Amended Charge Against Fawley

[jrporter]

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137834080348

[Dorkette]

I think that the wording was just amended and that it is still a 1st degree murder charge.

Dorkette:)

[jace]

I hope it's still a first degree murder charge Dorkette. TN Profiler can you tell us why they would want to have the wording changed?

[Dorkette]

Really, the charge is still 1st degree.

[TN_Profiler]

Originally posted by jace
I hope it's still a first degree murder charge Dorkette. TN Profiler can you tell us why they would want to have the wording changed?

The language is an important facet of the filing. Basically, the prosecutors cleaned it up by dropping the multiple acts that were in the original.

They can still seek M1 or prosecute for M2. This is not considered anything more than some legal clean-up before the case goes forward. It does not water down the case against Benny-boy nor does it mean he cannot still receive a life sentence.

The defense just wanted the charges to be more specific, for lack of a better word.

[Dorkette]

Yes, Peace that is correct - the charges are still 1st degree. All of the reportings of it being dropped to 2nd degree are just wrong.

Dorkette

[Hey Paula]

Even though the case may be prosecuted as Murder One, with compelling evidence to prove those charges, oftentimes M2 is also offered for the jury to deliberate.

In the case of Scott Peterson, M1 and M2 were both presented to the jury for its consideration. The outcome of that trial was the jury convicted SP on M1 for Laci, and M2 for their unborn child Conner.

Should the Pros fail to prove its M1 charges for premeditated murder, BF could be acquitted if M2 is not an option.

IMO

[TN_Profiler]

Originally posted by AvengingAngel


Thanks, TN.

Does this type of "clean up" work take place a lot?

Also, if I'm not wrong, the difference between M1 and M2 is premeditation. And now they are dropping the premeditation part. But why?

I have always believed that fawley killed Taylor in an act of rage. And when I learned that just a moment of intent is enough for premeditation, then I knew this was M1 all the way!

So........maybe I'm making a mountain out of..nothing....but...why drop the premeditation part??

No, no ... they did not drop this to M2. The language is merely cleaned up on the charges. I believe the original indictment said something to the effect the murder occurred during the commission of abduction, rape, or sexual assault.

What is going on here is the dropping of the language abduction, rape, or sexual assault on the murder indictment. It doesn't mean the murder charges are no longer inclusive of intent or premed.

He can still face M1 .... i.e. life. Yes, premeditation can occur within a few seconds.

The revised indictment is nothing to be alarmed about. The original indictment was throwing the kitchen sink at him .... now it is specifically spelling out the individual pieces. His attorneys filed a motion to have it cleaned up and the DA has complied ..... no big deal.

[TN_Profiler]

Does this type of "clean up" work take place a lot?


If it does, it would not receive much attention to the general public. In this case, you have so much media attention that every filing and motion will be covered. Hence the illusion that any pre-trial jockeying is an exception.

[Dorkette]

Tabled motions from the last court date will be heard tomorrow: request for a PI and a computer expert.

I would assume the defense would be granted both with a cap on the amount for the PI.

Dorkette

[TN_Profiler]

Originally posted by Dorkette
Tabled motions from the last court date will be heard tomorrow: request for a PI and a computer expert.

I would assume the defense would be granted both with a cap on the amount for the PI.

Dorkette

Expect both to be granted as a normal ruling for such requests. Nothing unusual.

I'll be thinking of you tomorrow. Be well, have faith.

[nibblet]

Anyone see any pictures of BF today in court? Read he had a hair cut and sounds like he has a new shirt.

I hope some of the news outlets that misreported the indictment picks up what the judge clarified regarding the first degree charge.

[vedder]

Defense lawyers said they needed the equipment to examine highly technical computer evidence that may detail the relationship between Fawley and Behl.


This is not going to be good...

I was hoping they would NOT want to do this for fear of finding evidence of Taylor telling Bf to "beat it..."

They seem to believe that it will help them...and Ben knows exactly what they will find....not good...

The kid may hurt herself here...

Thanks for the info Peace

[TN_Profiler]

Originally posted by vedder


They seem to believe that it will help them...and Ben knows exactly what they will find....not good...

The kid may hurt herself here...


Sorry to disagree with you but no matter what they find on the computer, you cannot acquiesce your own murder.

You can have all the sex you want, but that is never a legal avenue for death. Even the 'rough sex' defense carries a conviction of manslaughter. (Robert Chambers WAS convicted and sentenced to prison)

I think the forensic computer work is to establish a close relationship with consensual activity. This is to help lean the case towards manslaughter and away from M1 or M2.

Remember - even if Taylor fully and completely engaged in EA, Ben is still very much culpable for her death.

She can't hurt herself ..... she is already dead.:(

[Dorkette]

I just don't believe they will find anything - the experts have already gone through the computers (hers and his) and they may have talked on line but she talked to alots and lots of people on line.

