in this case?

MATTHEWsevenone

04-19-2006, 07:25 PM

What about some qualifying facts

TAYLOR was underage.
Ben was in his thirties.

Any sex act was illegal? SO Ben intended to break that law right?

And in a car in Mathews VA? SO Ben intended to break that law too, right?

When Taylor stopped breathing Ben did not render aid or get Taylor to hospital - is that legal? Taylor had a cellphone he apparently didn't dial 911 did he?

Instead he rides around Diggs and dumps Taylor out - that is another example of intentionally breaking the law right?

How many need to be laid out for the Jury to say - this guy didn't care about anyone but Ben from start to finish

Doesn't all of that help define INTENT?

What happens if the whole foundation of the defense is on sand - no firm foundation of a man trying to follow the law?

How can you build a defense that will stand on a weak foundation?

Mr and Mrs. Jurist - Ben only meant to break law #, and law #, and law #. and sure he broke law # and # afterwards ..... But he did not mean to break THAT ONE!

All IMO.

BFD - v2.0

04-19-2006, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone
What about some qualifying facts

TAYLOR was underage.
Ben was in his thirties.

Any sex act was illegal? SO Ben intended to break that law right?

And in a car in Mathews VA? SO Ben intended to break that law too, right?

When Taylor stopped breathing Ben did not render aid or get Taylor to hospital - is that legal? Taylor had a cellphone he apparently didn't dial 911 did he?

Instead he rides around Diggs and dumps Taylor out - that is another example of intentionally breaking the law right?

How many need to be laid out for the Jury to say - this guy didn't care about anyone but Ben from start to finish

Doesn't all of that help define INTENT?

What happens if the whole foundation of the defense is on sand - no firm foundation of a man trying to follow the law?

How can you build a defense that will stand on a weak foundation?

Mr and Mrs. Jurist - Ben only meant to break law #, and law #, and law #. and sure he broke law # and # afterwards ..... But he did not mean to break THAT ONE!

All IMO.

I'm going to sound like a constitutional purist when I say this, but... I am.

The defense doesn't have to do ANYTHING. They can sit there like a bump on the log.

In our system of jurisprudence the burden of proving the case is on the prosecution.

That is the whole point behind innocent until proven guilty. Just because Ben states he killed Taylor doesn't mean that burden changes. In fact it's even more important in a case like this because the line becomes blurred.

MATTHEWsevenone

04-20-2006, 12:29 AM

In my initial post I asked about cyber speak and how the courts view it? I know there are cybercops and ways to track info from computer to computer but how does it get from the computer when there are aliases involved to real people? What does the court require?
Does it require collaboration offline?

Can the stuff we read (past tense) about Ben Fawley online be easily admitted either by the Prosecution or the Defense? Will it take stipulations that it is genuine? How does or who does the stipulating if the content belongs to a dead person?

As this case has unfolded we have watched major network news shows do segments on online predators. The agency was blasted by some sectors for crossing journalistic lines by working with the police instead of just objectively reporting. I don't agree with this accessment. But I do recall quite well that several of the predators tried to get their stuff removed claiming they were just online games and it wasn't even their own names. The ones who showed up there were real people attached to the online stuff and they lost their leverage to remain anonymous. That was the critical piece of that news show segment. Turning what is cyberspace into real life predators.

Now we have a murder trial where some were involved with online journals where they plastered their photos online and who knows what other qualifiers making their real life connections possible for LE as well as us to connect the dots. But what about for the Juries. they don't have computers. Somehow it all has to be introduced right? Is it possible to find a cybersignature that coresponds to a real life person through a hard drive? And is that enough to make it to the chair in the eyes of the court?

How does it work? I KNOW THE PROSECUTION HAS TO PROVE THEIR CASE - what I am asking is can the Prosecution and the Defense readily offer cyber speak as evidence? Does cyberspeak meet the threshhold in Virginia as evidence in a murder trial?

BFD - v2.0

04-20-2006, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone
In my initial post I asked about cyber speak and how the courts view it? I know there are cybercops and ways to track info from computer to computer but how does it get from the computer when there are aliases involved to real people? What does the court require?
Does it require collaboration offline?

Can the stuff we read (past tense) about Ben Fawley online be easily admitted either by the Prosecution or the Defense? Will it take stipulations that it is genuine? How does or who does the stipulating if the content belongs to a dead person?

As this case has unfolded we have watched major network news shows do segments on online predators. The agency was blasted by some sectors for crossing journalistic lines by working with the police instead of just objectively reporting. I don't agree with this accessment. But I do recall quite well that several of the predators tried to get their stuff removed claiming they were just online games and it wasn't even their own names. The ones who showed up there were real people attached to the online stuff and they lost their leverage to remain anonymous. That was the critical piece of that news show segment. Turning what is cyberspace into real life predators.

Now we have a murder trial where some were involved with online journals where they plastered their photos online and who knows what other qualifiers making their real life connections possible for LE as well as us to connect the dots. But what about for the Juries. they don't have computers. Somehow it all has to be introduced right? Is it possible to find a cybersignature that coresponds to a real life person through a hard drive? And is that enough to make it to the chair in the eyes of the court?

How does it work? I KNOW THE PROSECUTION HAS TO PROVE THEIR CASE - what I am asking is can the Prosecution and the Defense readily offer cyber speak as evidence? Does cyberspeak meet the threshhold in Virginia as evidence in a murder trial?

So far as cyber stuff, it's a reasonable assumption.

They can track the IP address which will tell them the account used and many times the MAC ID of the system that used that particular IP address at a particular time.

If it was "such-and-such's" computer being used, it is reasonable to believe they were the one using that computer (in Ben's situation).

They will also look at history. Same habits, mannerisms, etc.

Some instant message programs can even tell you how long the system has been up and how long they've been online.

It would be rather easy (in my opinion) to tie usage back to a particular user; especially one that was a prolific as Ben. Because not only is there online time known; but anything done on the computer offline at the same time would be evidence that can show who the user was.

Hey Paula

04-20-2006, 11:16 AM

Unless a trail is left behind by the perp, pointing to a murder which was planned in advance, leaving no question about the perp's intent to kill, it is not always easy to prove intent.

In this case, I can think of a few things the Pros might be able to use, depending upon how it fits into this case. You will recall, we had heard about license plates having been stolen a short time before Taylor disappeared, and of LE finding Taylor's car with switched plates.

Also BF's past behavior with women will undoubtedly be used to acquaint the jury with his propensity for violence towards women, attempting to choke them, and even having had to impose a restraining order against him. Surely his obsession with Erin Crabill will be focused upon, as I believe this very well might have been the catalyst for Taylor's murder.

It can be reasonably argued that Taylor's rejection of BF's advances might have sent him into a rage, which had him killing "Erin", yet allowing Erin to live, hoping they would someday be reunited. Disposing of Taylor's body on the Crabill's property was intentional, not merely a familiar place. It was meant to send Erin a message.

I also believe the Pros might very well have evidence, to justify a M1 charge against BF, which we are not privy to.

IMO

BFD - v2.0

04-20-2006, 12:18 PM

Hey Paula

04-20-2006, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0

Mark this as a red letter day. I totally agree with you and I had forgotten all about the license plate switch.

It would be really nice if they had surveillance video from where he got gas, showing the switched license plate on her car. That would most definitely nail down premeditation.

I'd also like to know where BF got that large plastic bag (found with Taylor's body). Did he bring it from home, or did he buy it somehere? Because BF didn't have a driver's license, or a car either, having ridden in/driven Taylor's car, why would he have brought along large plastic bag when he encountered Taylor on that fateful night? The answer to this question could also point to premeditation, IMO.

:eek: LOL! 4/20/06, a day to remember! Actually, we agree politically on many issues.

O/T:

IIRC, you either have had, or will have an upcoming birthday. So either way, Happy Birthday to you, BD!

jace

04-20-2006, 02:20 PM

You will recall, we had heard about license plates having been stolen a short time before Taylor disappeared, and of LE finding Taylor's car with switched plates.

How would that factor into premeditation? I thought I read that Ben collected license plates well before he ever met Taylor. I think I remember seeing plates from all over in a picture of that nowhere van.

becurious

04-20-2006, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Hey Paula

I'd also like to know where BF got that large plastic bag (found with Taylor's body). Did he bring it from home, or did he buy it somehere? Because BF didn't have a driver's license, or a car either, having ridden in/driven Taylor's car, why would he have brought along large plastic bag when he encountered Taylor on that fateful night? The answer to this question could also point to premeditation, IMO.

:eek: LOL! 4/20/06, a day to remember! Actually, we agree politically on many issues.

O/T:

IIRC, you either have had, or will have an upcoming birthday. So either way, Happy Birthday to you, BD!

Where did it say it was a large plastic bag? I recall somewhere people were trying to figure out what kind of bag and what portion of her body was wrapped in it. Was her whole body in the bag? Where's the link for that?

Hey Paula

04-20-2006, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by becurious

Where did it say it was a large plastic bag? I recall somewhere people were trying to figure out what kind of bag and what portion of her body was wrapped in it. Was her whole body in the bag? Where's the link for that?

EXCERPT FROM LINK BELOW:

Fawley told investigators that, after being robbed and dumped on a roadside, he was given a ride home by an unknown Hispanic benefactor, for whom he just happened to buy gas that morning. He also said his abductors had placed a plastic bag over his head. Taylor Behl’s mother suggests that this is just another clumsy alibi attempt by Fawley, in this case to account for his fingerprints on the plastic bag that he put Taylor in. No matter what his reason, Fawley sent a message to the police; he wanted to talk about Taylor Behl’s death.

