Taylor Behl Suspect Fawley Indicted For First Degree Murder

It appears as though the trial won't be starting for about 5 months. h/t TD

Amatuer photographer Ben Fawley faces first degree murder charges in connection with the death of Taylor Behl.

The charge of murder in the first degree means the Grand Jury believes the murder was premeditated.

Fawley admitted that he killed Taylor Behl, however, he said her death was an accident during rough sex.

17-year-old Behl was a freshman at VCU when she disappeared in September.  Her body was found several weeks later in Mathews County.

The case should go to trial in about 5 months

Comments

[Peace]

I am thankful that there were so many to come to Mike and Erin's defense. I also greatly appreciate St Gabriel's comments. I'm amazed by the people who pay their $12 to view these photos and then criticize them. Are these the webhosts making these comments? I would think bringing it all up in public certainly helps to promote the website.

[Captain Joe]

GC02001611-00 CINO, MICHAEL JORDAN POSSESS/DIST CONTROL Misdemeanor 09/16/02 Dismissed

[St. Lucia]

People need to understand that Peace may in fact be Mike's mother. And being a good mother, she has made it her personal mission to do or say what she must to publicly absolve her son of any social culpability in this matter, and to reinforce her steadfast belief that Mike is in fact ANOTHER, silent victim of BF.
Many have agreed. Many more have not. This will not change.
The reality is, while I respect her view, I disagree. He is not a victim. Taylor is the only victim.
Mike has said some pretty hurtful things publicly regarding Taylor on his LJ, and like all good revisionists, his supporters refuse to assume ownership of those remarks. And when faced with questions, they counter that people who fail to embrace their views are "holier than thou," "ignorant," or that we are somehow putting these "innocent victims" on trial.
We are not. They are not on trial. Stop manipulating our views to suit your liberal ends.
This clever ruse to somehow make Erin and Mike "co-victims" is also amusing. These two know each other, but while they may share similar interests, they do not appear to be cut from the same cloth.
Erin made no hurtful comments about Taylor on the Internet, she did not publicly post hurtful dialogue (including telling the world Taylor feared she had a yeast infection, and then Mike making jokes about making cake...) on the Internet for the world to see. She didn't say Janet's attorney threatened her, and talk at length about how wrong Janet's attorney was for asking her to stop saying positive things about BF in the press.
No, Erin didn't say any of these things. I can honestly say she's not said one hurtful thing to anyone that I have seen.
We can have these little debates about her "art" modeling another time. This little moral argument doesn't apply in the instant case. Because Erin has done nothing to own up to in relation to the players in this little drama.
Erin regrets ever meeting BF. As it should be.
But there are questions about some of the things Mike has said publicly.
And thank God RiehlWorld is a blog that embraces the first amendment, and we can talk about these things here in a civil manner.
Because, you see, Peace and her allies have successfully lobbied Court TV to censor any discussion about Mike that might somehow be perceived as negative. That's right. Anyone who talks about Mike will be banned. It's the old story of the squeaky wheel, I suppose.
I would have been banned for saying what I've said here. And while I have questioned behaviour and actions, I haven't gotten personal.
I really don't think that would serve any useful purpose. I have maintained all along that I really wish Taylor had a hero to step in and save her. But wishing don't make it so. There was no hero here.

My only caveat, and this is really a sideline: It is disturbing to see the movement here to trivialize the religious in America. Millions of Americans subscribe to one faith or another, and I defy anyone to find a member of any mainstream clergy who will embrace any S&M, fetish whatever-you-want-to-call-it lifestyle.
You are free to disagree with whatever church you wish. But please don't trivialize the impact of the religious right. They are controlling the country right now, and I assure you, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and G.W. Bush have issues with pornography. They are suing Google, and they will go after Internet porn. Just wait till the new justice ALito is sworn in...
But let's be clear, none of that has any impact on this case.
Yes, we know who will be tried for this crime. I just find all the branches on that tree fascinating.