Well said TN !

Dorkette

[vedder]

Originally posted by TN_Profiler


Sorry to disagree with you but no matter what they find on the computer, you cannot acquiesce your own murder.

You can have all the sex you want, but that is never a legal avenue for death. Even the 'rough sex' defense carries a conviction of manslaughter. (Robert Chambers WAS convicted and sentenced to prison)

I think the forensic computer work is to establish a close relationship with consensual activity. This is to help lean the case towards manslaughter and away from M1 or M2.

Remember - even if Taylor fully and completely engaged in EA, Ben is still very much culpable for her death.

She can't hurt herself ..... she is already dead.:(

No no TN....I agree with everything you said.

I was speaking from my heart... There are some things we just do not need to know....and you know what I mean...

I dont want it dropped to manslauter because of a bunch of stupid emails or IMs....she was a kid, and kids say stupid things...

She may hurt herself in the jurys eyes, in a way that say, Laci could not...again, you know what I mean..

I agree with your statment 100% but you know as well as I do, how the MEDIA thrives on the "Sex Scandal" non-sense...It ALL we will hear about...this will trump the actual MURDER...you know this!

I don't want to see it happen to the kid...neither do you...

[vedder]

Originally posted by TN_Profiler



You can have all the sex you want, but that is never a legal avenue for death. Even the 'rough sex' defense carries a conviction of manslaughter. (Robert Chambers WAS convicted and sentenced to prison)

.:(

Chambers got 15 lousy years...15...

His defense spent the whole trial trying to convince the jury the girlfriend was nothing short of a "crack*****"...

Is 15 years good enough for Taylors murder?

Thats not enough TN....its not enough..

[protectkidz]

Dorkette and all:

I'm positive that this is just the defense wanting to dig for whatever they can find. They may find Taylor saying things that they feel they can use - but TN is right - I doubt very seriously if what she says is going to show the jury that she was involved with BF, or that she was willing to put herself at risk in the way that he explained her death.

They are going to find Taylor playing around online - and we all know how IMs can be manipulated. I'm positive that whatever their computer expert finds will not be brought up, unless they try to smear her. In which case, they won't go far. BF has a lot more skulz in his closet than Taylor ever could.

[Dorkette]

PK,
I agree - I would think that Taylor wrote "teenage stuff" and if the defense would like to try and twist what she may have written - they are welcome to. I feel that there are enough is enough evidence to dispute anything they try to show her in a bad light. She wasn't an then, she was a normal curious kid.

My fears go toward having to hear or see (should I decide to attend) the forensic evidence. And by what I have hear - it ain't pretty.

So far, I am still confident that Benny-boy is going to get his in a big way! :punch:

Much love,
Dorkette

[jace]

If they can prove through e-mails and IM's that Taylor was having a relationship with Ben, unless she spells out that AE is something that she would like to try, how is that going to help Ben?
I thought it had already been established that she may have had an encounter with Ben.
I think the defense is grabbing at straws trying to find something they can twist around.

Dorkette, speaking from experience I think you might want to skip some of the trial (where things might be too graphic) and keep your memories of Taylor as she was, beautiful.

[vedder]

Originally posted by Peace


You're welcome.

I can't imagine anything being on Taylor's computer - or Ben's for that matter - that would hurt Taylor. I suspect there will just be pretty typical 17 year old stuff.

I hope you are right Peace...

But there is a reason the defense wants to get their hands on this stuff...and you know what they are going to try and do...

And don't forget, it may be "typical 17 year old stuff" BUT it was written to a 38 year old not another 17 year old...

You guys don't remember what the did to that poor girl in the Chambers case...do you?

[Dorkette]

The defense is grabbing at straws and from what I heard about the court appearance yesterday, the judge was very tough on Johnson. He told him he had be better prepared with his motions next time.

Breathe deep Janet!

Dorkette

[vedder]

Originally posted by Dorkette
The defense is grabbing at straws and from what I heard about the court appearance yesterday, the judge was very tough on Johnson. He told him he had be better prepared with his motions next time.

Breathe deep Janet!

Dorkette

You are absolutely CORRECT Janet, they ARE "grabbing at straws"...This is exactly my POINT!!

The defense has no choice...Its ...all...they....got...

But we must prepare ourselves for this when it does happen....and it WILL happen...

I'm not telling you anything you don't already know...

My prayers and thoughts are with you and Taylor everyday...

[nibblet]

Originally posted by Dorkette
The defense is grabbing at straws and from what I heard about the court appearance yesterday, the judge was very tough on Johnson. He told him he had be better prepared with his motions next time.

Breathe deep Janet!

Dorkette

I actually chuckled when I read that...:cool:

[vedder]

Originally posted by Peace


:punch: I hear you yelling again, Vedder! I would think the jury would feel a bit angry at a 17 year old very normal young lady being torn apart. They best tread carefully if they try.