MSNBC Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9741532/page/2/)

MATTHEWsevenone

04-21-2006, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Hey Paula
Unless a trail is left behind by the perp, pointing to a murder which was planned in advance, leaving no question about the perp's intent to kill, it is not always easy to prove intent.

In this case, I can think of a few things the Pros might be able to use, depending upon how it fits into this case. You will recall, we had heard about license plates having been stolen a short time before Taylor disappeared, and of LE finding Taylor's car with switched plates.

Also BF's past behavior with women will undoubtedly be used to acquaint the jury with his propensity for violence towards women, attempting to choke them, and even having had to impose a restraining order against him. Surely his obsession with Erin Crabill will be focused upon, as I believe this very well might have been the catalyst for Taylor's murder.

It can be reasonably argued that Taylor's rejection of BF's advances might have sent him into a rage, which had him killing "Erin", yet allowing Erin to live, hoping they would someday be reunited. Disposing of Taylor's body on the Crabill's property was intentional, not merely a familiar place. It was meant to send Erin a message.

I also believe the Pros might very well have evidence, to justify a M1 charge against BF, which we are not privy to.

IMO

Hey Paula -

Very logical post. Your thinking along the same lines I am. Ben's actions do not demonstrate an impulsive choice. There seems to be a great deal of room to deliver to the Jury a case that demonstrates premeditation - the placement of the body...

The timing is the key, isn't it. When Ben did what. I wonder if there were computer files that he wrote that were never uploaded which may help to clarify his INTENT. No telling with the way Ben used the computer so much what will be found on them.

Several months ago I recall many posters who were resolved in their opinion that the mere time involved to strangle was enough time to prove intent. Remember the many posts about one second over when Taylor lost consciousness proved INTENT to them!

I have a terrific post that I am not sure all have read. Actually have quite a few about strangulation but most are very clinical. This one really was easier to read.
WARNING THOUGH- it is about strangulation.

http://www.opdv.state.ny.us/public_awareness/bulletins/fall2003/strangulation.html

There apparently is a huge difference between the words CHOKING and STRANGLING and most women don't understand the difference and use the wrong word to describe what happened to them. Even some police mistakenly use the words interchangably. And the mere use of the wrong word seems to deflate the intensity of the actual horror. I know Hey Paula the articles have all used the word CHOKING to explain past acts by Ben Fawley. But in reality they were not acts of choking at all but prior acts of strangulation, right? Would you agree? And can the Prosecution make sure to clarify for the jury the difference right away so that there is noone in the jury who misunderstands the difference. I didn't really get it until I started READING exactly what happens- medically! After reading a bunch of medical reports and journals it seemed to me that there was most assuredly a window when Ben made his final choice to end Taylor's life and even his defense fallws short. In reality all of that stuff Ben is proffering is to someone deflect the focus away from that very specific decision and choice he made. Isn't it? And isn't that what Defense attorneys do. Find a way to lessen the effect, to find some sort of preexisting set of circumstances to alter things. As hard I try, I can't find anything - not one act prior or after that we know of that would suggest at all that an accident occured.

Isn't that final decision of Ben's to use X amount of time and x amount of pressure to end Taylor's life one of the most critical pieces of evidences the Prosecution has to demonstrate INTENT?

ALL IMO.

:seeya:

MATTHEWsevenone

04-21-2006, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Hey Paula

EXCERPT FROM LINK BELOW:

Fawley told investigators that, after being robbed and dumped on a roadside, he was given a ride home by an unknown Hispanic benefactor, for whom he just happened to buy gas that morning. He also said his abductors had placed a plastic bag over his head. Taylor Behl’s mother suggests that this is just another clumsy alibi attempt by Fawley, in this case to account for his fingerprints on the plastic bag that he put Taylor in. No matter what his reason, Fawley sent a message to the police; he wanted to talk about Taylor Behl’s death.

MSNBC Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9741532/page/2/)

I wonder exactly what words Ben used to describe that event -- we have never seen the actual report. I wonder very much about his choice of words. Did he say they tried to strangle me? They tried to sufficate me?

For some reason -- I too see this as more of some sort of sick game with POLICE than a clumsy attempt at an alibi. He could have chosen any sort of alibi -- but this elaborate explanation with so many parallels to Taylor.

Can't this be used by Prosecution? Can the Defense block such a report? Doesn't it also possibly help to define INTENT?

MATTHEWsevenone

04-21-2006, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by becurious

Where did it say it was a large plastic bag? I recall somewhere people were trying to figure out what kind of bag and what portion of her body was wrapped in it. Was her whole body in the bag? Where's the link for that?

Curious --

I spent the morning trying to backtrack through stuff from last Oct. to find the entries about the black plastic bag. There were a few. Trouble is, none of them work. At the time Taylor had not been identified yet and there was some discussion on this board between the
'wooded area" and "partially buried behind a building". THere was mention of a ravine in some stories. We were wondering if the plastic could have been the type of plastic that the highway department or road crews used.

I did find this. Not that it is much help.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Body+Mathews+County&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=30&sa=N

If you go half way down the page you see a link for a blog. That particular blog is one like Riehl and others that do a very good job of using real news outlets reports to help build their site's stuff.

If you recall in the beginning the reports about the ACCIDENTAL Death claim by Fawley MADE AFTER SHE WAS FOUND THROUGH NO HELP FROM HIM included that he had not buried her at all. That he had just dumped her out in a panic. We were all discussing how this was an odd claim considering the body was not found along a roadway - which removed for many of us the whole roadside plastic options. According to several articles the body was found in "a shallow grave".

Here are a few links. These worked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100600860.html

http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20051006-103659-7840r.htm

http://www.cowanowen.com/CM/Custom/taylor_behl.asp
(actually references a Times Dispatch article).

IF memory serves me correctly, the stories about the black plastic ran on the TV or radio. I have tried to find the links. IF someone else knows how we can find it, please post!

It didn't take long for some online to start seeing some odd parallels between that weird alibi/abduction story that Fawley made and where Taylor's body was found.

All IMO.

poplife

04-21-2006, 02:11 PM

Matt- am I correct in assuming that you mean "intent" in this situation, as that BF planned to murder Taylor before he put his hands around her neck, regardless of an act of rage or in an act of sex? Are you suggesting that he planned this prior to the physical act of hands around neck or bag over head?

MATTHEWsevenone

04-21-2006, 04:25 PM

MATTHEWsevenone

04-21-2006, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by poplife
Matt- am I correct in assuming that you mean "intent" in this situation, as that BF planned to murder Taylor before he put his hands around her neck, regardless of an act of rage or in an act of sex? Are you suggesting that he planned this prior to the physical act of hands around neck or bag over head?

Oh, one more thing - did you read the link about strangulation. If you research it, even EA stuff, does not end in deaths.

It can statistically end with women having all sorts of medical conditions that cripple their lives but rarely does a person die. BECAUSE there is a time span between when a person looses consciousness and when a person is killed. There is a window of time for a person to be revived.

As to your question of RAGE - that would fall way outside the ACCIDENTAL scenerio right -- right?

And finally - I am not suggesting anything. I am trying to get our juices cracking about what we know and how to process some this stuff as the trial draws near.

Won't tell you I am faithfully looking at it all through the lens of Taylor -- the victim. My sympathies do not run to the killer -- especially this one. But I am open minded enough to test the waters.

JACE actually has me thinking and his/her --sorry JACE not sure which you prefer or applies- assessment and ability to profile Ben is fascinating to me. TN did the same thing earlier on. ANd BFD - well with his inductive reasoning, he always opens my mind to seeing things differently. That is the cool thing about the site. THe range of perspectives and the inquisitive minds all tackling a case at the same time can really be a great brainstorming and we all can expand our way of looking at things. Won't change our ideological bases probably, may not even change our opinion but the very exchange is illuminating.

IMO. I know Poplife -can almost hear you here - GOOD GRIEF V SHUT UP! Another long post! SORRY SORRY SORRY. I am in a chatty mood today. I want to hear your reasoning Pop! Where you are and why you are there.

jace

04-21-2006, 04:42 PM

I'm sorry matthew but so far I don't see anything that has been posted that proves Ben had intent (in that he planned Taylor's murder).

All of the things that were mentioned were after the fact (that he had killed Taylor).
My impression of intent would be that he purchased large bags to dispose of her or that he stole a license plate one time...the ones he placed on her car.

Anyone could have bags (large or small) in the house, in their car, etc.
Ben collected license plates.

His only intent was to cover his crime.

I feel like every time I post someone is going to think I'm defending Ben. I'm not. He's guilty and he should pay. This is probably off thread but I think Ben killed Taylor by accident. Not so much in the way that he has stated but possibly in anger. I think if he had planned to kill her he would have taken those pics off the internet way before it happened. He wouldn't have started to create alibis or try to destroy evidence after he killed her, he would have done it before.

IMO

Soundandfury

04-21-2006, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by Rowan
I'm not entirely sure that intent is necessary to be proven. Motive perhaps. But "intent"? I'm not sure it's even a legal prerequisite. Not sure.

I think you've got that 100% wrong. It's motive that isn't necessary. Intent is an essential prerequisite to a Murder 1 conviction.

