Two other individuals with possible links to the disappearance of Taylor Behl aren't looking real good on the polygraph score, atleast. Much more relating to the individual that failed the polygraph here.
A police bloodhound traced a scent from the car that eventually led investigators to the home of a man who is friendly with a skateboarder Behl is believed to have seen within two days of her disappearance.
Police arrested the man tracked by the bloodhound on a drug-possession charge and searched his apartment on the 800 block of Sheppard Street. Police said the man failed a polygraph test when he denied knowing Behl or having ever been in her car.
Investigators also interviewed the skateboarder and impounded his car to collect evidence. That skateboarder, according to sources close to the case, has refused to take a polygraph exam.
So after all the bad press and trashing, Ben Fawley may not be the right guy? Sounds like another missing person's case.
Posted by: sensible | Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 10:57 AM
maybe they should turn the case over to the Aruban authories
Posted by: mc | Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 11:18 AM
Gotta suspect Fawley at least knew about or guessed that the three skateboarders did the dirty deed and he probably knew them, they probably even came to him when she was killed, but also he knew that he could be dragged into this and thus came up with the phoney alibi.
Posted by: Captain Joe | Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 11:49 AM
Skateboarder could be objecting the polygraph on principle. I don't put anything else to it other than that.
Posted by: FloridaPatty | Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 11:51 AM
Skateboarder could be objecting the polygraph on principle. I don't put anything else to it other than that.
Posted by: FloridaPatty
I agree. I would never take a polygraph test for any reason.
Posted by: TexasGal | Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 11:56 AM
I agree. I would never take a polygraph test for any reason.
Posted by: TexasGal | Sep 27, 2005 11:56:50 AM
Could be, but the other one failed it.
Posted by: sensible | Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 12:40 PM
Well, if I had a friend I knew didn't know Taylor and hadn't been in her car failed a polygraph, I certainly wouldn't volunteer for one either. I'm with TexasGal, I would never take a polygraph test either.
Posted by: #7 | Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 12:56 PM
Like many people already know, polygraph is simply an investigative tool, and not the be-all end-all arbiter of truth. The machine helps point out areas of interest in respect to physiological responses such as respiration, blood pressure, heart rate, and the galvanic skin response. The charts by themselves are considered not very fruitful until they are used for followup questioning by a competent examiner/administrator. And even in experienced hands, false positives are a reality. Even with its failings, it can definitely help when coupled with a thorough investigation conducted by dedicated individuals.
With that being said, if I was in the young man's shoes, I would refuse to take the polygraph as well. That's all said with the idea that I was truly innocent, for any other consideration is moot in my opinion.
Posted by: brian | Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 01:50 PM
Maybe Taylor left willingly and the guys are covering for her. I think it's strange that she kept her car parked many blocks from her dorm and so close to Fawley's address. He might have given her the license plates to help hide her car and his 'abduction' was probably staged to throw us all off and make us think that he had something to do with it. We've been laughing at him and he's been laughing at us.
Posted by: mmy | Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 02:13 PM
No innocent person should ever take a polygraph test. Polygraph tests are based upon the assumption that everyone lies. If the truth is told on the control questions, an innocent person will not pass. Only a guilty person benefits from taking a polygraph.
Posted by: bull | Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 02:13 PM
>>We've been laughing at him and he's been laughing at us.
I doubt Ben is laughing at this point
Posted by: blues | Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 02:34 PM
Not many people would take the heat that Ben has been taking merely to cover up for someone running away. Trust me, if he knew she was out there somewhere alive and healthy and he's now facing prison time, he would've come up with some kind of deal PDQ.
Posted by: #7 | Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 03:28 PM
Yes #7 unlike Aruba we make deals.
Posted by: fishie | Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 05:38 PM
I, like others, would never take a polygraph and would not allow police to search without a warrant. Not that I have anything to hide, but rather that I'm not trusting after seeing stories of others.
I continue to be amazed at the number of people who have an appearance of guilt or lack of a "clean" life when the media gets hold. How many people have we seen make stupid decisions when faced with the media, police or general suspicion.