I am NOT yelling lol...Sara already punched me today, and now I get one from you....great...


I agree with you about the jury....they will be very angry when the defense trys to "smear'' the little girl...

But it is the only defense they will have...the jury will know this..

I wish I could talk to you good people face to face sometimes, its so hard to convey exactly what I want to say in a few sentences, here in a little box...Its always the 'Reader Digest' version of what I really want to say...

Do you know what I mean?

[seamonkette]

So I am wondering, do you think that the computer expert might be also used to try and trash the testimony (assuming that they will testify) of Erin and/or Mike, or anyone else that was involved in this that might be helping the prosecutors?

Just a thought.....

[protectkidz]

I can't imagine what the defense can get from Erin and Mike - neither of them are involved in this case, other than knowing the defendent and/or the victim.

[Alli]

Originally posted by protectkidz
I can't imagine what the defense can get from Erin and Mike - neither of them are involved in this case, other than knowing the defendent and/or the victim.


IMO-They are involved in the case because they can provide information on Fawley's history/ irrational behavior.

Dorkette- Thank you so much for providing information to us. I normally just read the posts each day and do not post. However, please know that there are so many people that have been touched by your daughter's case. I have never followed a case before but was compelled to do so once I heard her story. I wish you much strength and a speedy trial. Take care of yourself!

Alli

[protectkidz]

They certainly can provide info re: BF's past behavior, but since those behaviors have been documented online and in police reports, there's not going to be much a private investigator will be able to do to refute it. Their past behaviors have no bearing on BF's behavior and this crime, and there's a possibility that the court may not even allow any of their past behaviors to be discussed in front of the jury.

[jace]

I would think Mike and Erin could possibly be called to testify that Ben and Taylor did/didn't have a relationship.

[protectkidz]

that's a good possibility, jace. mike might know, but probably not erin - she wasn't talking to BF at time, and I don't think mike was either, although he was talking to taylor.

[protectkidz]

sorry if the above post by me makes no sense - i was doing 3 things at once!! not the most well-coordinated person on the planet!

[TN_Profiler]

Originally posted by vedder


Chambers got 15 lousy years...15...

His defense spent the whole trial trying to convince the jury the girlfriend was nothing short of a "crack*****"...

Is 15 years good enough for Taylors murder?

Thats not enough TN....its not enough..

I think we all can agree that any amount of time is not going to be enough. :(

The only thing we want is the only thing we cannot have and that is for Taylor to be OK.

All the lawyering going on will still amount to a hill of beans. The DA will present their case with evidence that will need to be explained by the defense. A jury (just like all of us) will decide what the outcome will be. They are not stupid and will see through a game of smoke and mirrors.

Dragging Taylor's reputation through the mud is a game of 'deflect' and generally backfires. It pi$$es jurors off and they quickly begin to dislike the defendent. Don't be surprised if it happens but then again, don't be surprised if Benny-boy gets 25 to life.

I fully understand your point and agree with you.

[seamonkette]

So I am wondering, do you think that the computer expert might be also used to try and trash the testimony (assuming that they will testify) of Erin and/or Mike, or anyone else that was involved in this that might be helping the prosecutors?

Just a thought.....

[nibblet]

Maybe Mike would be called to provide background information - when he met BF, how Taylor came about to know of and meet BF, etc.

One thing I hope the computer experts can provide is proof of the number of times Erin tried to block communications from BF via IM and email - apparently he had a number of names he used to try to reach her. And, no telling what he had written in those communications. I'm guessing they ranged from whiny to threatening. :mad:

[Warhawk]

What if the computer expert starts to find, through the process, evidence incriminating BF. Under oath would the expert be required to divulge that info?


Dorkette, did you ever receive a refund from VCU? If I recall correctly, they wanted to keep the tuition. I don't care what the laws or rules say I would go off big time on that one.

[nibblet]

Originally posted by Peace


Good points, Nibblet - I hadn't thought of that. I somehow feel she maybe would not have blocked him but maybe just didn't answer?

Peace, in one of the Steve Huff interviews with Erin, she said she blocked him but he kept coming up with new names.

http://huffcrimeblog.com/?p=331

(an excerpt from the site)

"The following is the list of screen names Erin Crabill blocked from Ben Fawley, the 38-year-old amateur photographer suspected of having caused the disappearance and death of Taylor Behl. Erin told me she blocked these in the order in which he used them. The parenthetical comments are also Erin’s:

ferretnerdboy
DarkEvilGothBoy (he first IMed me from this one…)
PirateSkulz (for the downloads computer)
skulzNowhere
mobil Skulz (for the laptop)
SchwinnScrambler
DJSkulz (he used to DJ in DC, still has a bunch of his old records)
skulz0067
GothSkulz
angerlost
darkodeath (he IMed me from this one after we broke up)
gaveuponself
rocketpakgeekboy
linenowhere
lostskulz
RVAserialkiller (this is the one he used to threaten me)"

The last one is a bit scary.