[nova]

St.Lucia: Yes this is a much better place to discuss all aspects of this case. Court TV Message boards seem run by those who prefer censorship to open to discussion of all facets of this case. What are they afraid of? And how can you possibly learn anything new if discussion is so limited?

[St. Lucia]

I don't see a problem supporting the victim and the victim's family NOVA, and they do a lot of that over there. I'm all for it. Janet and the whole Behl and Pelasara family have been sent into turmoil over this and the sad thing is, this pain it seems so needless.
But how can you possibly look at societal issues--and these are not the same as criminal issues--if you have to second-guess what topics to bring up? If you have to worry, will this be censored? Will this thread be removed because someone found it offensive? Will I be banned because this is politically incorrect? Silence is never an answer.
It's no way to have an open discussion. Some posters will stray and some have in anger, but it seems to me that the marketplace of ideas can and will police itself. If I come on RiehlWorld making unfair personal attacks on Mike or anyone, then others will object. None of us know him personally, but we have read some of what he has said and done (in terms of posting IM logs), and we have questions.
I have always believed BF was directly responsible, but that he is but a product of his environment. And one place to look, the first place to look, is how America deals with mental illness. I'd like to know more about who diagnosed him a bi-polar and under what circumstances. I'd like to know whether he made child support payments and if not, why was no action taken?
Anyone who has dealt with a family member with mental illness knows about the shortfalls in the system. They know the afflicted has rights, and these cannot be infringed. But it seems to me, that in the journey of someone with mental illness, there is a line which should not be crossed and that line is pretty plain. It's the line where someone else gets hurt. And it's pretty clear there were a string of hurts before Taylor. And we know that no action was taken by CMHD. Why? Why no court order to take the meds? Why, if he was on paid disability for this illness, was there no state evaluations? Why wasn't continued payments of OUR money (mine, yours, the taxpayer's) to BF made contingent on his meeting the minimal threshhold of taking his meds? Why? Why? Why?
But we won't get answers to these questions.
It will be easier to prove he lost it, he killed her and he gets his sentence. I'll be curious to see the weight the defense gives to his mental condition.
So in terms of environment, there are a lot of places to look for faults. For cracks that someone could slip through. There were a lot of them. And the sad thing is we'll never get to the bottom of it.

[Jonathan]

The most amusing thing about Ben's "Bipolar Disorder" is how much of a bald-faced lie it probably is.
From what I recall, knowing three of his ex girlfriends, he has gone from being diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder to Chronic Depression to Paranoid Schizophrenia and now to Bipolar Disorder. He's never truthful about anything, and I for one do not believe for a second that he actually has Bipolar Disorder. I DID meet him, I DID interact with him and see how he interacted with others. He was not manic or depressive in waves, he was simply outright crazy all the time.

As far as the censorship goes, St. Lucia, I feel like it's an effort to conserve the public image of someone who has done nothing wrong. This kind of internet vilification can lead to an image perceived by more than just us web-posters. It can influence prospective employers, it can influence so much mor than just our questions. If it was a subscriber only website where only people who posted could read, then I would totally endorse any random questions that might arise, but as these are public forums where anyone can post any sort of thing slanderizing anyone, I don't feel like people are unjustified in asking to have a degree of moderation.

[nova]

I think what they are saying on the Court TV Message Board is that if it is not directly about the case they wont allow it. Since the gag order nothing is going on in the case. And in any event everything that can possibly be said about the case has been over and over many times. At this point there is nothing left to say about the facts because we dont know any more relevant facts. The Court TV Message Board seems to be a support group for the family. And that is fine. But it seems to be nothing more than that.
Jonathan: Thanks for your posts here. You are providing direct new information about BF. I suspected he was schizo and never bipolar. Or just crazy as you put it so well. I remember some crazy people have some allure to some young naive people.
And some young females have also been known to be drawn to "dangerous" males. Bad boys. Dont ask my why because I dont know.