BFD - v2.0

04-21-2006, 05:08 PM

Soundandfury

04-21-2006, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by jace
This is probably off thread but I think Ben killed Taylor by accident. Not so much in the way that he has stated but possibly in anger.

How does one kill accidentally in anger? Doing something to someone out of anger and they happen to die does not appear to be an accident. It may not be Murder 1, but it would seem to qualify for Murder 2.

MATTHEWsevenone

04-21-2006, 05:37 PM

MATTHEWsevenone

04-21-2006, 05:41 PM

Jace -

As always fascinating post. Now if I recall correctly you opined earlier that you thought her death probably happened in Richmond and he drove out to Mathews because he knew the area, right?

So your thinking right now is he and taylor hooked up that night -- maybe for her - to just loaf a while but for BEN. ?????????
Something happened that caused Ben to fly into a rage and he killed her -- by accident????????

Help me now. Walk me through your thinking.

I think I must have already taken a mistep. right?

Hey Paula

04-21-2006, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone

I wonder exactly what words Ben used to describe that event -- we have never seen the actual report. I wonder very much about his choice of words. Did he say they tried to strangle me? They tried to sufficate me?

For some reason -- I too see this as more of some sort of sick game with POLICE than a clumsy attempt at an alibi. He could have chosen any sort of alibi -- but this elaborate explanation with so many parallels to Taylor.

Can't this be used by Prosecution? Can the Defense block such a report? Doesn't it also possibly help to define INTENT?

Hi V! :seeya:

Liars are known to incorporate truths within the lies they tell. My guess is BF did to Taylor what he claimed was done to him. You will recall BF said he was abducted, (he might have abducted Taylor) claiming a plastic bag was placed over his head (that might have been how he killed Taylor). BF said he was driven to secluded area (Taylor's remains were found in what appeared to be a secluded area).

I think BF, by saying he paid for the good samaritan's gas, was attempting to lay the explanation foundation, in the event LE investigated him and his whereabouts when Taylor disappeared. That gas purchase would have been questioned, given the fact BF no longer had a driver's license or a car, so why the need to buy gas.

In BF's mind, the abduction story he gave served as an alibi, and an explanation of the gasoline purchase.

IMO

BFD - v2.0

04-21-2006, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone
Jace -

As always fascinating post. Now if I recall correctly you opined earlier that you thought her death probably happened in Richmond and he drove out to Mathews because he knew the area, right?

So your thinking right now is he and taylor hooked up that night -- maybe for her - to just loaf a while but for BEN. ?????????
Something happened that caused Ben to fly into a rage and he killed her -- by accident????????

Help me now. Walk me through your thinking.

I think I must have already taken a mistep. right?

I totally believe Taylor was murdered in Richmond and taken to Mathews afterwards.

For all we know the car couldn't have been involved in the scenario until after she was dead.

Who's to say they didn't go to Hollywood together for a walk or something along those lines?

But I agree with Paula's version of his alibi. I think he incorporated the truth of what he did to Taylor in his story about what happened to him.

Hey Paula

04-21-2006, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0

I totally believe Taylor was murdered in Richmond and taken to Mathews afterwards.

For all we know the car couldn't have been involved in the scenario until after she was dead.

Who's to say they didn't go to Hollywood together for a walk or something along those lines?

But I agree with Paula's version of his alibi. I think he incorporated the truth of what he did to Taylor in his story about what happened to him.

Hi BD! :seeya:

I also believe that the strange TV interview BF gave, where he requested his face not be shown, was so the gas attendant wouldn't recognize him, as that would've blown his alibi because the attendant would have described Taylor's car, with him as the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle.

IMO

MATTHEWsevenone

04-21-2006, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Hey Paula

Hi V! :seeya:

Liars are known to incorporate truths within the lies they tell. My guess is BF did to Taylor what he claimed was done to him. You will recall BF said he was abducted, (he might have abducted Taylor) claiming a plastic bag was placed over his head (that might have been how he killed Taylor). BF said he was driven to secluded area (Taylor's remains were found in what appeared to be a secluded area).

I think BF, by saying he paid for the good samaritan's gas, was attempting to lay the explanation foundation, in the event LE investigated him and his whereabouts when Taylor disappeared. That gas purchase would have been questioned, given the fact BF no longer had a driver's license or a car, so why the need to buy gas.

In BF's mind, the abduction story he gave served as an alibi, and an explanation of the gasoline purchase.

IMO

Hey back atch Paula:seeya:

I really see the symmetry to your post. It fits to me.

Not only does Ben's weird alibi - and it was his words online where he said "ABDUCTION" right? It really contains fragments that when broken apart can fit together to what happened to Taylor. Not sure if it can happen but I can visualize the Prosecutor with that weird alibi blown up on a presentation board and cut so that the pieces can be flipped. Propped up as the policeman testifies who took the report. And then flipped as the detective explains what happened to Taylor). Ben Fawley's choice of words might be extremely important, right?

IMO of course.:seeya:

MATTHEWsevenone

04-21-2006, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0

I don't look at it as defending Ben because I try to do the same things.

There is an emotional viewpoint.
A legal viewpoint.
A moral viewpoint.

Sometimes those different viewpoints can seem contradictory.

I personally can turn one or the other off and on when looking at a particular problem or dissecting a particular question. Not everyone has that ability. (And in some ways that may be better)

Legally speaking, I see no evidence of intent at this time.

The only evidence I can fathom is if they show the plates were changed either when going to Mathews or coming back from Mathews. That would most definitely show intent.

The plastic bag could possibly show intent, depending upon Ben's version of events he gave to the police when saying it was an accident. If he stated he choked her and she died; the bag becomes a problem.
If he stated she died of suffocation with the bag over her head, then it's a different ballgame. (Pretty stupid, but still a different ballgame.)

IMO

BFD - the way you can what I call separate the prism is what is so cool about you posting.

I want to throw something out there.

What if ...

what if Taylor went skateboarding that night and she TOLD the guys she was heading back to her dorm.
REMEMBER the skateboarders or at least some of them testified before the GRAND JURY in RICHMOND so doesn't that tell us that they have a piece to this puzzle. possibly, probably?
Sure it could be argued - well, she wouldn't have maybe told the skateboarders she was meeting someone...

but does it help to define or could it help to define INTENT?

Would it be something if you were a jurist you would want to believe her at face value no matter what the Defense tries to throw up to tear it apart?

Or would you have to give that one up as there is reasonable doubt?

:seeya:

Hey Paula

04-21-2006, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone

Hey back atch Paula:seeya:

I really see the symmetry to your post. It fits to me.

Not only does Ben's weird alibi - and it was his words online where he said "ABDUCTION" right? It really contains fragments that when broken apart can fit together to what happened to Taylor. Not sure if it can happen but I can visualize the Prosecutor with that weird alibi blown up on a presentation board and cut so that the pieces can be flipped. Propped up as the policeman testifies who took the report. And then flipped as the detective explains what happened to Taylor). Ben Fawley's choice of words might be extremely important, right?

IMO of course.:seeya:

I like it, V!

That would make a terrific and dramatic closing argument for the Pros, i.e., BF's alibi vs the Pros' contention of Taylor's demise.

IMO

MATTHEWsevenone

04-21-2006, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Hey Paula

Hi BD! :seeya:

I also believe that the strange TV interview BF gave, where he requested his face not be shown, was so the gas attendant wouldn't recognize him, as that would've blown his alibi because the attendant would have described Taylor's car, with him as the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle.

IMO

Hey when was that interview? I don't have the date of that. Anyone recall? It was NBC wasn't it? I think I recall the interview it was weird. So many of the TV links are dead links now. I wish there was a way to find them. Surely the Prosecution has the film of Ben handing out fliers and of that interview and the interview that Cino did where he said the BEN told him Taylor wanted to steal a car and was probably hiding out or ran away.

Of course, I also thought the way his attorney went on about how he did not want to filmed from the waist down was odd too. He was so concerned about his flips and shorts and how his appearance was captured on camera but it didn't seem to bother him at all about relaying information that was accurate! IMO, of course.

But that may just be me....Since hardly anyone posted on the thread I started about Ben's attorneys I guess I am the only one who really was bothered by the way Mr. Collins has conducted himself so far...

MOO.

:shrug:

jace

04-21-2006, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Soundandfury

How does one kill accidentally in anger? Doing something to someone out of anger and they happen to die does not appear to be an accident. It may not be Murder 1, but it would seem to qualify for Murder 2.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word accident. What I meant was I don't think there was some plot or preparation in Ben's murder of Taylor. I'm confused as to what matthewsevenone is considering "intent". I really don't think it's been explained (or at least to where I understand it) what actually constitutes "intent".

Maybe you could explain that to me in layman terms.

Or better yet, TNProfiler, you have a way of explaining things. Maybe you could explain it better.

jace

04-21-2006, 11:22 PM

Soundandfury

04-22-2006, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by jace

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word accident. What I meant was I don't think there was some plot or preparation in Ben's murder of Taylor. I'm confused as to what matthewsevenone is considering "intent". I really don't think it's been explained (or at least to where I understand it) what actually constitutes "intent".

Maybe you could explain that to me in layman terms.

Or better yet, TNProfiler, you have a way of explaining things. Maybe you could explain it better.

Okay, I looked it up a law book for Virginia.

Va. Code Sec. 18.2-32 defines 1st Degree Murger as an murder, other than capital murder, by poison, laying in wait, imprisonment, starvation or any willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder.