[nibblet]

Originally posted by Warhawk
What if the computer expert starts to find, through the process, evidence incriminating BF. Under oath would the expert be required to divulge that info?


Good question Warhawk - TN, if an expert for the defense discovers information and the prosecution doesn't pull that information out via questioning, what happens?

The computer experts have their work cut out for them on this one.

The expert for the defense may use up the $3,500 alone culling through all those images of that daggone NoWhere Van....:tongue:

[joeb]

Originally posted by Warhawk
What if the computer expert starts to find, through the process, evidence incriminating BF. Under oath would the expert be required to divulge that info?


Dorkette, did you ever receive a refund from VCU? If I recall correctly, they wanted to keep the tuition. I don't care what the laws or rules say I would go off big time on that one.

I hope after the criminal trial is over T's family will sue VCU for a wrongful death. I have felt all along that VCU did not do enough to protect this freshman girl in her first weeks of being a freshman. The dorms should have had curfews and strict rules to keep the freshman girls in the dorms after curfew. Did she even sign out that night to say where she was going? Whatever happened to colleges having strict rules for freshman girls? Times have changed but the dangers of being away from home for the first time have not.

[TN_Profiler]

Originally posted by nibblet


Good question Warhawk - TN, if an expert for the defense discovers information and the prosecution doesn't pull that information out via questioning, what happens?



The prosecution will have an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses for the defense. All witnesses are only required to answer questions they are asked on the stand.

As you know, many expert witnesses know more than they tell. A good prosecutor will ask enough questions to cover this area.


Remember, the experts are paid to help the case of the defense. If they know something that incriminates the defendent, you would pull it out of them on cross examination.

[bananas]

If the dorms had curfews, most freshmen would not choose to stay in them. You cannot blame VCU for not protecting her any more than you can blame her parents, friends or anyone else. Looking back, there are things many could have done differently to avoid this, but looking back I could have picked the right lottery numbers.

[seamonkette]

Originally posted by Peace



Just catching up, so I'll answer your second post (;) ) . . .
I'm not sure how the computer expert might be able to trash any of Erin or Mike's testimony. At this point, there's been no indication that Mike will even testify although I'm sure it's a possibility. The problems Erin had with Ben have been well reported. I would not be surprised if there were computer communications between Erin and Ben before and after their breakup although, obviously the tone would change. I think that's pretty typical of breakups but I doubt there would be anything in their that would trash Erin's testimony. As far as Mike's testimony (assuming there would be one), I don't imagine a computer expert would have any effect. I'm also not sure which side would call Mike to testify. During the time Ben lived with Mike, he was on his meds so what would he be able to add?

I guess the only thing I was meaning by that was that everyone was speculating on what the computer expert might find RE:Taylor. I was just thinking that perhaps they were trying a different tactic and may be trying to discredit the witnesses by trashing their lifestyles and so on and so forth (I promise I am not trying to get into anyone's personal business or insult anyone!!) Of course someone else said earlier and I COMPLETELY agree, Ben has really done himself in with all the lies and drama. I dont think that any lifestyle or anything like that could come close to making him look like an innocent in all this.....I am just trying to figure out what the defense might be planning to do........:confused:

[joeb]

Originally posted by Peace



I realized that, Sea. I wasn't insulted at all and didn't think you were trying to get into anyone's business. Not in the least. You had a great question. :)

TN - Wouldn't the findings of the computer experts be made available to the prosecution? Or is it just a fishing expedition to see where to fish?


As far as dorms and curfews, etc., I don't think VCU could be legally held responsible, but TN might be better at answering that. There are different dorms available at VCU with differents sets of rules. When we sign the paperwork, we choose which dorm to house them. Taylor made the decision to leave her dorm that evening. I think they are required to sign out (or it may have been only to sign in guests) but I don't remember there being a need to put a destination on there. The average teenager would write "hanging out" or "out" or something non-specific because half the time they probably don't have a specific destination in mind. So, we get back to Ben being the one responsible - not VCU.

Of course Ben is the one responsible. But when I went to college young freshman girls stayed in a GIRLS ONLY freshman dorm and if they did not they did not attend that college. Schools assumed some responsiblity for the kids that came to the schools back in the dark ages. In loco parentis. Look it up. Too bad VCU doesnt have better rules to protect its freshman students. Where I went to college they locked the girls in early at night and no boys were allowed to ever go up on their floors. You might not think young females need such protection but they do. Womens liberation and unisex dorms have led to this lax security. I am profoundly glad my daughter went to a female only college.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis
Sorry to disagree with you but I still think VCU can and should be sued for wrongful death in this case.