It seems so easy to do the right thing and to tell the truth, but apparently it's not for a lot of people. or is that some of these people are living everyday, normal lives that appear much different once they are held to scrutiny....?
Posted by: frenchymom | Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 07:30 PM
The guy who failed the polygraph because he lied about knowing Taylor Behl, and lied about being in her car. He explained why he lied on test on the local news. His explanation made no sense to me.
Posted by: wv | Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 09:29 PM
What was his explanation?
Posted by: yeah | Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 10:29 PM
Maybe Ben Fawley is " out there ". But, I am glad that they are still looking. On NG tonite, it was said that Taylor broke up with her boyfriend (the one she saw that nite at a late supper ).
Now there is someone who might have a reason.
Another thing about the porn on his computer. He never bought the computers new. Could that have been on the hard drive of stuff he got when he cleaned out a dead person's place ? He seemed happy ( from his live journal ) that he got the computer equipment.
Did the ex boyfriend know about Ben ?
There are just too many unanswered questions and I would hate to see an emotionaly disturbed person take the fall for something he didn't do.
Posted by: Kat_Gram | Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 10:30 PM
Taylor is my cousin and i have been following this closely... I am confused myself as to some of the details.who is refusing a polygraph?I thought the guy the scent led to took one right?
Jesse,I believe...I can understand myself for wanting to refuse one of those tests..maybe this skulz is just a weirdo pervert..I really thought everything against him was too obvious..maybe.I know you hear so much from the media..and it helps lead you to believe certain things!!!I just want answers! For her mother...I have heard the rumors..or shall i say read the rumors of her possibly wanting to "skip " town for a while..because of some other stuff...where'd that come from..???I mean that would be hope...but from what has been passed to me through the family ...her mom and her are sooooo close she wouldn't have just"disappeared"
Posted by: me | Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 11:41 PM
"Me"
Hi - I am very sorry about your cousin's disappearance. I really hope that they find her safe and sound.
In response to your question, Jesse and the skateboarder mentioned are two separate people.
JESSE SCHULTZ:
-- He was the "nephew;" his aunt and uncle's house was the one the dog tracked to. The house was subsequently broken into.
-- He also failed a lie detector test, pertaining to two questions about Taylor.
-- He worked at the Village Cafe
-- He was the one arrested for cocaine residue.
"NISSAN" FRIEND
-- The other friend owned the Nissan Altima..this had been impounded and investigated.
-- Has refused to take a lie detector test.
-- Arrested on out of state charges (?)
Posted by: crabapple | Wednesday, September 28, 2005 at 02:59 AM
The guy who failed the polygraph because he lied about knowing Taylor Behl, and lied about being in her car. He explained why he lied on test on the local news. His explanation made no sense to me.
Polygraphs are voodoo science and LE knows that. Why do you think they are not admissable in court unless a guilty person passes a polygraph. "Failing" two questions doesn't make JS a liar. Normally, they ask four questions on a polygraph. Probably the first two questions were something on the order of "Did you have anything to do with the disappearance of Taylor" and "Do you know where Taylor is". If he "passed" those questions, why do you think he would lie about knowing her and being in her car? JS probably told LE about his drug use duing the polygraph as one of the control questions, which is why you LE says polygraphs are another investigative tool. They may not get you for, in this case a disappearance, but at least they do get their drug bust. For information on how polygraphs work go to http://antipolygraph.org/. Again, the only person who should ever take a polygraph is a guilty person.
Posted by: bull | Wednesday, September 28, 2005 at 05:46 AM
"Like many people already know, polygraph is simply an investigative tool, and not the be-all end-all arbiter of truth. The machine helps point out areas of interest in respect to physiological responses such as respiration, blood pressure, heart rate, and the galvanic skin response. The charts by themselves are considered not very fruitful until they are used for followup questioning by a competent examiner/administrator. And even in experienced hands, false positives are a reality. Even with its failings, it can definitely help when coupled with a thorough investigation conducted by dedicated individuals."