[St. Lucia]

Most assuredly, if BF was on disability, then he must have been evaluated by a psychiatrist at some point, and that individual must have made a diagnosis. I am sceptical of the bi-polar evaluation and have been since the get-go. Legally though, that may very well be what he has. I'm certain he's undergone additional evaluations since he's been in jail, and perhaps the diagnosis has changed. Being "crazy all the time" is no doubt honest, but cetainly not a clinical term as you are aware.
And that said, we agree that he suffers from some disorder. And it takes us back to the question of how society deals with people who have mental issues.
Regarding the other issue brought up, I understand that motivation. And it goes without saying Peace and others must have their say. I'm not sure how widely read these blogs are, I can't imagine prospective employers reading here before deciding whether or not to hire someone. Another issue---are these folks who they say they are? She said she was, and we take her at her word. But the Internet is so anonymous, anyone can say they are her and say what they wish. And then how do you prove the URL holder was actually the writer? Impossible. I was quite frankly disappointed to see her comments taken away because they served to add balance to the discussion. It gave me a new perspective. I'm still asking questions, but at least I can understand that point of view.
At any rate, anyone seeking cold hard facts here is looking in the wrong place. And another issue is that we are dealing with public figures all. In the case of Mike, he's thrust himself to the forefront of a particular public controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. That adds a whole new dimension to the debate. I can't say whether that continues. But certainly no one has suggested he committed any crime? In relation to this case?
I can't embrace censorship under any circumstances, but I do support you 100% in your wish for moderation. I don't think questions about behaviours are pushing those boundraries, particularly since the questions are the result of public postings on the Internet. The individual you know has pretty much kept to herself and in regard to her, I agree with what someone else posted, there's really nothing to say. I just don't think you should take this Internet stuff too seriously.

[St. Gabriel]

St. Lucia, you said "People need to understand that Peace may in fact be Mike's mother. And being a good mother, she has made it her personal mission to do or say what she must to publicly absolve her son of any social culpability in this matter, and to reinforce her steadfast belief that Mike is in fact ANOTHER, silent victim of BF.
Many have agreed. Many more have not. This will not change.
The reality is, while I respect her view, I disagree. He is not a victim. Taylor is the only victim."

Could you please explain what you mean by "social culpability" in the murder of Taylor Behl?

I think Peace is just tired of seeing her son dragged through the mud and somehow accused of having a part in the murder of Taylor (indirectly). If people are going to accuse Mike, when in fact he is BLAMELESS in the murder of Taylor, then I would see how he IS a victim - of sorts. There is only one murder victim - Taylor. There is only one accused - Ben. Simple as that. Courttv is right in not allowing any more discussion about Mike Cino, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, or anybody else who is not involved in the murder of Taylor. The Taylor Board has to now focus on the trial. Plus, it's Courttv property. They can make their own rules. If you don't like it, then start your own site and discuss what you will.

Cap'n Joe - that's a pretty interesting piece of history you've got there, you want to spell out EXACTLY what you mean? Go ahead, don't be afraid. Let's be bold now! Let's be specific! Shall we?

[justathought]

St Lucia

First off every one here knows how I feel about bf so this is not in anyway my personal feelings of him. But I felt the need to try to answer your questions as I have been in the mental health field for more years than I can remember.