[joeb]

Colleges once acted in loco parentis. They no longer do. That ended in 1974. Too bad.
http://www.bartleby.com/59/4/inlocoparent.html
But they can still be sued and challenged on this for wrongful deaths.

[TN_Profiler]

Originally posted by Peace



*snipped*

TN - Wouldn't the findings of the computer experts be made available to the prosecution? Or is it just a fishing expedition to see where to fish?


As far as dorms and curfews, etc., I don't think VCU could be legally held responsible, but TN might be better at answering that.

Q1 - discovery applies to the items being presented in court. It doesn't apply to everything you know ... which is why witnesses are questioned. Rule of thumb .... choose your questions wisely. You may be familiar with the saying - don't ask a question you don't know the answer to.

Q2 -No, VCU is not liable. They could be the subject of liability if the crime occurred on their property and you could prove negligence. (lighting, access to dorms, etc..) This is a separate event that happened outside the realm of the University. They are no more responsible than anyone else. (except Benny-boy)

Make no mistake, this is a death with only one person accountable. Erin, Mike, the skateboarders, etc. etc. have nothing to do with this specific act on that specific day. They may testify but only as a supplement to building facts leading up to that weekend. Establishing time lines, providing character commentary, etc. The line of questions they get will be more the kind you see in a movie ..."Did Ben ever get mad?" "Did Ben ever hit you?" Did Ben do this, did Ben do that? What was he like when ...... All to establish his profile for the jury to hear. "When did you see him last on Saturday?" What was his demeanor when you saw him on Tuesday?" and on and on ..

[joeb]

Originally posted by Rowan


I don't agree. There are always security measures in place at colleges and universities, but that doesn't control whatsoever what students do when they LEAVE the campus. Taylor left the dorm of her own free will. Therefore, what responsibility can they have?

Would they be responsible if a young man left the dorm and was killed in a car accident?

I don't think so.
But it wasnt always that way.
If Taylor had been under curfew in a single sex dorm and locked in after curfew and not allowed to go out "of her own free will" she would have been much safer. Read the following to learn some history of in loco parentis at colleges and universities.
Also why do you think state colleges and universities were originally placed in small towns like Chapel Hill,N.C. and Charlottesville,Va. and Blacksburg,Va. and Oxford,Ms. and Athens,Ga.,etc? It was too keep the students away from the distractions and dangers of large cities so they could concentrate on their studies.


"Many college administrators throughout the country are taking great pains to keep their students under tight control. Yet in the late 1960s and ’70s, whether colleges could rein in students was an open question. Previously, America’s universities had operated under the doctrine of in loco parentis ("in the place of a parent"). By the start of the ’70s, thanks to a series of legal rulings and cultural shifts, courts and colleges were tossing out that policy, and universities that had been dealing with students as wards struggled to find a new approach.

That didn’t last. In loco parentis has been rejuvenated and returned. Administrators have tapped into the devaluation of personal responsibility illustrated by smoking bans and fast food lawsuits, coupling it with bullish political correctness. The resulting dearth of individual liberties on campuses would have seemed impossible to college students of 25 years ago.

Double Secret Probation

The rights of schools over their pupils were codified before the U.S. Constitution was written. In 1765 the legal scholar Sir William Blackstone wrote that, when sending kids to school, Dad "may also delegate part of his parental authority, during his life to the tutor or schoolmaster of the child; who is then in loco parentis, and has such a portion of the power of the parents committed to his charge."

Blackstone was writing about grammar school students, but 19th-century college administrators liked the idea too. Wheaton College, five years after its 1861 founding, denied students the right to form a secret society. The students sued, but judges washed their hands of the matter. In Pratt v. Wheaton College (1866), the Illinois courts said judges have "no more authority to interfere than [they] have to control the domestic discipline of a father in his family."

Courts took this hands-off approach well into the next century. When public or private universities bought land, the state treated them like personal fiefdoms. Students got whatever rights their school administrators saw fit to give. At Harvard in 1951, the Administrative Board could tell reporters that it would increase the punishment for a window smashing -- by however much it wanted -- "if a student’s name is on the police blotter or in the Boston press." That was the power of in loco parentis.

Not until 1960 did this system begin to break down. That year, six students at the all-black Alabama State College participated in anti-segregation lunch counter sit-ins. The school’s president sent them letters expelling them for "conduct prejudicial to the school." According to Stetson Law School professor Robert Bickel, the students’ case cut to the root of in loco parentis: "The university actually asserted the right to arbitrarily give some students [due] process and deny it to others." When the students sued, federal courts sided with Alabama State. But in the 1961 decision Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected the school’s claim of omnipotence. Suddenly, college enrollment was a contract between the student and the school. Since kids didn’t lose their constitutional rights in their backyard, they couldn’t lose them on campus. State universities slackened their grip, and private universities such as Columbia followed suit.