The same section states that 2nd degree murder is any murder that is neither capital nor first degree muder.

Voluntary manslaughter is a killing without malice, e.g. during mutual combat.

Involuntary manslaughter is an accidental killing, and contrary to the intention of the parties during the performance of some unlawful act but not felonious act or during the improper performance of a lawful act amounting to criminal negligence.

The book says that murder is presumed to be 2nd Degree murder and it is up to the prosecutor to provide evidence to elevate it to 1st Degree. The defense has the burden of providing evidence that a murder was only manslaughter.

The book is about 8 years old, so not sure it is still true.

jace

04-22-2006, 10:09 AM

Thanks for trying to help soundandfury but it really didn't help me in understanding intent.

TN has a great way of "dummying" things down for those of us not familiar with the legal system or legal mumbo jumbo.

Tell me if I have it right.

Okay, if Ben started to choke Taylor in anger then it would prove intent. Meaning his intent was to kill her?

If Ben choked or restricted Taylor's breathing through EA then it would prove there wasn't intent? Meaning his intent was not to kill her?

I guess what's confusing me is that the posts have been about things that happened after the fact of him killing her. Switching of the license plates; disposing of her body with a plastic bag. Those to mean don't show intent as far as meaning to kill her. Intent in covering up what happened.

You know, unless the prosecution has some other evidence that we don't know about (which maybe they do) we'll never know whether it was intentional or not.

Soundandfury

04-22-2006, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by jace
Thanks for trying to help soundandfury but it really didn't help me in understanding intent.

TN has a great way of "dummying" things down for those of us not familiar with the legal system or legal mumbo jumbo.

Tell me if I have it right.

Okay, if Ben started to choke Taylor in anger then it would prove intent. Meaning his intent was to kill her?

If Ben choked or restricted Taylor's breathing through EA then it would prove there wasn't intent? Meaning his intent was not to kill her?

I guess what's confusing me is that the posts have been about things that happened after the fact of him killing her. Switching of the license plates; disposing of her body with a plastic bag. Those to mean don't show intent as far as meaning to kill her. Intent in covering up what happened.

You know, unless the prosecution has some other evidence that we don't know about (which maybe they do) we'll never know whether it was intentional or not.

Here's how I understand it. I think that the intent factor is the intention to kill, whether it be by premditation (1st Degree Murder) or heat of passion (2nd Degree) murder.

Take three scenarios:

1. BF was waiting in the shadows next to Taylor's car for her to come by. He sees her and runs up behind her and chokes her to death with the intention of killing her. That would be first degree murder. He's laying in wait for her and has formulated a plan and intention of killing her.

2. Taylor rejects BF's advances and he flies off in a rage and chokes her with the intention of kiling her. That's second degree murder. He intends to kill her, but has not forumlated a plan or otherwise done something with the 1st Degree murder statute.

3. Taylor and BF are having consensual sex (misdemeanor and not a felony since she is underage) and he restricts her breathing during EA. That's involuntary manslaughter. A non-felonious act in which a killing occurs contrary to the intention of the parties.

If the book I've read is still correct then BF's attorneys would have to put on some evidence to show that scenario # 3 occurred.

Anyone, I mean anyone, is free to correct me if I am wrong.

Soundandfury

04-22-2006, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Rowan
The legal definition of intent from Black's Law Dictionary:

INTENT - The determination or resolve to do a certain thing, or the state of mind with which something is done.

Therefore, as I understand it, the prosecution must prove that Ben meant to kill Taylor.

Which, I believe, would begin with motive and work through all the circumstantial and other issues to get from point A to point B.

JMO.

I've always thought of "motive" as icing on the cake for the proseuction. If they can show that the defendant had a motive to do something then it goes a long way to proving intent. But you don't have to have a motive to intentionally kill someone.

MATTHEWsevenone

04-22-2006, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by jace
I'm sorry matthew but so far I don't see anything that has been posted that proves Ben had intent (in that he planned Taylor's murder).

All of the things that were mentioned were after the fact (that he had killed Taylor).
My impression of intent would be that he purchased large bags to dispose of her or that he stole a license plate one time...the ones he placed on her car.

Anyone could have bags (large or small) in the house, in their car, etc.
Ben collected license plates.

His only intent was to cover his crime.

I feel like every time I post someone is going to think I'm defending Ben. I'm not. He's guilty and he should pay. This is probably off thread but I think Ben killed Taylor by accident.

Not so much in the way that he has stated but possibly in anger. I think if he had planned to kill her he would have taken those pics off the internet way before it happened. He wouldn't have started to create alibis or try to destroy evidence after he killed her, he would have done it before.

IMO

Hey Jace - I thought of something late late last night.

Remember your earlier posts where you wondered if Ben was socially retarded and that his mind just did not logically process stuff like normal folk?

Well here you are thinking if he PLANNED -- remember INTENT is the question of the thread-- then you think he would have removed the pics off the internet way before it happened.

Three things came to me:

1. What if he did not PLAN it for days nor even hours, what if he read something, saw something and just decided that very hour to act.

Wouldn't his mind and actions be involved with the actual event and only afterwards would he start pulling down stuff from the computer and elsewhere?

2. If you hold on to the premise that he was a socially retarted person, maybe he just did not process the need to remove the photos- right? His perspective did not require such a logical step.

3. What if he was just stupid? He miscalculated? Did he know that Erin's parents were on vacation at the time? Hopefully we will know that at trial- I think it may explain why he was out there. But what if he got out there and he did get lost? Took him awhile to find that blasted farm and then the car ran out of gas! OOPS. Now he has a witness! What to do. what to do...

I think your post as always really has alot of meat in it.

IF BEN PLANNED IT - how long? WHY? WHY DIDN'T HE DESTROY THE STUFF ON THE NET? Did he add to any postings? Will the computer experts find that he tried to alter or remove particular photos?

** those license plates, the OHIO ones. Why did he use those? Hey Paula and you are coming at this from two separate angles. Extrapolate it out!

Remember his postings about how he wanted to move back to OHIO? Why choose those plates since he had a ton-the photos FOCUS found for that NOWHERE VAN were terrific- and your comment very valid he had a TON, he "collected" them. Wouldn't most not (hopefully) be as easily traced to a recent crime right there at the local Post Office in the Fan just a few weeks prior to Taylor's disappearance? Why use that one?

I think I asked this before. VA requires two plates right. So does OHIO right? Is that the reason? The real hingepin is when those plates were changed. Remember the police asked about some GRNERTH plates too. Was he planning a trip to OHIO soon in that car and he wanted the car to blend in? Let's face it, there are alot of out of town plates in VA - between the colleges, the industries, and the military out of state plates are not a red flag, so would Ben really had the environment working in his favor in regards to changing those plates. I want to know where Taylor's turned up it they did at all.

Keep posting JACE - keeps us all thinking!

:seeya:

Soundandfury

04-22-2006, 12:26 PM

Someone PM'd me about potential sentencing and what a judge might do.

I'm not a criminal lawyer so I don't know what the judge would do.

I know that 1st degree is a class 2 felony with a sentence range from 20 years to life. 2nd degree murder has a sentence range from 5 to 40 years.

Voluntary and involuntary manslaughter are Class 5 felonies which both carry sentence ranges from 1 to 10 years.

Virginia has sentencing guidelines, but those are rather amorphous. I think BF's prior criminal record would be used in the sentencing decision and would likely increase the sentence.

I don't know for sure so don't quote me on anything.

Hey Paula

04-22-2006, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by jace

How would that factor into premeditation? I thought I read that Ben collected license plates well before he ever met Taylor. I think I remember seeing plates from all over in a picture of that nowhere van.

BF collected license plates and attached them to the interior and exterior of the van he once drove. I wasn't aware that he'd collected them after that. Why would he? He lost his license and no longer had a vehicle.

IMO

Soundandfury

04-22-2006, 12:49 PM

Oops... have to correct something I said a little earlier. I searched Virginia's judicial home page and found a link to Court opinions.

2nd degree murder does not require an intent to kill -- just an intent to do harm. Covington v. Commonwealth, http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavtx/2450022.txt,
says that ""Second degree murder is defined as a `malicious killing' of another person." Lynn v.
Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 336, 351, 499 S.E.2d 1, 8 (1998) (citation omitted), aff'd,
257 Va. 239, 514 S.E.2d 147 (1999). Second-degree murder does not require a specific intent to
kill. See Rhodes v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 480, 486, 384 S.E.2d 95, 98 (1989). The
Commonwealth must merely prove "`a malicious purpose to do the deceased a serious personal
injury or hurt.'" Id. (quoting Dock's Case, 62 Va. (21 Gratt.) 909, 913 (1872)). Two factors
which the trier of fact may consider, among others, in determining the existence of malice
include the disparity in size between the assailant and his victim and the brutality of the assault.
See Epperly v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 214, 231, 294 S.E.2d 882, 892 (1982).
"

Soundandfury

04-22-2006, 12:55 PM

Also, a lot of people keep asking what Fawley's conduct after the fact proves. If you look at this case, it says that premeditation, sufficient to show 1st degree murder, can be inferred from concealment of the victim's body and defendant's lack of remorse and efforts to avoid detection.