You asked "Why no court order to take the meds?" Every person with mental illness or mental retardation have the right to be part of their treatment plan, they have the right to pick their own doctors and they also have the right to refuse any medical treatment mental or physical if they want too. So all he would have to do at anytime would be to stop taking them. Yes someone could try to get a court order BUT that is only good for 7 days and a person still could not force them down his throat because then that would violate the right of choice and of being treated with dignity and respect. Even if he would have been commited into a treatment center they could not make him take his meds. All they can do is offer them. "Why, if he was on paid disability for this illness, was there no state evaluations?" There would have had to have been evaluations at some point and time or he would not be on disability. And there were probably more than one as I have never seen anyone get approved for disability on the first try. So more than likely there are plenty of evaluations on him but like anyone else those are not open to the public. "Why wasn't continued payments of OUR money (mine, yours, the taxpayer's) to BF made contingent on his meeting the minimal threshhold of taking his meds?" This also would be a violation of his human rights as he can not be denied food, clothing, and shelter for any reason and also it goes back the fact that he has the right to take part in his treatment plan, pick his own doctor (who could tell him that he didn't have to if he didn't want to) and the right to refuse medical attention. I have been a long time advocate for people with mental illness and mental retardation in Va. So I was just hoping to answer these questions.

Now as for bf where I would never violate his human rights, but I still feel that his body is lacking some electricity and I would love to fire old sparky up to help him out with this problem. And yes I really would be willing to be the one to flip the switch on it myself.

[St. Lucia]

St. Gabriel
I didn't drag anyone through the mud. I didn't say anyone but BF committed any crime. So I'm not sure where you are going.
I understand where Peace is coming from. People have asked questions about postings on a public LJ. Is there something wrong with that? Asking questions in a social setting? Can we just chill here a little bit? Peace explained much, if you read those threads, but now all of that is gone.
Court TV has another thread up there now which will be deleted soon. And so how many more threads will be posted and deleted, posted and deleted? Sooner or later the whole thing is gonna get old. So, what is your suggestion to police the Internet and stop people from saying stuff other people don't like? Maybe we should just get rid of all the blogs? Would that be a good solution?

[St. Lucia]

JAT,
So you are saying he has a right to disability and a right to refuse his meds? It doesn't make sense. I understand the treatment part, and I understand the refusal part, but the whole ball game changes when you are convicted of assault, doesn't it? Or you are a danger to yourself?
I know of one particular case in another state where a person WAS under Sect. 302 and they HAD to take their meds AND go for treatment or they would get another 302. That was court-ordered. And it involved being a danger to someone else.

[Captain Joe]

Geesh, St., I'm just trying to enlighten folks about a few pertinent facts about a friend of Fawley who still holds a soft spot for Fawley. A guy who introduced Taylor to Fawley (and didn't warn her about him), and who avoided going to Taylor's funeral to avoid Janet's wrath.

[Peace]

St Lucia, why anyone would question that I'm Mike's mom, I don't know. I'm not sure who else would post as his mother, but I also don't understand why it matters. What is it, exactly, that you feel Mike has said about Taylor that was hurtful? I also must disagree that MIKE thrust HIMSELF into the public eye. His LiveJournal was up long before Taylor was killed. I'll say again about the media interviews - Mike was told that the more he talked to reporters to keep Taylor's name out there, the sooner she'd be found. That was something he was doing for Taylor, in spite of those of you who believe he did it for the publicity. You're making a judgment call without knowing Mike personally.

I'm sorry that you find it "amusing" at the thought that Mike and Erin are "co-victims". I don't think you really understand mental illness. Certainly they're not victims in the same way as Taylor. They've had their lives dissected by the general public and by some whose personal mission is to destroy them. For what self-serving purpose is that?

Certainly this is a public forum. So yes, it is quite possible that some future employer would run across these names and have already formed an opinion because there are no rules for the maligning of characters. It's easy for most of you who are able to post without ever really begin responsible for your comments. You're able to say what you want without any retribution. And you feel that you are in a position to make judgments based on a limited view into someone's life.

It's not "my personal mission" to absolve my son of anything. He's not guilty of anything. I'm just fed up with the smut that people say about him with a disregard to any moral obligations to personal character. Mike has kept very private in his life until Ben killed Taylor. So, I must agree that the words "holier than though" come to mind. I wonder with all of the people who malign my son, have you NEVER made a mistake? Have you ALWAYS been so perfect? Mike is guilty of not being able to tell the future.

