It was reported last week that police were seeking a gag order on Grand Jury testimony in the Taylor Behl investigation. Most likely given the wide press coverage, prosecutors are sensitive to jeopardizing the case by leaks. It's a balance between the public's right and desire to know, versus the need for a successful prosecution. Hard to argue with anything if it helps put the perpetrator away - and hopefully down, after 12+ years of appeals, of course.
Shame, I doubt Taylor Behl had that luxury.
RICHMOND, Va. A Richmond judge has signed a gag order on witnesses who testify before a grand jury hearing evidence in the death of college student Taylor Behl.
Grand jury proceedings are secret, but witnesses called before the panel typically are NOT prohibited from discussing their testimony after appearing.
The Richmond Times Dispatch reports that the order signed yesterday by Judge Margaret Spencer legally binds the witnesses called before the panel.
h/t Cindi


maybe they suspect him of other crimes against women and they want to nail him for good this time.
Posted by: RJ | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 12:38 PM
or maybe they suspect he didn't act alone or had help after the fact?
Posted by: absynth_minded | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 12:48 PM
Let's face it, he's told so many stories - I'm sure that for even the best law enforcement - it has to be confusing. Plus we still need to hear the facts on Jesse S.
Posted by: krahs | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 01:06 PM
Monroe is probably furious that he works with disloyal people. He asked for people to stop leaking information, but was forced to enact a gag order when people refused to comply. I guess some of the information could be comming from The Richmond Times Dispatch and Chris Collins also, but since Chris does not put his face on these statements who really knows who is gabbing. It should be common knowledge that all the information regarding a case does not have to be blockbuster quality to entertain us. The gag order is just that, a demand to keep the facts secret. The facts should have been kept secret all along. There is no right of the public to know what is happening with L E. They give us information as a courtesy. We need to know thigs like that she was missing, her associates, her hobbies, etc., but it is not an American right to know that Ben had a blood stain on his boxspring of all places, and tampons in his apt.
P.S. ANYONE else having trouble with MSN/IE? Maybe it is my computer.
Posted by: Heidi | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 01:48 PM
Someone help me out here.Hildy was not Ben's roommate. According to her journal the roommate split after the first search warrant. Then Hildy went to stay at Ben's.Does anyone know anything about Ben's roommate?? I found it odd the girl would take off but she might still be in richmond and decided to get the hell out of Ben's apartment asap.
Posted by: Diane | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 01:52 PM
There will be more leaks now. :)
Posted by: teresa | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 01:55 PM
Whatever it takes to fry him!
Posted by: redpetals12 | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 02:01 PM
An article by Steve Huff today at Court TV:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/original/1005/1802_web_of_lies.html
"A young man she'd been dating since she entered VCU in August named Jake was actually the person who walked Taylor Behl to her dorm that night."
Posted by: curious | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 02:09 PM
X-cellent curious!!
Posted by: Heidi | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 02:31 PM
Someone help me out here. Hildy was not Ben's roommate.
It is hard to tell what is what and who is who, I thought that Hildy was a new girlfriend, in fact someone posted on this site that Hildy was not technically Skulz woman until after Taylor's disappearance. She did talk about taking care of Ben's apt after his arrest, and I thought I read something about her moving again on her journal, something about being more comfortable with a friend and not at home or alone, it has been a while check her journal for that entry, maybe you can figure something out.
Posted by: Heidi | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 02:36 PM
wow curious thanks for the info!!
Posted by: Diane | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 02:39 PM
Ok if Jake is the one that walked Taylor back to her dorm room, was BF stalking her or did she go to his house when her roomate asked her to leave?
I bet her roomate would take that second back anyday. :(
Posted by: teresa | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 02:54 PM
This may have already been posted but not sure.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/index.html
Posted by: cmroy21 | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 03:36 PM
I said some time ago that I think Ben set Taylor up.I still think he put her up to making that phone call to Kevin saying she was going to do something highy illegal.Then when Taylor is missing Ben goes right to Kevin and starts the web of lies of being in a sexual relationship with her.Kevin has no clue who Ben is perfect cover up. Remember Kevin saying it was like Taylor was leading a double life.What Ben Fawley wanted us to think of Taylor was nothing more than "white trash" just like Erin.They rejected him. Erin was lucky enough to get away and Taylor never got the chance.
Posted by: Diane | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 03:45 PM
It is a reasonable assumption that he abducted taylor in exactly the same way he was supposedly abducted. Held her at gunpoint for the drive to Mathews. I've been in that position before. Drove out of fear...with someone threatening me if to punch out my front windsheild if I didn't do what he said. Anyway...I was about 19 at the time.