Aldridge v. Commonwealth, http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavtx/1553031.txt

"Circumstantial factors that the fact finder may consider in deciding
whether there is sufficient evidence of premeditation and a specific intent to kill include: (1) the
brutality of an attack; (2) the disparity in size and strength between the accused and the victim;
(3) the concealment of the victim's body; and (4) the defendant's lack of remorse and efforts to
avoid detection. Epperly, 224 Va. at 232, 294 S.E.2d at 892; see also Clozza, 228 Va. at 134,
321 S.E.2d at 279."

jace

04-22-2006, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Hey Paula

BF collected license plates and attached them to the interior and exterior of the van he once drove. I wasn't aware that he'd collected them after that. Why would he? He lost his license and no longer had a vehicle.

IMO

I have no idea whether he collected them or not after getting rid of the van Paula. I don't think his collection was for use on his van. There were nothing more than mementos of the places he had visited. So I would think he would have removed them before gettting rid of the vehicle. Or maybe he did. Maybe he traveled the country, killing people (maybe this will solve all those unsolved murders around the country) and changed the license plates to evade the police.

I think I remember that those Ohio plates were reported missing about two months before they were found on Taylor's car. Maybe Ben had been planing on doing what he did months earlier. I don't know. None of us know.

Matthewsevenone, when I used the term "socially retarded" I didn't mean I thought Ben was stupid. I meant that he couldn't function socially with people his own age. Maybe he reacted to what he had done in a childlike manner. He definitely had some problems if he was living on disability.

Hey Paula

04-22-2006, 01:27 PM

MATTHEWsevenone

04-22-2006, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Soundandfury
Also, a lot of people keep asking what Fawley's conduct after the fact proves. If you look at this case, it says that premeditation, sufficient to show 1st degree murder, can be inferred from concealment of the victim's body and defendant's lack of remorse and efforts to avoid detection.

Aldridge v. Commonwealth, http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavtx/1553031.txt

"Circumstantial factors that the fact finder may consider in deciding
whether there is sufficient evidence of premeditation and a specific intent to kill include: (1) the
brutality of an attack; (2) the disparity in size and strength between the accused and the victim;
(3) the concealment of the victim's body; and (4) the defendant's lack of remorse and efforts to
avoid detection. Epperly, 224 Va. at 232, 294 S.E.2d at 892; see also Clozza, 228 Va. at 134,
321 S.E.2d at 279."

Sound -

Thank you so much. Your posts are fantastic. Wonderful to have you here!

:seeya:

MATTHEWsevenone

04-22-2006, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by jace

I have no idea whether he collected them or not after getting rid of the van Paula. I don't think his collection was for use on his van. There were nothing more than mementos of the places he had visited. So I would think he would have removed them before gettting rid of the vehicle. Or maybe he did. Maybe he traveled the country, killing people (maybe this will solve all those unsolved murders around the country) and changed the license plates to evade the police.

I think I remember that those Ohio plates were reported missing about two months before they were found on Taylor's car. Maybe Ben had been planing on doing what he did months earlier. I don't know. None of us know.

Matthewsevenone, when I used the term "socially retarded" I didn't mean I thought Ben was stupid. I meant that he couldn't function socially with people his own age. Maybe he reacted to what he had done in a childlike manner. He definitely had some problems if he was living on disability.

JACE ==

Wasn't the disability because of the bipolar condition? I hate to admit this but with all of the camera work and the computer skills that Ben did and how persuasive he seemed to be, I have wondered if he was just working the system or if he was actually disabled? ANd when exactly he became disabled? He was not prevented from seeing his children unsupervised? And he gained entrance to VCU and even worked at the school for years? I just have a hard time reconciling that he was underdeveloped - if I understand you correctly - sort of like a person who remains more childlike than adult. Even his interests seem more adult themed than childlike to me that is. Sure he was obsessed with young girls. But that is more either a power or ego thing with men isn't it? Not usually because the man
is "socially retarded"-right?

Thanks for the clarification of that term. I thought of a thousand things - including what the Supreme Court heard this week about a young man who was mentally disturbed. That was sort of where I thought you were going and since earlier you mentioned the "socially retarded" might help to explain the disconnect Ben had with seeing Taylor as a person. I really ran away with it, didn't I?

I think you and Hey Paula attack the same issue from the opposite ends - Was Ben a "collector" of license plates? Why did he take particular ones? WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE PLATES FROM THE NOWHERE VAN? Were they around? Were they part of the design of that van or did he collect them for other reasons and kept them after the van was sold?

Ben has a criminal record from PA for stealing cars. He also altered license plates. SO he has been fascinated and involved with these plates for some time.

So far I gotta say I see alot of logic in what Hey Paula has built.

We still don't know about the GRNERTH plates do we? I really want to know where they were stolen from? When Hey Paula asked about the plates in relationship to the gas station I had to wonder, GEE, could he have changed the plates to the GRNERTH ones and that was where they popped on the radar? I have been rereading the investigation stuff to see just when the police put out that public assistance release about those GRNERTH plates.

Did I coin the "social retarded" with stupid? I thought I separated them. Most criminals make stupid mistakes and the details of the mistakes hang them. If I coined them I am sorry. I meant the mindset as one option and the possible stupidity/miscalculation as a separate option?

Just me brainstorming. IMO.

:seeya:

Soundandfury

04-22-2006, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone

Sound -

Thank you so much. Your posts are fantastic. Wonderful to have you here!

:seeya:

don't forget the and "fury" part.

poplife

04-22-2006, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Soundandfury

don't forget the and "fury" part.

Great info, SoundANDfury. YOu said you're not a criminal lawyer, what kind are you?

BF was not only interested in younger girls, he also surrounded himself w/ younger males, I have to agree w/ the socially retarded comment, as if he was stunted emotionally. I got the impression Matt that you were connecting that phrase w/ stupid as well b/c of the way you asked about him making mistakes. I know 2 people on federal disability and it was not by any means easy for them to obtain it, there was no faking it, and it tooks years. On avg, it takes 3 applications to be granted disability. I also collect license plates, I make art sculptures w/ them, they are kept in a box, not lining my walls.

MATTHEWsevenone

04-22-2006, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Soundandfury

don't forget the and "fury" part.

DULY NOTED!

:seeya:

MATTHEWsevenone

04-22-2006, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by poplife

Great info, SoundANDfury. YOu said you're not a criminal lawyer, what kind are you?

BF was not only interested in younger girls, he also surrounded himself w/ younger males, I have to agree w/ the socially retarded comment, as if he was stunted emotionally. I got the impression Matt that you were connecting that phrase w/ stupid as well b/c of the way you asked about him making mistakes. I know 2 people on federal disability and it was not by any means easy for them to obtain it, there was no faking it, and it tooks years. On avg, it takes 3 applications to be granted disability. I also collect license plates, I make art sculptures w/ them, they are kept in a box, not lining my walls.

"Three things came to me:

1. What if he did not PLAN it for days nor even hours, what if he read something, saw something and just decided that very hour to act.

Wouldn't his mind and actions be involved with the actual event and only afterwards would he start pulling down stuff from the computer and elsewhere?

2. If you hold on to the premise that he was a socially retarted person, maybe he just did not process the need to remove the photos- right? His perspective did not require such a logical step.

3. What if he was just stupid? He miscalculated? Did he know that Erin's parents were on vacation at the time? Hopefully we will know that at trial- I think it may explain why he was out there. But what if he got out there and he did get lost? Took him awhile to find that blasted farm and then the car ran out of gas! OOPS. Now he has a witness! What to do. what to do..."

Here was my post. I separated them. #2 speaks to the "socially retarded" trait and #3 speaks to being stupid/miscalculating.

As to the disability question - I don't even know what kind Ben Fawley was on and I have no idea how long he has been on it. I would offer there are many people who are honestly disabled who apply for disability BUT that is not true of EVERY ONE who applies and I bet the two you know never strangled anyone. I was speaking specifically of Ben Fawley. Not generalizing.

As far as him hanging out with younger men too=WHO, so far I only have heard of Mike Cino. Everyone else is female. I have not heard of any other male friends in Ben's circle of friends, no roommates, no work associates. THere was one photo of some young guy but someone posted that was a friend of one of the girls he photographed. Enlighten me. I know there was talk he hung out with the skateboarders but so far several of the only skateboarders mentioned have said they did not know him and did not hang out with him.

I have an off topic question for you poplife -

Are you overlaying your own stuff onto this case?

You mentioned you have some particulars in your life that are similar to Ben--

"collecting" license plates - I think Ben usually stole his plates didn't he? Isn't that what he wrote online and what his criminal record reflects and the two plates in play in this case were both stolen right -- GRNERTH and the Ohio plates. There is a big difference between "collecting" plates and collecting plates.
You keep yours in a box - the question here is where and if Ben kept his?

I think Paula asked a great question too. There were no license plates hanging from the walls when CINO did the walk thru of Ben's place were there? To the best of my recollection the plates were inside that van - almost like wallpaper and a ceiling liner for it, right? But I don't recall any on the walls? May be wrong.

IMO I think it is dangerous to overlay our lives onto a case and then see it all through that mixed media. In my opinion I think that may be one reason why some criminals do not do more time than others. If a jurist can see similarities between themselves and the accused, then they often times transfer some of their own stuff and assign it to the perp and suddenly the lines are blurred with just who they see in that chair!

Just imo.

poplife

04-22-2006, 08:10 PM

I have an off topic question for you poplife -

Are you overlaying your own stuff onto this case?

No.