It's mind-boggling that Mike continues to be a public figure. People like Captain Joe that drag up a 3 1/2 year old charge (that was dismissed, by the way, Joe). And Joe is one of those who's made it his mission to continue his smear campaign against Mike. He's Vet4Bush on Mike's LiveJournal. I personally feel that he's slime. Not much better than Ben. So, yeah - you're right I'm fed up. I think you would be, too. Mike's not part of the case anymore. He's not even under a gag order because he's really not a part of it.

So, you have other questions, St Lucia? Fire away. Then let's move on.

[St. Gabriel]

St. Lucia, Did I say that YOU dragged Mike Cino through the mud?? I never said that YOU dragged Mike Cino through the mud. Others have and that is why Peace arrived on the scene.

Where'd you get this internet policing stuff? I was raised on Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. I believe fervently in freedom. That means property rights. Courttv can make whatever rules they want. If you don't like it, then go someplace else. Perhaps someplace less popular and sophisticated like.......hmmm.....well, like this site!

[St. Gabriel]

Capn' Joe, What was Mike supposed to tell Taylor? "Taylor, meet Ben. Ben meet Taylor. By the way Taylor, watch out because Ben is going to murder you. 'k?"

Joe, are you playing with a full deck, or did you lose something in the war?

[vedder]

Peace

Mike has pissed off alot of people with his attitude and his comments...

If you're so "fed up" with the Mike bashing,why do you keep reading it?

[peace]

Vedder - what would YOU do if someone were posting things publicly about someone you loved and cared about?

[vedder]

Capn' Joe, What was Mike supposed to tell Taylor? "Taylor, meet Ben. Ben meet Taylor. By the way Taylor, watch out because Ben is going to murder you. 'k

No, but how 'bout:

"Hey Taylor,Ben assults and chokes his ex girlfriends when they reject him,just want you to know....be very, very careful around him"

Is that asking too much

[peace]

"Hey Taylor,Ben assults and chokes his ex girlfriends when they reject him,just want you to know....be very, very careful around him"

Is that asking too much

Vedder - perhaps, if he'd known at the time. Since you only know what you've read online, Mike did not know Ben's girlfriends before moving in. They moved in after the fact so they only had Ben's version. At that point, they had no reason to doubt his side and really didn't know all of the details about.

[vedder]

Peace

Why do YOU think people are angry and upset with your son?...Why they feel the need to "bash" him...

Do you have any idea?

My point is it won't be going away anytime soon

Many people believe he is the ONE person who could possibly have prevented this nightmare...If only he had said....something...anything

But he didn't....you said youself,"he didn't feel he needed to"

[Captain Joe]

Mike did warn people on his Livejournal early last year what a crazy dangerous bastard Fawley was after he assaulted a woman. I just wish Taylor had seen that warning.

[St. Gabriel]

VEDDER DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT MIKE CINO IS RESPONSIBLE SOMEHOW FOR THE MURDER OF TAYLOR BEHL?

[vedder]

Right,Captain Joe

BEWARE OF SKULZ...Mike Cino

Yet the kid said NOTHING to his young,pretty friend Taylor

This is what alot of people have a problem with peace...

[St. Lucia]