Posted by: New Creature | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 03:52 PM
Has anyone seen this article released today about Nancy Grace? Does anyone think Todd Swiss was a little too harsh in his criticism of her?
http://www.dailyillini.com/media/paper736/news/2005/10/18/Opinions/Column.Graceless.Nancy-1024043.shtml
Posted by: curious | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 03:54 PM
I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I agree with the author (and a good writer for a kid still in college).
She is so trashy and ratings-driven it almost seems like a parody of itself. Sat. night Live could not do it more over the top.
Posted by: Cosmic Mojo | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 04:01 PM
curious: Thanks for that article!! I was beginning to think I was alone. The woman is horrendous and if I thought I'd have to face her in court, from either side, I believe I would beg to be put to death...at least exiled. Ohh that obnoxious bounce of hers! The other annoyingly crass lass is Rita whoever with her broken, raspy voice. I do disagree with the writer though. They belong on televison rather than a court room but the comedy channel, right after Jon Stewart would be better.
Posted by: Rick | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 04:47 PM
She is so insensitive, saying really crass things just for a shot. She said to Taylor's mom "now what? she's gone/ you must feel awful. what are you going to do??"
And it was too much. It was being way more depressing than was right just to get a more emotional response.
tacky trashy trailer park Rita.
Posted by: Cosmic Mojo | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 05:21 PM
Well, it seems that the males dislike Nancy, which doesn't surprise me. I do agree with the comments written about Rita and Nancy, but I still like to watch them sometimes, especially when they are covering the cases I'm interested in. Sometimes, though, I'm really surprised at the things they say.
I wish Nancy would get away from her normal, classic method of reporting every night. "Elizabeth, show that photo of so-and-so." Constantly calling people "friends" and showing the "really old" video of Paulus running to his car almost every time she's talking about the NH case. I think Nancy is sincere most of the time, though, and I used to like her the best when she was on Larry King now and then.
Greta is getting dull, and I'm sooo tired of the "Fox News Alert" at the beginning of her show every night.
I wish Larry King would try to be a little more kind to people and quit saying, "What's your question?"
I think O'Reilly should retire now. His show has become worthless, especially since Arthel Neville quit appearing. At least, he was a little nicer to her than his other guests and would actually smile.
I never watch Olbermann and Scarborough. I feel they should be replaced.
Posted by: curious | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 06:14 PM
OK curious..I'm curious, why does it not surprise you that "the males" don't like her?
Larry King: what a horrid man
O' Reilly: Being a bully is not no spin
Hannity: Try not to spill that kool aid on the carpet (and Colmes...well, just don't let small children see the scary man)
Geraldo: Capone's safe
Greta: Open your mouth completely will ya
Nancy: Wonder if she could speak w/out bobbing her head
Rita: See, see why mommy said use your inside voice?
Scarbouroh: Don't buy a used car from him
Posted by: Rick | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 06:35 PM
Oh my! Forgot Chris Matthews...then it's for the best
Posted by: Rick | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 06:43 PM
I've seen several people saying Taylor called Kevin and told him she wanted to do something highly illegal. It appears she told him in person at the Village Cafe. Here's the link:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/original/1005/0501_behl_bombshell.html.html
Posted by: p | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 07:15 PM
Judging from the article that p posted it sounded like BF might have been jealous, or wanted to make sure Kevin and the other kid knew Taylor "belonged" to him (in his mind). What 38 year old man tells a college kid who he is intimate with? What 38 year old would find it appropriate to try to persue a 17 year old? One that is controlling and delusional (sp) would be my guess.
Was the "highly illegal" thing even going to be done with BF? She really does not talk much about him that I can see on her LJ. If she was so smitten with him would there not be more clues? Did the JA even try to revive her? ME ME ME ME ME=Ben Fawley. Give him some truth serum, because we will never have all the answers if he does not talk.
Posted by: abigail | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 08:02 PM
I think the gag order has to do with Fawley getting information from the press that he used to build his case of accidental death when he found out that the autopsy didn't show anything and he was seen buying gas in New Kent county. He felt that he could claim that the death was accidental since there was no evidence to show otherwise. Prosecuter wants to make sure that no more information gets out so that Fawley can explain it or build his case with the leaked info. That doesn't mean we can't speculate as to what the facts are. The gag order may in fact be counterproductive because it will promote speculation and rumors that may be harder to control and may be much more harmful.
Posted by: Captain Joe | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 09:25 PM
I also read and heard the two stories, that Kevin talked to Taylor in person for the highly illeagal/b-day statement, and that the information was passed through a phone call.
Did anyone post about the important evidence will probably be labeled inadmissable because it was obtained without proper warrant?
