Was the porn BF's?

[poplife]

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

[csiwannabe]

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

[Cino]

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

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

[Cino]

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

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

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

[protectkidz]

Wow - look at how many votes!!! Hey - are some prople voting twice??????

[Taxgirl2006]

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

[jace]

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

[Cino]

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

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

[singlesix]

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

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

singlesix

[jadensmokes]

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

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

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

This is my opinion and ONLY my opinion.

[Taxgirl2006]

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

[poplife]

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

[protectkidz]

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

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

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

[Cino]

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

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

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

[singlesix]

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

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

singlesix

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by jadensmokes


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

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

This is my opinion and ONLY my opinion.

Jaden -

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

HE HAD IT. HE DID NOT DESTROY IT.

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

[MATTHEWsevenone]

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

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

singlesix

single --

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

Don't want anyone here to struggle so.

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

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

IMO.

[singlesix]

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

"knowingly possesses"

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

singlesix

Originally posted by jadensmokes


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

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

This is my opinion and ONLY my opinion.

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

[TN_Profiler]

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

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

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

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

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

[MATTHEWsevenone]

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

"knowingly possesses"

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

singlesix

SMART COOKIE! Wish I had been more careful!

Kudos! Single.

[MATTHEWsevenone]

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

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

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

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

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

Two points (well maybe questions)

TN -

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMO.

Originally posted by jadensmokes


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

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

This is my opinion and ONLY my opinion.

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

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

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

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

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


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

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

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

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

BFD -

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

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

Thanks.

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone


BFD -

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MATTHEWsevenone]

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

How I wish Taylor had made it home safely.

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

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

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

THE BELL TOLLED.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR TAYLOR!

ALL IMO.

[Dorkette]

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

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



Dorkette

[TN_Profiler]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[protectkidz]

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

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

[poplife]

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

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

[protectkidz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Taxgirl2006]

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

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

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



Taxgirl

[MATTHEWsevenone]

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

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

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

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

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

ROW -

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

As to your comments about him not coming clean --

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[protectkidz]

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

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

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


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

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

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

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

[Taxgirl2006]

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

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

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