During the next few years, in loco parentis continued to collapse as courts chipped away at it. In 1974 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 in Scheuer v. Rhodes that Kent State students had the right to sue the governor of Ohio for damages incurred during the notorious 1970 shooting there. Chief Justice Warren Burger concluded the brief decision this way: "We intimate no evaluation whatever as to the merits of the petitioners’ claims or as to whether it will be possible to support them by proof. We hold only that, on the allegations of their respective complaints, they were entitled to have them judicially resolved." Students had been handed the keys to their kingdom.

By then, campus revolts were making national headlines, radical groups had been profiled in Life and Esquire, and undergrads were helping manage George McGovern’s presidential campaign. By 1978, when Dean Wormer in Animal House threatened his students with "double secret probation," audiences recognized it as a knowing goof on a dead-and-buried policy. As Stetson’s Bickel puts it, "The fall of in loco parentis in the 1960s correlated exactly with the rise of student economic power and the rise of student civil rights."

Save the Children

In 1969 Sheldon Steinbach arrived at the American Council on Education, the catchall coordinating body for universities, just in time to weather the worst of the campus revolts. Elite schools such as Berkeley, Columbia, and Cornell were acquiescing to radical students and opening up their internal judicial processes. Students won seats on some boards of trustees. Administrators appeared to have lost their grip.

"The basic liberal arts education began to crumble," Steinbach says. "That’s what it looked like. When the war ended, we could consolidate, sit back, and look at how to save the system."

An unexpected boon arrived in 1974, the year of the Kent State decision Scheuer v. Rhodes. Sens. John Warner (R-Va.) and James Buckley (Conservative-N.Y.) sponsored the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) in the hope of empowering parents to keep tabs on their kids’ academics. Committees amended the bill into a codification of student privacy rights, and Steinbach got a crack at it before FERPA moved on to the Senate. When the bill passed, parents could peek into the records of their children until their 18th birthday, at which point those rights transferred to the student. But FERPA created exceptions: Schools could release records to providers of financial aid and to "appropriate officials in cases of health and safety emergencies." If a student was hit with a subpoena or legal charge, the school could peek into his criminal records. Yet college administrators and their advisers, Steinbach included, kept the champagne corked. It wasn’t immediately clear what effect the law would have, outside of giving parents annual notice of their new rights.

"It was a schizophrenic time," Steinbach explains. "We were moving from segregated campuses to co-ed, affirmative action campuses. We didn’t have our feet on the floor in 1974."

Meanwhile, concern about the state of campuses was spreading. In March 1977, Newsweek ran a hand-wringing exposé titled "The End of Expulsion?," which gave the supposed academic apocalypse some context: "In just ten years, most of the rules that once governed student life in loco parentis have simply disappeared. Even serious scholastic offenses, such as cheating and plagiarism, seldom incur the harsh penalties that were once automatic. Most college administrators admit that they lean over backward to avoid expelling students." The irksome rites of passage that had been mandatory -- core curricula, single-gender dorms, class attendance -- fell away.

In the 1979 case Bradshaw v. Rawlings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit spelled out the universities’ weakness. When a Delaware Valley College sophomore three years under the Pennsylvania drinking age hitched a ride from a drunk driver and was injured in a car crash, he sued the school. The court shrugged him off. "The modern American college is not an insurer of the safety of its students," it said. "Rights formerly possessed by college administrations have been transferred to students." Expectations were pointless, because "beer drinking by college students is a common experience. That this is true is not to suggest that reality always comports with state law and college rules. It does not."

[Dorkette]

"If Taylor had been under curfew in a single sex dorm and locked in after curfew and not allowed to go out "of her own free will" she would have been much safer."

Do you realize how many if's there are that would have prevented Taylor from being murdered? Too many to count and it does absolutely no good going over them and it won't bring Taylor back.

Dorkette

[joeb]

Originally posted by Rowan


Nor will it be that way again. This is a wasted argument joeb. Why don't we focus on the facts of the case instead of shoulda, coulda, woulda?

Rowan: You talk about what you want to and I will talk about what I want to. OK? And it was no agrument. It was just a little history lesson.

[protectkidz]

It is a huge shame that the sense of community has broken down so much in this country.

Joeb, you are right about how sad it is that the university didn't have tighter rules which may have kept Taylor safe. But there have been so many changes throughout history - and the push for freedom by young people in the sixties made a significant impact in our society today.

It's upsetting to go back and think about what could've been done to save Taylor - the point of the matter is, someone took her life.

[singlesix]

I'm sorry, but I disagree. These are universities, not convents. Students won't tolerate, and haven't since at least as far back as my college days in the '60s and '70s, having more restrictions than their parents put on them in high school.