Posted by: Heidi | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 09:36 PM
Latest article tonight -
Computer Cops Track Missing Teens Last Moments Online
http://www.nbc10.com/news/5120570/detail.html
Posted by: curious | Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 11:23 PM
Regarding the "highly illegal" statement. I dunno, I'm a wee bit skeptical it was ever made. If you met someone four times total, as Kevin and Taylor did, are you going to make a revelation like that? But OK, let's say she's either high or just niave and does make the statement. Now, if someone tells you something like that, wouldn't you ask, "ooooh waddya goin ta do, I got's ta know," or some such shit. His story: I wasn't interested. It just seems weird. A Skulz worshipper? Sycophant? I know, I know, the two supposedly NEVER met, but Skulz knew were to find him to ask questions the next day. And a Skulz skateboard conveniently disappears. How many damn coincidences are we looking at here?
Re the Grand Jury, I think they want to get people "under oath" so that can come back with charges later in the event someone is proven to lie. Makes you wonder though, do they have a case?
Next question: where did the "pelvic trauma" leak come from? Anyone have any solid evidence on what Skulz injuries were the day after he was abducted by aliens? Also---brown stain on the bed could be feces--when you die, everything moves south. Hate to say it people. Just another possibility...
Posted by: bob | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 01:25 AM
I know what you are saying about Kevin not asking enough questions, but my husband is the same way. Whenever he comes to me with a {truthful} story I start asking him all the important questions, but he always says I don't know. He is not lying, he just lets people tell him what they want to divulge. Some people are not inqisitive, or interrogative like us here. I think that if Kevin is an innocent, then Taylor did tell him that illegal statement, and most likely because Ben had laid a trap for her. I just do not know what a girl that was as wild as Taylor was could classify as highly illegal, other than murder, and I do not think Taylor would have agreed to kill anyone.
Posted by: Heidi | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 05:55 AM
That brown stain is one of the items that is going to be classified as inadmissable in court. The Hildy girl said on her journal that it was her blood stain from menstruation. She said the tampons were hers, and she is still complaining about some underwear the cops snatched. I have read some people reporting that menstral stains on a bed are coomon, but I am a woman, I ahve a grown daughter, and have helped make the beds of many family members and friends that are female and male, plus I often work as a maid or house keeper, and I have never seen any stains on a matress, blood urine, feces, nothing. Maybe we are just cleaner people, but I can say that I think blood on a boxspring is even crazier. Blood or feces on a boxspring means only one of two things, that some injured person was placed between the boxspring and mattress, or someone soiled the matress and then flipped it before the gunk dried. Anyone else have theories?
Posted by: Heidi | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 06:01 AM
>>Well, it seems that the males dislike Nancy
I'm female.
Plus, now I think I've gotten Nancy and Rita mixed up? I don't watch lurid TV much. I probably don't like either of them.
Posted by: Cosmic Mojo | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 08:29 AM
Heidi; with all of these bedding changes, both female AND male, if you've never seen any stains on mattresses. You are either very ,very young, not doing it correctly or need your eyes checked. Not every one uses a mattress pad.
The stain from Bens bed was first described as large...that isn't menstral and is worth suspicion.
Posted by: Rick | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 08:33 AM
mojo: Thanks for answering that. I was imagining something more sexist, but you surprised me. I imagine that if you watch these two once, you will understand my not wanting to.
Posted by: Rick | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 09:05 AM
I saw one of them once, be it Nancy or Rita and she was lurid, dependant on sensationalism, crass, loud, not very smart. on and on
It's all sensationalism over contect, so I can't stand it, be it a man or a woman.
I think they use women because the audience finds them more sympathetic?
I agree with you on all those hosts you summarized (loved the 'being a bully is not a new spin). That, apparently, is what people like, what makes the ratings: loud, aggressive uncooperative people trying to force their views on others. I don't like any of them; prefer to think for myself.
Posted by: Cosmic Mojo | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 09:39 AM
sensationalism over CONTENT
more coffe please!
Posted by: Cosmic Mojo | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 09:44 AM
It seems to me you should consider all things Fawley said after September 5th to be 100 per cent lies. And he is so transparent. He is a terrible liar judging by the 2 video interviews that were done on Richmond TV while the search was underway.
Posted by: joeb | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 09:45 AM
she's a drama queen, which I can not stand!
remember Tom Snyder? Now there was a great talk show host., sigh
Posted by: Cosmic Mojo | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 09:45 AM
I think it is wrong to think of Taylor as being experienced in any way. Have you ever met a 17 or 18 year old girl who was really experienced and confident and worldly? I havent.
Posted by: joeb | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 09:54 AM
"...A Skulz worshipper? Sycophant? I know, I know, the two supposedly NEVER met, but Skulz knew were to find him to ask questions the next day."
Posted by: bob | Oct 19, 2005 1:25:45 AM
Good point, Bob. Maybe Ben asked Taylor if she had told anyone where she was going that night.
Posted by: p | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 09:56 AM
I thought Snyder was the original talk show a..hole. Style was just different for the time, because everyone else were supposed to be comedians - didn't he smoke on the show?