Just stating that b/c he stole/collected plates and Paula didn't see them on any pics of his apt doesn't mean he didn't still have them.

Just stating what I know about 2 people that are on disability, one for bipolar. And I didn't even mention another I know that just filed a month ago and was just interviewed. I don't believe that you can fake sick enough to get disability, it's a rigorous process. JMO

MATTHEWsevenone

04-22-2006, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by poplife

No.

Just stating that b/c he stole/collected plates and Paula didn't see them on any pics of his apt doesn't mean he didn't still have them.

Just stating what I know about 2 people that are on disability, one for bipolar. And I didn't even mention another I know that just filed a month ago and was just interviewed. I don't believe that you can fake sick enough to get disability, it's a rigorous process. JMO

Not sure Ben is on this disability- SSI -- if he is, here is a great link.
http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_020399.html

If you scroll down the page you will see where the issue of fraud is addressed. As much as you and I would like to believe people don't try to trick and that the process is foolproof. I am afraid there are some people who try to work the system to their own benefit.

:seeya:

Researcher

04-22-2006, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone

Not sure Ben is on this disability- SSI -- if he is, here is a great link.
http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_020399.html

If you scroll down the page you will see where the issue of fraud is addressed. As much as you and I would like to believe people don't try to trick and that the process is foolproof. I am afraid there are some people who try to work the system to their own benefit.
:seeya:
And I'm afraid there are a good number of people who successfully abuse the system. It is far from foolproof....and it is, unfortunately, not all that hard to beat the system.

jace

04-23-2006, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by Hey Paula

There is no need for sarcasm, Jace. I've never said BF traveled the Country killing people. But I do know he killed Taylor.

I felt like you were being sarcastic to me so I responded in the same manner.
I said once before that I wasn't going to post anything on this board because I find (or at least some) the posters condenscending and just plain nasty. When I'm being called out by name I feel obligated to answer.

We ALL KNOW he killed Taylor. That's pretty much all we know.

Soundandfury

04-23-2006, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone

Not sure Ben is on this disability- SSI -- if he is, here is a great link.
http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_020399.html

If you scroll down the page you will see where the issue of fraud is addressed. As much as you and I would like to believe people don't try to trick and that the process is foolproof. I am afraid there are some people who try to work the system to their own benefit.

:seeya:

I'm just glad my hard-earned tax dollars went to support Ben's lifestyle of chasing after underage girls, apparent history of violence toward woman, his fetish for dead things (see item of seized property), child pornography (if it is in fact his), and whatever else he was in to.

becurious

04-23-2006, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Soundandfury

I'm just glad my hard-earned tax dollars went to support Ben's lifestyle of chasing after underage girls, apparent history of violence toward woman, his fetish for dead things (see item of seized property), child pornography (if it is in fact his), and whatever else he was in to.

Were they all underage? I would think that if he hung around a college town he dated college girls. I would think it uncommon to have 17 years old girls there. He seemed to like them young - that's obvious - but I don't know that I'd agree he liked them underage.

Soundandfury

04-24-2006, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by becurious

Were they all underage? I would think that if he hung around a college town he dated college girls. I would think it uncommon to have 17 years old girls there. He seemed to like them young - that's obvious - but I don't know that I'd agree he liked them underage.

No, I don't think they were all underage. In my book one underage girl is enough --- considering he was 38 years old and what happened to that underage girl. Perhaps if they can prove the child porn was his then we can agree that he liked them underage.

Soundandfury

04-24-2006, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by AvengingAngel

Underage???? We're talking about a one year old baby. Porn with a one year old baby!!!!

Anybody that discovers porn on an inherited computer with a one year old little baby and doesn't take firm action is somebody that I consider lacking in morality.

I'm willing to be agnostic about this case (whether he killed on purpose or killed by accident; murder or manslaughter) until trial when we can finally see the evidence. But these are the facts so far: this 38yr old man killed a 17yr old girl and dumped her body in the woods to rot and be eaten by animals. Then this 38yr old man lied like crazy to cover everything up. He lied to the police. He lied to the girl's loved ones. He lied to the public. He pretended to look for her. He lied to his own friends and used them as pawns. And then he gets caught with some hideous child porn - some of it with a one year old little baby - on his computer.

This man is a coward lacking any moral sense at all. And that is the nicest way I can put it.

If the evidence shows that he killed on purpose, then my opinion of him will get far far worse.

(Yeah, I swore off this board. But I was asked to come back)

I don't think we are in disagreement on anything. My post was in response to Becurious asking whether Fawley was involved (as in romantically) with other underage girls. I don't know, but my feeling was that his involvement with Taylor was an involvement in one too many underage girls.

The child porn found in his possession is the most vile, disgusting and horrific trash one could comprehend. If they can prove it was his then it suggests he does have a thing for children. That's all.

MATTHEWsevenone

04-24-2006, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by AvengingAngel

Underage???? We're talking about a one year old baby. Porn with a one year old baby!!!!

Anybody that discovers porn on an inherited computer with a one year old little baby and doesn't take firm action is somebody that I consider lacking in morality.

I'm willing to be agnostic about this case (whether he killed on purpose or killed by accident; murder or manslaughter) until trial when we can finally see the evidence. But these are the facts so far: this 38yr old man killed a 17yr old girl and dumped her body in the woods to rot and be eaten by animals. Then this 38yr old man lied like crazy to cover everything up. He lied to the police. He lied to the girl's loved ones. He lied to the public. He pretended to look for her. He lied to his own friends and used them as pawns. And then he gets caught with some hideous child porn - some of it with a one year old little baby - on his computer.

This man is a coward lacking any moral sense at all. And that is the nicest way I can put it.

If the evidence shows that he killed on purpose, then my opinion of him will get far far worse.

(Yeah, I swore off this board. But I was asked to come back)

ANGEL ---

SO TERRIFIC TO SEE THIS POST THIS MORNING!!! WELCOME BACK! WELCOME BACK!

:beer:

nibblet

04-24-2006, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by AvengingAngel

(Yeah, I swore off this board. But I was asked to come back)

Hey buddy!

:seeya:

TN_Profiler

04-24-2006, 11:50 PM

AvengingAngel .... these boards are much like the mafia .... just when you think you're out, they drag you back in!

I would have to say that your post just about sums this case up. Even if you remove this event from BF's life, what are you left with? His life was in turmoil right up to the point he intersected Taylor's life. Trouble with relationships, trouble with the law, he was, for lack of a better metaphor .... spiraling down.

Charles Shultz created 'Pig Pen'. A dusty, loveable character whose whole life was consumed with the dirt that clouded around him. Ben reminds me of a 'not so loveable' version of Pig Pen, but instead of dirt, he is surrounded with a permanent cloud of trouble.

Perhaps the judicial process will do a better job of dealing with his troubles.

Welcome back AA.
:seeya:

Cino

04-25-2006, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by Hey Paula

BF collected license plates and attached them to the interior and exterior of the van he once drove. I wasn't aware that he'd collected them after that. Why would he? He lost his license and no longer had a vehicle.

IMO

Collecting:
It may be difficult to understand if you don't collect anything, I suppose. Hm, sounds familiar. Anything may be difficult to understand if it's not something you do or have any kind of experience with.

Even if I had no reason to have keys anymore, I would still have my keychain collection and continue to add to it when possible. I don't use any of these keychains to attach my keys to.

Mom would still collect souvenir spoons even if she didn't eat soup. These aren't used to eat, they are merely a collection, and only displayed. Moreover, the "dieter's spoon" that I bought for her once--a spoon with a large hole so that it wouldn't hold anything--didn't serve any kind of practical purpose anyway.

Ben didn't start collecting license plates because he got his VA driver's license, his first in some time. He didn't collect skulls because he was dead, wanted to be dead, or anything like that.

Rachel collects sheep stuff. What the Hades would you do with that?

All of these collections are just that, collections. They don't have to serve a purpose. There's not even always a logical reason behind them other than that the collector thinks they look cool.

I'm curious about all of this footage we've apparently seen from the inside of Ben's apartment and from my walk-through. Who reported on this?

SoundAND"fury": I don't think your tax dollars were really going towards most of the things you note. Rent, food, clothes, utilities, and other essentials took up a large portion of the amount he was getting. Even for Richmond, this wasn't that much. Beyond that, I think he mostly saved up for electronics stuff and household stuff.

Cino

04-25-2006, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by TN_Profiler
AvengingAngel .... these boards are much like the mafia .... just when you think you're out, they drag you back in!

[ . . . ]

Yeah, I hear you, TN. I keep pushing myself away. Then I glance back, see all of this silliness, and feel a need to say something.

Soundandfury

04-25-2006, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by Cino
SoundAND"fury": I don't think your tax dollars were really going towards most of the things you note. Rent, food, clothes, utilities, and other essentials took up a large portion of the amount he was getting. Even for Richmond, this wasn't that much. Beyond that, I think he mostly saved up for electronics stuff and household stuff.[/color]

Sorry to disagree, but your post expresses a fundamental misunderstanding of economic theory. Assuming he earmarked all of the government paychecks for rent, food, clothes, utilities, etc. and spending other money he "earned" to support his lifestyle, the government paycheck was was still subsidizing his lifestyle. That is so because he did not have to devote the other money he "earned" to rent, food, clothes, utilities, etc. Since the other money was freed up through the government paycheck, the government paycheck is in effect a direct subsidy to his lifestyle, e.g. chasing underage girls, fetish for dead things, child pornography (if it is in fact his), etc.