Posted by: brian | Sep 27, 2005 1:50:31 PM
True. And that is why they still are not admissible in court. The man who was given the test passed ALL but 2 questions. I don't know how many he was asked, or how it's 'scored,' but I don't think we can assume 'missing' only 2 questions is the same as 'failing' the entire test.
Posted by: cosmicMojo | Wednesday, September 28, 2005 at 08:10 AM
Maybe I'm naive, but if I were close and sincerly concerned for someone missing, I'd take a lie detector test in a heartbeat. I'd be as cooperative as possible. In any case like this, everyone is a suspect. So I'd eagerly volunteer to let them rule me out. As a father and husband, if something happened to a child or spouse, I'd probably be the prime suspect immediately. So my thoughts are to let them rule me out so that they can focus their efforts on the real criminals.
Fawley sure looks worse and worse, especially when he seems to be laying the groundwork for his dna being found.
If she's run away, God, you hope she's smart enough to call police/parents and tell them what she's done.
Posted by: a dad | Wednesday, September 28, 2005 at 11:43 AM
whoa, very astute analysis, a_dad!~
That's a great point, that he's laying the groundwork for his dna being found by suddenely saying they had sex all of a suddened after 3 weeks of not saying that. I bet you're right.
And I agree, if I was worried about doing whatever I could to find my missing friend, I'd do a lie detector test in a heartbeat. I guess it depends on if your motive is to find the missing or avoid scrutiny.
The logic of innocent people submitting to lie detector tests is to help quickly clear them as suspects so police don't waste any more time investigating them (understanding that the test is not 100% accurate). prescious resources can be redirected elsewhere. If you really want to find your friend, you'd do it in a heartbeat.
Posted by: cosmicMojo | Wednesday, September 28, 2005 at 11:52 AM
>>The logic of innocent people submitting to lie detector tests is to help quickly clear them as suspects so police don't waste any more time investigating them (understanding that the test is not 100% accurate). prescious resources can be redirected elsewhere. If you really want to find your friend, you'd do it in a heartbeat.
I agree with you on this one - but people who have been abused and misrepresented by police (esp minorities) are very distrustful of police in general. So, (and I'm speculating here because I've never had any negative interactions with police), when approached by police, some people are going to not cooperate because they're been burned so many times before and are fearful that anything they do could be turned against them. For example, people who are on death row who have claimed innocence are now found (because of DNA analysis) to be innocent.
Posted by: blues | Wednesday, September 28, 2005 at 12:29 PM
was their wrongful imprisonment due to a polygraph? doubtful since the results are NOT admissible in court. That's a red herring for this discussion. The question is why Fawley won't submit to a polygraph to help find his missing friend and the most logical answer is that he has too much to hide.
Posted by: cosmicMojo | Wednesday, September 28, 2005 at 12:38 PM
ok, bad example.
The only point I was trying to make was that some people are distrustful of police - and are not cooperative.
Posted by: blues | Wednesday, September 28, 2005 at 12:43 PM
yes, I agree people can be mistrustful of police and often for valid reasons.
BUT, Most people would override that distrust to help find their missing friend. gad, what innocent person would refuse to help when their friend is in danger?
Posted by: cosmicMojo | Wednesday, September 28, 2005 at 12:52 PM
As much as I know (which is little...), if you take medications, the Polygraph results are not reliable. Skulz is taking medications...
Posted by: manue | Wednesday, September 28, 2005 at 01:53 PM
Polygraphs are not reliable whether you are on medication or not - although Skluz's medication would skew the test ever further. If Fawley passed a polygraph would you automatically assume he was innocent? That is why I say that polygraphs only should be taken by guilty people. What happens when an innocent person "fails" a polygraph? Resources are wasted investigating an innocent person.
Posted by: bull | Wednesday, September 28, 2005 at 03:19 PM
do people taking antipsychotic medications always pass or fail a polygraph test? or are they even allowed to take the test? binx1968@yahoo.com and where can i find this information? please advise, or send comments
Posted by: james peterson | Wednesday, February 08, 2006 at 01:11 AM