They're old enough to drive and most of them are old enough to enlist in the military, so to my way of thinking they are adults.

singlesix

[TN_Profiler]

I have to agree with Dorkette, too many "what ifs" ....

University living has changed and that was long ago. Put tight controls on students and they simply would not be interested in attending that school. Simple as that.

Now, if Ben had 'rough sex' with himself or skateboarded in front of an oncoming bus .....

Sorry, I got caught up in the "what if" scenarios myself. I apologize for my digression.

:punch:

[poplife]

Colleges my friends and I went to (and I'm only 30) had curfews for the freshmen and no cars allowed.

And we all tolerated it, we were going to college to get an education.

[Dorkette]

I met with the lead detectives this week and I believe the other motions have been tabled for the moment. Days have been set aside for when and if the defense decides they want to file other motions.

It has been a long and trying week - here's to a weekend of fairy spirits dancing by the light of the cresent moon.

Dorkette

[Dorkette]

I believe that there could be motions filed (from either side) from now until the end of the trial. It is also my understanding that the judge could set a deadline for motions.

Dorkette

[nibblet]

The crescent moon this month seemed to have a slanted little smile for about 2 nights. :)

[Friend of BW]

I too have a child at VCU and this weekend I went down for a visit. I couldn't help but think of Taylor as I have every time I walk along the streets of the Campus. I've followed Taylor's case since before it even went public...a family member heard about it on Wednesday the 7th of September and called me to see if I or my child knew about a missing student. I kept checking the school's website (VCU ALERT) but even by that Thursday night at 8:30 there was still nothing. The students were still unaware...except the Resident Assistants...they knew. That night, at 8:40 PM I emailed the VCU & Richmond police to find out why the students weren't being alerted. Within the hour, my child called to tell me that the story was finally breaking on the local News at Ten. The next morning a Captain in the RPD called me and tried to assure me that students go missing all the time and that they usually appear within a few days. I tried to believe him as I was ho[ing this was the case...
Well, on Saturday evening as I was returning from my da in Richmond I saw a very bright light to my left... I had to turn and see what it was...of course...that cresent moon and yes it was tilted to it's left and did seem to be smiling. Just to the right of it was one brilliant smaller light, perhaps it was a satellite, perhaps it was a star...

[janethompson]

Originally posted by Friend of BW
I too have a child at VCU and this weekend I went down for a visit. I couldn't help but think of Taylor as I have every time I walk along the streets of the Campus. I've followed Taylor's case since before it even went public...a family member heard about it on Wednesday the 7th of September and called me to see if I or my child knew about a missing student. I kept checking the school's website (VCU ALERT) but even by that Thursday night at 8:30 there was still nothing. The students were still unaware...except the Resident Assistants...they knew. That night, at 8:40 PM I emailed the VCU & Richmond police to find out why the students weren't being alerted. Within the hour, my child called to tell me that the story was finally breaking on the local News at Ten. The next morning a Captain in the RPD called me and tried to assure me that students go missing all the time and that they usually appear within a few days. I tried to believe him as I was ho[ing this was the case...
Well, on Saturday evening as I was returning from my da in Richmond I saw a very bright light to my left... I had to turn and see what it was...of course...that cresent moon and yes it was tilted to it's left and did seem to be smiling. Just to the right of it was one brilliant smaller light, perhaps it was a satellite, perhaps it was a star...

While it appears that VCU and its campus police may not have had the opportunity to make a difference once Taylor disappeared, I think that their handling of the situation should nonetheless be critically analyzed to see what could be done differently the next time a student is missing. The stories I have read and interviews I have seen, seem to suggest that the VCU administrators and police were fairly apathetic and that Taylor's family struggled to get them to take the matter seriously.

[Dorkette]

Peeps,

You had me confused for a minute when you addressed your post to Janet, I am sure you meant Jane...anyway I wanted to add my 2 cents.

1. Taylor was reported missing at 1:30am on the 7th and I was called by the VCU police at 3:30 am.

2. I arrived in Richmond at 6:00am and if they hadn't been told before then I am sure I told them she was 17.

3. A missing person report was done that day.

Thanks to Friend of BW for their posting!

Dorkette

[janethompson]

Originally posted by Dorkette
Peeps,

You had me confused for a minute when you addressed your post to Janet, I am sure you meant Jane...anyway I wanted to add my 2 cents.

1. Taylor was reported missing at 1:30am on the 7th and I was called by the VCU police at 3:30 am.

2. I arrived in Richmond at 6:00am and if they hadn't been told before then I am sure I told them she was 17.

3. A missing person report was done that day.

Thanks to Friend of BW for their posting!

Dorkette

Dorkette,

Do you know whether VCU is redesigning its policy on how to deal with reports of missing students? Or can parents of students expect that same critical lack of response?

Jane (not Janet).