Soundandfury

04-25-2006, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Cino

Yeah, I hear you, TN. I keep pushing myself away. Then I glance back, see all of this silliness, and feel a need to say something.

Glad you find silliness in this. You are truly a good friend to Ben Fawley. He's lucky to have you in his corner despite what looks to be pretty damning evidence.

jace

04-25-2006, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Soundandfury

Glad you find silliness in this. You are truly a good friend to Ben Fawley. He's lucky to have you in his corner despite what looks to be pretty damning evidence.

That was just rude and unnecessary Soundandfury. Cino was trying to make a point that he didn't think Ben had ulterior motives when collecting the license plates.

I'm not a friend of Ben's (I've never even met Taylor or Ben) and I can see his point.

BTW, you welcomed Avenging Angel back. I thought you were a newbie to this board.

Cino

04-25-2006, 08:44 AM

Jace, it's okay. I've come to expect such responses, whether rude, misunderstanding, or otherwise. I don't know whether SAF just already has a bug up from our past interactions, from interactions with others, or just that he doesn't like the way I included "fury."

I suppose he does have a point about subsidies though, even if he was still missing my subtleties. His disability check allowed him to live, in whatever parts of his lifestyle that FuriousSound and others disagree with, even if Ben almost surely didn't and wouldn't use money for these things. He wouldn't if he could get them for free. After all, with no money, one can't live, and when one can't live, one can't live a lifestyle.

Soundandfury

04-25-2006, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by jace

That was just rude and unnecessary Soundandfury. Cino was trying to make a point that he didn't think Ben had ulterior motives when collecting the license plates.

I'm not a friend of Ben's (I've never even met Taylor or Ben) and I can see his point.

BTW, you welcomed Avenging Angel back. I thought you were a newbie to this board.

Sorry you find rudeness in my post. I find it rude when a poster comes here and says that there is a bunch of "silliness" going on here when it appears that people are attempting to legitimately discuss the case. You obviously have your own agenda and I'm fairly sure I can infer what that agenda is.

I joined this board for the discussion on the Duke rape case (which I find very interesting because of the connection to Duke), but ventured my way over here. I don't recall welcoming AA back, but so I don't appear rude to you, I will welcome him/her back now.

Welcome back AA!!!!!

jace

04-25-2006, 09:45 AM

My apologies SoundandFury. I confused you with one of the other posters that did welcome Avenging Angel.

I'm not sure if you're speaking to me or not when you said someone had an agenda. I don't have any agenda. Unless you call wanting to be able to read and post and have others do the same without all the snipping and back biting an agenda.
Shouldn't there be a way to disagree with someone without attacking them personally?

Maybe I'm just too thin skinned for this board.

Soundandfury

04-25-2006, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by jace
My apologies SoundandFury. I confused you with one of the other posters that did welcome Avenging Angel.

I'm not sure if you're speaking to me or not when you said someone had an agenda. I don't have any agenda. Unless you call wanting to be able to read and post and have others do the same without all the snipping and back biting an agenda.
Shouldn't there be a way to disagree with someone without attacking them personally?

Maybe I'm just too thin skinned for this board.

Jace,

Sorry. I guess I've been over on the Duke board where slings and arrows are exchanged on a regular basis. I stand by the statement that it is rude for a poster to come on here and characterize the postings as "silliness" when it appears, at least to me, that people are legitimately discussing the case.

Soundandfury

TN_Profiler

04-25-2006, 11:33 AM

The collection of license plates is common. Just walk in RJ Bentley's near the campus of the University of Maryland and you will see plates from all over the US. Of course they all have unique ways of paying tribute to the school but the collecting of items is, never the less, not unusual.

Ben collected plates, no big deal. If he was stealing them or using them to conceal the ownership of a vehicle, then the matter becomes more serious.

MATTHEWsevenone

04-25-2006, 12:31 PM

Aren't the two big questions with collecting -- WHY and HOW?

I agree with TN - If Ben was stealing, then that is not collecting as most people do.

Not sure if the "collection" of plates are relevant to this case-- especially since it appears Ben used relatively freshly stolen plates instead of any older ones from his collection on Taylor's car. Not sure if the Police ran the "collection" plates, if even possible, if it would shed some light on Ben's travels and timeline...

Have a cousin who travels the globe and is a history buff. He collects license plates from particular countries, specific cities for specific years. He has an old carriage house on his property he restored and dubbed FREEDOM FAIRE - where he plays pool and has a workshop. The whole inside is covered with the plates interspersed with photos/artwork of people and events in history. Sometimes collecting is a form of expression.

I just thought of that movie, "Everything is Illuminated".

:shrug: :seeya:

MATTHEWsevenone

04-25-2006, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by AvengingAngel

I don't know if he collected them or stole them or a combo of both.

But I do know that he has a history of auto theft. He stole not just the plates but the whole car.

Wasn't the PA conviction for stealing a car and changing its plate?

Anyone ever heard WHY he claimed he did that back then? Was he attempting to leave town? Was he just joyriding? Did he claim it was a dare?

Could his past conviction be introduced in this trial?

I thought that usually unless behavior is a pattern -- then it could not be introduced...

Now if those other plates were ran and it was determined that some belonged to cars that were stolen as well as the plates removed...

Then his collection could be used to demonstrate a pattern of behavior right?

I don't know - seems there is a long of legal wiggle room there to clip the wings of the full disclosure...

:seeya:

Soundandfury

04-25-2006, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by TN_Profiler
Ben collected plates, no big deal. If he was stealing them or using them to conceal the ownership of a vehicle, then the matter becomes more serious.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the plates found on Taylor's car stolen? Presumably they were put there by Ben Fawley.

If that's the case then I fail to see how collecting license plates falls under the category of an innocent hobby.

Soundandfury

04-25-2006, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Rowan

Collecting license plates is a hobby, as the poster said. If he used them further for something nefarious, then it is a different story. But "collecting" them is a hobby.

It was my understanding, however, that Ben stole the license plates that were found on Taylor's car. Collecting license plates off someone else's car is not a hobby -- it's a criminal act.

jace

04-25-2006, 02:23 PM

Whether he stole them or "collected" them I still think Ben considered it a hobby. My point was that the Ohio plates (correct me if I'm wrong) were stolen from a VCU student months before Taylor disappeared. They were just one set of plates among many. Why he chose the Ohio instead of the Pennsylvania plates I don't know.
I thought that whoever it was that first brought up the plates was trying to say that Ben had planned to murder Taylor and he stole those plates in order to use her car to get away (maybe back to Ohio) or dispose of her body. IMO they were just something he already had that he used to give him extra time before her car was identified.

Is that what you were saying? That he had already planned to kill Taylor and he stole the plates to use for that purpose?
:confused:

MATTHEWsevenone

04-25-2006, 02:51 PM

Jace -

I think a few of us have those Ohio plates qued for the Prosecution and not the defense..

Not sure if you are asking me or Hey Paula or ...

Figured I would recap my take on those plates. ALL SPECULATION!!!

I wondered if Ben stole those plates (I think it was a couple of months earlier outside the Post Office where they were lifted) because something happened to make him start thinking about moving away from Richmond.

There were several entries he made both visually and verbally online about his desire to travel BACK to OHIO. How he hated Richmond...The timing of those entries (though in all fairness I don't know when he uploaded the skylines and shops from OHIO) seemed to me to indicate he had plans to move to OHIO.

As soon as his landlord leaves the country, Ben decides to get a new roommate yet he never mentioned any of it to his landlord who remarked when he arrived back that he was surprised Ben had a roommate. I wonder if he planned to pocket the rent moneys (either Cesco who was not supposed to be there anyway- the landlord even if he checked his balance would not miss money he never expected to exist or even more of the rent moneys that Ben was able to collect since Mr. Forest was out of the country and it would be years before his expected return).

As I read his stuff, Ben seemed to have leaving on his mind..and he even offered a place - OHIO.

Then something happened after Taylor made her way to VCU that caused Ben to kill Taylor - yes I think he killed her, I don't see anything to even suggest a rendeveous and EA where either one is concerned- and he had to move up his plans and use those plates earlier than he intended. Maybe because it was the only SET he had, maybe because he planned to strike it out for Ohio - as you have offered about him in relationship to dumping Taylor's body so close to Erin's family's land - he knew the area ...

I think that Hey Paula makes a terrific point - IF TAYLOR'S car when spotted at that gas station had tags other than Taylors then that would suggest to me that Ben and Taylor had NOT simply headed to the Eastern shore for some romance OR that he and she had gone there and an accident occurred. It tells me that he was covertly moving about to try and find a place - maybe a place with a purpose for him- to put Taylor's body.

That is my OPINION - pure speculation - on the plates.

:seeya:

MATTHEWsevenone

04-25-2006, 03:05 PM

Oh one more thing -- the COLLECTION of plates.

If the collection is comprised of nonstolen and stolen plates -

Begs the question in my mind - hey the guy "collects" plates -- why put stolen plates that had recently been lifted on Taylor's car? Maybe because the plates had not yet expired? Maybe because he only had singles and he needed a set? What is the explanation?

And if his whole Collection is comprised of stolen plates -then

Why is he hanging onto stolen plates? Were plates simply stolen from cars or were some cars stolen too?

I think there is alot of questions that make sense to explore and it can not simply be dismissed as

Whats the big deal - so what- he collected license plates - people collect, no crime there...

