Amended Charge Against Fawley

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet...=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

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!

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...

[vedder]

Originally posted by Peace


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?

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.

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.

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.

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....

[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.