[janethompson]

Originally posted by peeparoo


To Jane and Janet...

Please accept my apologies for the confusion in names!

Although my post was intended to agree up Jane's concern, I want to thank you Dorkette for your informative response.

Would the 7th at 1:30 a.m. represent a 48-hour waiting period?

I can't even come close to imagining what must have been going through your mind when you were awoken by that call.

Would you have preferred to have been contacted by VCU on the 6th?

peeps

Just to clarify, I don't think it is an issue of whether Dorkette were contacted on the 6th or the 7th. From Dorkette's post it does not appear that VCU had any notice of Taylor's disappearance until the early morning hours of the 7th.

I thought the larger issue was VCU's lack of real response after Taylor was reported missing. I was under the impression, and perhaps Dorkette can correct me on this, that attemping to get VCU to take Taylor's disappearance seriously was like pulling teeth. While VCU's response may not have altered the outcome in Taylor's case (she may have been murdered before she was reported missing) I truly wonder what a similar lack of response in the future might lead to in a case where the outcome could be different.

Jane

[janethompson]

Originally posted by peeparoo


Jane,

According to Taylor's roommate, she became concerned and reported Taylor missing on the 6th (I believe in the afternoon), but was told by VCU police that they would not consider her to be officially missing until she was gone for 48 hours.

I agree that in this case, it would not have made a difference in the outcome. However, a day-and-a-half seems to be a significant amount of time when it comes to obtaining leads, verifying alibis and obtaining hard evidence. When it comes to the destruction of evidence, a day and a half is a lot, IMO.

As far as measures that may affect future outcomes, I can't see any reason not to notify the parents immediately--and let them be the judge of whether their minor child would just "go off" without telling anyone. Even though VCU accepts that as normal behavior, I would guess that not all parents would see it the same way.

It's my understanding that a missing minor is taken seriously by the police sooner than a missing person 18 and up. Does anyone know what the legal protocol is on this?

peeps

Peeps,

I'm sorry, I took from Dorkette's previous post that Taylor's roommate did not report Taylor missing until 1:30 a.m. on the 7th. I was unaware that she had tried to report Taylor's missing on the 6th.

Jane

[Dorkette]

Hello,

I was not aware that Taylor's roommate notified anyone of authority until she told the police at 1:30am on the 7th. I will look into this and report back.

I would imagine their policies would have to change - they have received way too much negative attention not to.

Dorkette

[jace]

In my opinion any time a freshman doesn't come back to their dorm (within a reasonable amount of time...the point where someone is concerned) it should be reported to the VCU police. I realize that most city police have a twenty-four hour waiting period before you can report someone missing but I would think VCU could have their own policy. How long had Taylor been there...weeks? Especially because of the area that surrounds VCU.

[Jennifer33]

....and Dorkette - they should be receiving that negative attention IMO..:rose:

[Friend of BW]

Just to clarify, the report time was 24 hours: as Taylor was expected back in her room by 1:30 AM on the 6th and as such the report was filed almost exactly 24 hours later at 1:30 AM on the 7th.
My child went through the same process in the Fall semester of 2004 when her roommate "disappeared". The long and the short of it: Rooommate returns to campus on Tuesday morning, after a Monday holiday weekend, says she's going to her car for her laundry, and will be back to get her books for her first class of the day. The roomamate doesn't come back and by early evening the kids start calling the roommmate, her friends, and her mom but so as not to worry anyone they just ask her mom if she is there. By 10:30 PM the kids go to the security desk to make a report. The Campus Police go with the kids to scour, again, the parking garage, etc and they inform the sudents that they must make an official report in the morning. The roommate walks through the door at 7:30 AM the following day with no explanation except to say her phone was turned off... the kids had called her cell many times in that 17 or 18 hours. As I remember, the roommate was spoken to by the campus police upon her arival back at the GRC dorms...Taylor's case just felt all too familiar from the first I heard of it. I had hoped that she too would return the way my child's roommate did the year before.
With that in mind, it is understandable why the Campus Police wait 24 hours but perhaps they could call the family and (get all the necessary numbers) to call friends sooner. With 18 year olds, the problem is the confidentiality agreements. Students have to sign a release to give parents information. Of course that is not the case with 17 year olds. Anyway none of this helps Taylor but maybe it can help other girls.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by Warhawk
What if the computer expert starts to find, through the process, evidence incriminating BF. Under oath would the expert be required to divulge that info?


Dorkette, did you ever receive a refund from VCU? If I recall correctly, they wanted to keep the tuition. I don't care what the laws or rules say I would go off big time on that one.

I hadn't been here in a while and noticed this particular question.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has reciprocal discovery rules.

Whatever the defense finds, it must share with the prosecution when a reciprocal discovery motion is filed and granted. No doubt if any experts are used, such as a computer expert, an order will be filed, will be granted and will be followed up on.