Actually with Ben's history, there is crime there, right?

IMO.

MATTHEWsevenone

04-25-2006, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Rowan

Why be deliberately difficult here? There may reasonably be a difference between his collection and the plates that were ALLEGEDLY stolen and on Taylor's car.

What plates were they? I don't recall.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031785127960

"Monroe said the Escort's Virginia license plates had been replaced with plates from Ohio that had been reported stolen in Richmond long before Behl disappeared, but the vehicle still bore registration decals from Vienna in Fairfax County."

MATTHEWsevenone

04-25-2006, 03:11 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169709,00.html

"The car's Virginia plates had been replaced with Ohio tags that had been reported stolen"

MATTHEWsevenone

04-25-2006, 03:13 PM

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/102005/10092005/135920

"Some believed her to be a runaway, until her car was found within a mile of campus 12 days later. A sharp-eyed police officer spotted her abandoned car--now with Ohio license plates that had been reported stolen from a Richmond resident a few months before."

MATTHEWsevenone

04-25-2006, 03:37 PM

I just thought of something - can the LE ask VCU if Ben Fawley asked for his transcripts to be sent anywhere? For some reason he dropped out of VCU without completing his degree? Why? When?

That could help determine a timeline if there was one and a mindset if there was one to move away from Richmond.

If there were transcripts sent it would be really wild if the transcripts were for CA schools, wouldn't it?

Just thinking outloud....

:seeya:

MATTHEWsevenone

04-25-2006, 03:53 PM

I just thought of another angle about the "collecting" of plates --

Where are Taylor's?

Were they traded? Sold? Kept in his "collection"...:shrug:

poplife

04-25-2006, 04:00 PM

What is the reference to CA schools about? Have I missed something?

Matt, IIRC, BF said in one of his journal entries that he stopped going to school b/c he couldn't afford it anymore.

I believe Cesca was living in the same apt w/ BF, not her own. Just assuming that from the description of her encounters w/ BF in the apt.

Why would BF need stolen tags to leave Richmond to go to Ohio or wherever?

MATTHEWsevenone

04-25-2006, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by poplife
What is the reference to CA schools about? Have I missed something?

Matt, IIRC, BF said in one of his journal entries that he stopped going to school b/c he couldn't afford it anymore.

I believe Cesca was living in the same apt w/ BF, not her own. Just assuming that from the description of her encounters w/ BF in the apt.

Why would BF need stolen tags to leave Richmond to go to Ohio or wherever?

1. I was just wondering about transcripts - ignore it! You have not missed a thing!

2. I remember what Ben wrote about school beig too expensive but for me Poplife - I take everything Ben says with a huge block of salt!!! Do you recall the open letter that Mr. Forrest wrote. Gosh he made it so clear that he felt he had been so fooled by Ben! That guy is not a twenty something or even younger and I happen to give some weight to his comments! And Ben had a job on campus and was so close to finishing. I don't think it was money. Too many programs out there to help him. Why chose to move into an apartment without a roomie? And then there are those Ebay auctions and the stuff he was supposedly selling. And the extra cash he picked up cleaning out apartments... and his computer expenses, and the trip to Miami... I don't know... and he had sold that van... I think it was something else...

3. I AGREE CESCA was living with Ben. Was I unclear before. If you recall the landlord was clueless that BEN HAD A ROOMMATE when he returned unexpectantly from ASIA! I wonder if Mr. Forest allowd Ben to stay there rent free in exchange for collecting rents and such?

4. Here is my thinking - roleplaying - make believe -- I'm Ben - I plan to leave town. I have no wheels. I lift some tags for where I possibly want to go - he took both, not just one - why did he need a duplicate for his "collection"? Anyway I plan at the right moment to steal a car and change the tags to the ones I have lifted. I will fit right in in OHIO or elsewhere- tags are current! And the car I steal the APB will be for a different tag entirely!

Hopes that helps. Just speculating on my part.
We still don't know how or if the GRNERTH tag figures into all of this do we?

:seeya:

MATTHEWsevenone

04-25-2006, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by AvengingAngel

Another piece of the puzzle that hopefully will be solved once we see the evidence presented during the trial. But I doubt that fawley kept the plates. I would assume that he got rid of them fast - like they were radioactive or something - threw them in a ditch or a dumpster somewhere. Assuming they weren't found in Taylor's car.

I am sort of rooting for them to be in her car! Don't know why - haven't even thought it through. Just have always thought that way.

I will tell you something that is akin to chasing a ghost in this case for me -someone set me straight....

Ben Fawley and the UPS?

If he was on the phone with them at Cesca said in her article - then the conversation can be confirmed right? Can what if anything he was shipping be ferretted out from tracing that call? Is that legal? Is there a way to track down any package and seize it?

I have wondered about Taylor's phone and ID? Could he have sent them somewhere?

Am I way to overprocessing that call mentioned in the Cesca article? She said that he was often on the phone with UPS. What was he shipping? or What was he receiving?

Just wondering..

MATTHEWsevenone

04-25-2006, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by becurious

Where did it say it was a large plastic bag? I recall somewhere people were trying to figure out what kind of bag and what portion of her body was wrapped in it. Was her whole body in the bag? Where's the link for that?

FINALLY FOUND THIS SOURCE BECURIOUS. SORRY IT TOOK SO LONG.

http://www.wric.com/Global/story.asp?S=3948726&nav=menu28_6

"The scene is in a remote area of Mathews County about three tenths of a mile off Knight's Wood Road. Sources close to the investigation say Taylor was found in a ravine along a dirt road. Her decomposed body found wrapped in a plastic bag with her remains scattered around."

poplife

04-26-2006, 12:09 AM

Sorry, Matt, I thought you meant by the following snip that BF was accepting rent monies from tenants that his landlord didn't know about and therefore pocketing the money w/o letting on he acquired a tenant. -as oppposed to sharing rent w/ a roommate.

As soon as his landlord leaves the country, Ben decides to get a new roommate yet he never mentioned any of it to his landlord who remarked when he arrived back that he was surprised Ben had a roommate. I wonder if he planned to pocket the rent moneys (either Cesco who was not supposed to be there anyway- the landlord even if he checked his balance would not miss money he never expected to exist or even more of the rent moneys that Ben was able to collect since Mr. Forest was out of the country and it would be years before his expected return).

I also thought you meant he stole the OH plates in planning for TB's murder. In Va, you only need a back tag, not a front tag as well.

Cino

04-26-2006, 02:55 AM

SAF: I wasn't trying to suggest that everything I was reading was silly. Merely that I've read a lot that was. I've read a lot of things that I keep wanting to interject about. Things that are stated that aren't quite right, things about which I want to say "that's not quite how it works/ed," et cetera. I said something about the collection, for instance, for the benefit of someone who didn't seem to understand how collecting works. I didn't my objection to, on the other hand, yet another inference that Ben is a friend of mine. Some things, I just feel that I've said enough times that it's become worthless to say it. I don't expect every single one of you to believe anything I say, however, I AM one of the only ones here who actually knows something about all this, rather than getting my information from the media.

Soundandfury

04-26-2006, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by Cino
SAF: I wasn't trying to suggest that everything I was reading was silly. Merely that I've read a lot that was. I've read a lot of things that I keep wanting to interject about. Things that are stated that aren't quite right, things about which I want to say "that's not quite how it works/ed," et cetera. I said something about the collection, for instance, for the benefit of someone who didn't seem to understand how collecting works. I didn't my objection to, on the other hand, yet another inference that Ben is a friend of mine. Some things, I just feel that I've said enough times that it's become worthless to say it. I don't expect every single one of you to believe anything I say, however, I AM one of the only ones here who actually knows something about all this, rather than getting my information from the media.

Fair enough. I'm sure that a lot of people who lived through these events are frustrated with the misinformation that gets reported and discussed by people here who are ignorant of the facts. It's inevitable that misinformation gets out there, but the trial ought to clear a lot of this up.

becurious

04-26-2006, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone

FINALLY FOUND THIS SOURCE BECURIOUS. SORRY IT TOOK SO LONG.

http://www.wric.com/Global/story.asp?S=3948726&nav=menu28_6

"The scene is in a remote area of Mathews County about three tenths of a mile off Knight's Wood Road. Sources close to the investigation say Taylor was found in a ravine along a dirt road. Her decomposed body found wrapped in a plastic bag with her remains scattered around."

Thanks, Matt - I didn't realize you were still looking for this. I'm so sorry. I could have saved you the trouble. Hey Paula answered this right after I asked. I appreciate the time you took looking for it.

becurious

04-26-2006, 08:36 AM

I thought this was an interesting post about crime in Richmond. I'm not sure where it should go.

http://www.richmond.com/news/output.aspx?Article_ID=4225435&Vertical_ID=127&tier=1&position=1

While the January murders of the Harvey family and last year's murder of Virginia Commonwealth University student Taylor Behl attracted national attention, Wingfield said it's important to compare "apples to apples" and look at the city's crime rate overall.

"If you were to objectively compare all eight of the crime stats that the FBI uses, we fall somewhere in the middle of the pack of metropolitan areas across the country," he said. "I think part of the problem is that the media continues to do the body count of how many people have been killed this year compared to last year. But I think if you were to objectively look at where we fall compared to our peer cities [Charlotte, Jacksonville and Nashville], we are pretty far below the other three."