Posted by: bull | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 09:56 AM
>>I think it is wrong to think of Taylor as being experienced in any way. Have you ever met a 17 or 18 year old girl who was really experienced and confident and worldly? I havent.
Posted by: joeb | Oct 19, 2005 9:54:12 AM
I agree with you joeb.
Experience is just that: experience and it only comes with time. Living through situations, expereincing challenges, learning to deal with problems.
What precocious kids have is exposure to more adult things than most kids, but they still haven't learned how to DEAL with those adult situations.
There are no short cuts, you have to do the time, walk through the situations in life, try, fail, try, fail, learn, try, learn, expereince. And that's how one becomes mature and expereinced.
Posted by: Cosmic Mojo | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 09:58 AM
>>I thought Snyder was the original talk show a..hole. Style was just different for the time, because everyone else were supposed to be comedians - didn't he smoke on the show?
Posted by: bull | Oct 19, 2005 9:56:58 AM
a-hole in the good way or the bad way?
;)
I can't help it I loved Snyder. Because he had REAL people with interesting things to say, not just airheaded celebrities. And he really listened and asked provocative questions.
Sorta like the bad boy (if he wanted to smoke, he smoked!) Charlie Rose, only Snyder paused to let the guest answer!
;)
Posted by: Cosmic Mojo | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 10:01 AM
We know they are not experienced, but the problem is they don't realize it yet. When I think back on the things I did when I pretty much knew everything, late teens and early twenties, it just makes me shake my head.
Posted by: bull | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 10:02 AM
Joe:
I liked Snyder because he was so easy to mimic and it would get laughs - he did the ba, ba, ba (at least that's what I always called it) thing and always flung his arms around making you wondering the ash would fall. Ba, ba, ba thing was how he repeated words like I, you, etc. He had a distinctive delivery.
BTW you upper or lower quad. I was upper, which I really liked. Was like being at a small college, never had to walk the drill field and really close to most classes.
Posted by: bull | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 10:15 AM
"Next question: where did the "pelvic trauma" leak come from? Anyone have any solid evidence on what Skulz injuries were the day after he was abducted by aliens?"
Posted by: bob | Oct 19, 2005 1:25:45 AM
I've been wondering that, too, where the pelvic trauma info came from. And what it means exactly. If the remains were mostly skeletal, does that mean there were fractures on the bones in the pelvic area?
I think the cop that Ben reported his abduction to said that Ben had some injuries. I've been thinking how important that is, that Taylor may have been fighting Ben, and that cop's testimony will be important. But it just occurred to me that perhaps Ben injured himself in an effort to make his story more believable.
And what's with websleuths.com? You can't register if you have a free e-mail account? Grrr.
Posted by: p | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 10:16 AM
"I think it is wrong to think of Taylor as being experienced in any way. Have you ever met a 17 or 18 year old girl who was really experienced and confident and worldly? I havent."
Someone ring the church bells. I'm finding something to agree with JoeB about!! Teens at that age are totally experimental, even the more mature ones. Society exposes them at a very early age to adult things and never explains anyting. We get wonderful television like Desperate Housewives and Sex in the City. Kids see there are no consequences and believe that's the way to act grown up. Then they go to school......geez, dont let me strt on schools.
Posted by: Rick | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 10:21 AM
"Next question: where did the "pelvic trauma" leak come from? Anyone have any solid evidence on what Skulz injuries were the day after he was abducted by aliens?"
Pelvic Trauma came from a blog called the Dark Side
Posted by: Rick | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 10:26 AM
>>BTW you upper or lower quad. I was upper, which I really liked. Was like being at a small college, never had to walk the drill field and really close to most classes.
Posted by: bull | Oct 19, 2005 10:15:38 AM
I transferred to VPI after a year at VCU (couldn't decide on a major), so I only lived on campus one summer session. I'll be danged if I can remembver the name of it; it was for such a short time. Houseing was so limited, transfer students never got rooms.. But I was happy to live offcampus anyway.
Posted by: Cosmic Mojo | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 10:30 AM
The pelvic trauma came from Steve Huff on Darkside or CrimeLibrary I think (from one of his sources). Speaking of Huff, don't know if you ever look at Cino's LJ, but I thought it odd that on October 9 Cino said that Huff was the most objective blogger in the land and linked to a Huff piece that told how Fawley aka Frawley killed Taylor.
As for websleuths, it seems to be a lot of people throwing out wild unsubstantiated theories over there. Plus, it looks way too split up on different subjects for me. This blog seems to have a high number of Richmonders who are more knowledgeable about the area and the thinking in the area. I base that on the number of people who have replied in the locals section. Don't think you are missing anything by not being a member there.
Posted by: bull | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 10:30 AM
I've stopped gonig to Huff since he switched to required registration.
Posted by: Cosmic Mojo | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 10:52 AM