Intent -- What Will It Take?

[MATTHEWsevenone]

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

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

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

How can he ever prove his intent - ACCIDENT?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ALL IMO. JUSTING THINKING.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MATTHEWsevenone]

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

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5350326

Back to Ben Fawley and his defense.

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

OK with that being said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MATTHEWsevenone]

What about some qualifying facts

TAYLOR was underage.
Ben was in his thirties.

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn't all of that help define INTENT?

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

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

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


All IMO.

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone
What about some qualifying facts

TAYLOR was underage.
Ben was in his thirties.

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn't all of that help define INTENT?

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

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

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


All IMO.

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

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

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

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

[MATTHEWsevenone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMO

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

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

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

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

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

IMO

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

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

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


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

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

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

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

O/T:

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

[jace]

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

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

Originally posted by Hey Paula


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

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

O/T:

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

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

Originally posted by becurious


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

EXCERPT FROM LINK BELOW:

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


MSNBC Link

[MATTHEWsevenone]

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

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

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

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

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

IMO

Hey Paula -

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

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

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

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

http://www.opdv.state.ny.us/public_a...ngulation.html

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

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


ALL IMO.

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


EXCERPT FROM LINK BELOW:

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


MSNBC Link

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

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

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

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by becurious


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

Curious --


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

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

http://www.google.com/search?q=Body+...&start=30&sa=N

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

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

Here are a few links. These worked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100600860.html

http://washingtontimes.com/metro/200...3659-7840r.htm

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

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

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

All IMO.

[poplife]

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

[MATTHEWsevenone]

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

POPLIFE that is the big question of this thread I began.

For us to explore both sides. INTENT as the Defense tries to prove and INTENT as the Prosecution tries to prove.

INTENT is for the JURY to determine and they will only have what is introduced right? So what is right now as you think about INTENT -- looking at all that we know, not speculating so much as piecing together what we have - what are the ones that seem to cry out HEY that cries out INTENT or They gotta get from here to here to prove it to me. Or as you think through it, are there particulars that you think are really important but you think that they might not make it in and why..

WHAT WILL IT TAKE to prove INTENT is where my head is at.

Does that help you?

[MATTHEWsevenone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jace]

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

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

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

His only intent was to cover his crime.

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

IMO

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

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

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

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

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

His only intent was to cover his crime.

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

IMO

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

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

Sometimes those different viewpoints can seem contradictory.

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

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

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

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

IMO

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

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

[MATTHEWsevenone]

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

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

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

His only intent was to cover his crime.

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

IMO

JACE - YOU ARE NOT BEING JUDGED. GOSH HOW I WISH ALL COULD JUST BRAINSTORM AS WE ONCE DID! YOU ARE DISCUSSING. I LOVE YOUR POSTS. FIRE AWAY.

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Jace -

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

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

Help me now. Walk me through your thinking.

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

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone


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

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

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

Hi V!

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

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

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

IMO

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone
Jace -

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

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

Help me now. Walk me through your thinking.

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


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

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

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

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

Hi BD!

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

IMO

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Hi V!

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

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

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

IMO

Hey back atch Paula

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

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

IMO of course.

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


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

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

Sometimes those different viewpoints can seem contradictory.

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

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

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

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

IMO

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

I want to throw something out there.

What if ...


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

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

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

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

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone


Hey back atch Paula

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

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

IMO of course.

I like it, V!

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

IMO

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Hi BD!

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

IMO

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

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

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

MOO.

[jace]

Originally posted by Soundandfury


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

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

Maybe you could explain that to me in layman terms.

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

[jace]

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone
Jace -

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

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

Help me now. Walk me through your thinking.

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

Like I said in my previous post I used the word accident incorrectly.

Originally posted by jace


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

Maybe you could explain that to me in layman terms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jace]

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

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

Tell me if I have it right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me if I have it right.

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

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

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

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

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

Take three scenarios:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

JMO.

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

[MATTHEWsevenone]

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

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

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

His only intent was to cover his crime.

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

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

IMO

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

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

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

Three things came to me:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Keep posting JACE - keeps us all thinking!

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

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

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

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

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

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