Well Peace, I was reading the posts over at Court TV and someone named Peace was posting as Mike's mother, I really don't know if that was correct information or not. So I saw a Peace here and I just wondered.
Look, I'm not saying anyone is guilty of any crime. Heck, Ben hasn't even been convicted yet so I suppose his family might be mad about all the posts on the Internet too.
In terms of thrusting one's self into the public eye, it may have been unintentional, but posting IM messages and engaging in discussion about the case sorta puts one in the public forum as a public person, if just for this one limited purpose. I don't think anyone asked for some of that information to be made public, he just sorta offered it. I didn't even know he kept IM messages between himself and Taylor, let alone know to ask for them. So, one puts that OUT and talks on TV or newspapers and well, you sorta see where you can make yourself a public figure without thinking you are.
I don't know whether he did it for publicity or not, I don't think I said one way or the other, and really that's not relevant.
I think you have to be careful about saying his life was/is dissected by the general public. If you actually look at the views on CourtTV, we are talking 2,000 to 3,000 views of particular comments. How many people live in the USA? 300 million? So 3,000 out of 300 million is not what I would call the general public. So that's .00000000000000003 percent of the population that read those comments? NOT general public. And how many of those 3,000 went to look at the same comment twice or looked at it at a different library?
Seriously, you should do this next thing it will make you feel better. Go to the Mall someday in front of the Smithsonian or Washington Monument with a clipboard and go up to people and say you are taking a public opinion survey. Ask them, who is Taylor Behl? Who is Ben Fawley? Who is etc. etc.?
What I believe you are going to find, is that 1 percent or less of the people you talk to ever heard of any of those people.
I mean, I ask my friends about Taylor and none of them ever heard of her. I'm sure that is reflective of everybody.
And as far as people making judgments based on limited view. I was thinking about this the other day: do you realize that jurors are complete strangers and are asked to sometimes sentence people to death based on heresay? I mean, if the accused never goes to the stand, then the jurors never know the person they are convicting. Heck, even if the accused does testify they don't know him.
Isn't that odd? It's almost like complete strangers are far enough away from cases emotionally to render fair judgments.
You seem like a nice lady to me, pretty much on a mission which seems like the best thing right now. I was reading some of the stuff you said on CourtTV, and I just wondered if you were upset that they cut what you said? I can see where you wanted some things gone, but I would be upset if the common-sense stuff was taken away because people would see your side of it and just back off and worry about something else.
So right now that is my question I just wondered what you thought about that. Then I'll never say anything about anyone in this case unless they are in jail for it.

[vedder]

St Gab

Hit the cap button again,it will fix that...

Not once did I ever blame Mike or use the word "RESPONSIBLE"...

[St. Gabriel]

Vedder, So you are saying that Mike is not responsible for Taylor's murder, correct?

[St. Gabriel]

Vedder?

Vedder?

[vedder]

St Gab

What is it that you would like to say?

[St. Gabriel]

I asked you a question.

[vedder]

Again,not ONCE did I blame Mike or say he was responsible...

Does that answer you question?

[justathought]

St Lucia,

"So you are saying he has a right to disability and a right to refuse his meds? It doesn't make sense." Honestly yes. If a doctor has found him disabled then he is until someone else proves to the courts and the governing bodies that he is not. "I understand the treatment part, and I understand the refusal part, but the whole ball game changes when you are convicted of assault, doesn't it? Or you are a danger to yourself?" Ok here is the thing with that. As far as I know he was never convicted, only charged and the charges were dropped. BUT that being said........even if he was charged and convicted he would have to hold up the conviction what ever that may be jail or what ever it is. If he is a threat to himself or others yes someone could go to court and get a TDO (temp. detention order) but that is just a temp. fix because then he would go into treatment and then when he gets stable on his meds they have to release him. So then if he was not taken to jail for the conviction he would be released back to where ever he would go and that would include not taking his meds again as soon as he gets out if that is what he decided to do. I know it makes no since but that is the way it works. People that are MI or MR have more rights than a normal person and there are regional lawyers to make sure human rights are not violated. I currently work in a home for people with MR and MI and before we can even change the house rules they have to go before the Human Rights Committee to get approval. And these are rules like you have to knock on a door before you enter someone else's room or not having visitors of the opposite sex in a bed room unless the door is open. That type of things. There had been a fire in another home because someone smoking in bed but before they could change the rules to include that the residents could not smoke in their rooms it had to be approved first. And the insurance company will not insure them again unless that was in writing!
"I know of one particular case in another state where a person WAS under Sect. 302 and they HAD to take their meds AND go for treatment or they would get another 302. That was court-ordered. And it involved being a danger to someone else." I personally know the Human Rights Lawyer for this region of VA and Mathews and Richmond are or at least were in this region unless it has changed and there is no way he would allow that!

[St. Gabriel]

No.

I want you to say "I do not think Mike Cino shares ANY responsibility for the murder of Taylor Behl".

Then I will know where you stand.

[St. Gabriel]

Vedder?

Vedder?

[vedder]

St Gab

You already KNOW where I stand...

[St. Gabriel]

No I don't.

I want you to say "Mike Cino does not share ANY responsibility for the murder of Taylor Behl".

Say this and I will know where you stand.

[vedder]

Good night St Gab...

[justathought]

Hey Vedder

Isn't it nice to even have people tell you how to think????????????????? LOL like that is ever going to happen.

Hugs

[justathought]

where has abby and rick and every body been?????????

[St. Gabriel]

justathought,

who was telling vedder how to think?

[St. Gabriel]

I think it's just u and me right now.

[St. Gabriel]

goodnight, justathought

[abigail]

I'm here! Got an email from Rick last week. It seems like he does not love us anymore! :)

[justathought]

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm you were if you are asking him to make a quote that you wrote not him.

[justathought]

There is my Abby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)

Why does Rick not love us anymore??????????

[abigail]

Uhhggg. I've been wondering tonight because it's been slow here and now there is so much catching up to do!
It's probably just me, about Rick. He says he's been busy but he just has not been the same towards me since the pictures. For everyone else, no, no nasty pictures or anything. I don't know, he said he's busy.

[justathought]

Well I have not heard from him at all and that is unusual no emails or anything. So I don't know what is up but if it were from the pics I think he would still talk to everyone else. But that is not the case so I wouldn't worry about it. I know he has some things coming up in Feb that we had been talking about but until then I have no idea what is going on.

[abigail]

When did all these posts happen? I'll have to review them all tommorrow.

Jat--keep forgetting to make my IM active--it's all knew to me!

[Peace]

"I just wondered if you were upset that they cut what you said? I can see where you wanted some things gone, but I would be upset if the common-sense stuff was taken away because people would see your side of it and just back off and worry about something else.
So right now that is my question I just wondered what you thought about that. Then I'll never say anything about anyone in this case unless they are in jail for it."

St Lucia - in answer to your question, no, I'm not upset. I suppose I would like to see "my side" of it posted, but one of the points that I was trying to make was that Mike has nothing to with it. Yes, Taylor is a friend who stayed at his apartment. She met ALL of his roommates, not just Ben. Mike's comment "Beware of Skulz" had nothing to do with Ben being a danger. Mike and Ben had a disagreement that resulted in Ben moving out. Mike was concerned Ben might come destroy some of his property. A far cry from killing anyone. The Court TV board was to support Taylor's family, remember Taylor, and discuss the case. Mike's not part of that case. He's not under a gag order. The fact that the case went back to it's purpose is fine with me. I, too, want justice for Taylor as does Mike. I don't think the whole thread needed to be deleted, but I'm not upset that it was.

[Jonathan]

About Ben's mental illness:
-Anyone with a DSM-IV and a decent acting talent can duplicate the symptoms of bipolar disorder.
-Don't put trust in government employed psychiatrists to detect this... most of my experience with therapists hasn't been particularly good, let alone ones who are ordered to see patients.
-Just because someone is prescribed medicine or even ordered to take medicine does not in any way mean they will actually take it. The time that Ben broke into my house to "talk" to me at 4 o clock in the morning, he said that his therapist kept telling him to take his meds but he didn't want to because they made him sexually dysfunctional. I.E. unable to perform at all.
-I haven't done any research on mental disability yet, but my inclination is that he was probably put on mental disability initially for something else and the diagnosis just changed over time. Meanwhile, he remained on disability for being wholly unstable.