Taylor Lies!!!

Vicedr let me clarify what you said and then what I said. Because things about these stories and statements continue to change to fit your needs. I did not say statement of the month either. You continue to get your facts wrong. I said it was the award winning statement of the year.

Your statement, " If there was reason for arrest, he was guilty."

Well I don’t agree with that statement. I will say if he was acting outside of the bounds of the laws. Then evidently she was too. I think they both could be arrested. Does that make them both guilty? However, that would certainly be enough evidence to charge/arrest them both.

I don’t think a young lady should go into a bedroom with a young man ever at that age. We know what bedrooms are for and it isn’t always sleeping. Regardless of the age. I believe if I was in that situation the moment the door slammed (the story statements). I would have been screaming to the top of my lungs. Not only would the people in the house be clear something was wrong the neighbors would too. There would be no discrepancies in the fact something was wrong. Witness statements do not corroborate her statements (as stated in the story).

Since none of us was in that room what was and was not consensual can not be determined. That has to be based off evidence. Evidentially none exist except she said, she said no. And he said, she said yes to some extent. Remember she volunteered to go into the room. He did not force her into that room. She was free to leave that room.

Just to be clear on the statement of Mr Taylor.

Exonerated by Webster definition is: to clear from accusation or blame. I think the case was exceptionally cleared. Any person could have probable cause to arrest on a statement by an alleged victim. Unless he could prove he was Jacksonville on that date.

If you ever sit on a jury you will be instructed that because a person is charged with a crime does not mean you committed a crime. You must weigh the evidence presented before you and determine if the evidence meets the beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed that crime. Its called presumption of innocence.

People are freed everyday in court of law that committed a crime and enough evidence does not exist to prosecute them in a court of law. The same applies when people are prosecuted and found guilty of a crime. Only later it is determined they were not guilty. Its a two way street. The system is not perfect but its better than any of the ones I've seen in other countries.

You continue to misrepresent information. Mr Taylor said he son volunteered in the first investigation and was told it was not needed. Then in the second investigation he did volunteer to submit to a polygraph and evidently he passed the test.

Let me remind you that I have already made it clear that I am one of the parents involved.

My question to you is if the girl was lets say nine (9) years old and this person lured, which is what was done, into a room and attacked her, should she be arrested?  We all know that Adam Taylor was a wrestler and a  bully.  Do you not believe he could have overpowered her and covered her mouth?  Mr. Taylor keeps stating his son passed a polygraph test and the victims failed.  I would suggest you do more research on this.  Adam Taylor nor the victims were requested to or submitted to an FDLE polygraph at anytime throughout the investigation.  Seeing how this is the agency that investigated the case after the second victim and third victims came forward I would contact them for the results and not rely on an individual who has been repeatedly caught in lies.

In addition you stated what was written about witness statements.  I think we both agree CCSO investigation was questionable.  Let's wait and see if the FDLE reports can come out.  I have seen every interview transcript and every piece of evidence in the case.  I will be interested in your views if this is allowed to be presented. 

Well in the article they had at least 8 pages to show evidence. They failed to show any evidence in that article other than he said she said. So bring on the evidence. I believe if they had the evidence then the Governor should be involved and an investigation for public officials securing a benefit and using political and/or personal connection to cover up crimes. I think I know several people who like to testify to a grand jury about that happening in the county. I welcome the grand jury investigation.

I don't know who is telling a lie. As I've said before girls lie, boys lie, and adults lie.

You know the statement about the 9 year old. That is why they separate crimes from under the age 12 to under the age of 16. A different level of understanding of the circumstances presented.

If it is as stated in the article about the young lady and some of activity she had been engaged in. Then it was apparent she had no respect for the law because she was willingly violating the laws.

If all this information is public records and available for the general public as has been said. If you have seen the evidence and it is public records. Put it on the website so we can all see. If it's public records what you do with those records are at your discretion. Why hide the facts?

The Governor's Office has been contacted. I just came up with the age of nine but you seem to fail to see the point.  That is also why it is illegal to provide consent if younger than sixteen.  He admitted to this which is not he said/she said.  It is a third degree felony, Period.  As far as her not having respect for the law how is NO not NO?  Is she guilty or he not guilty because of anything she may or may not have done in the past?  If a grown woman has had sex at some point in her life and she is raped does that mean the perpetrator is not guilty because she has had sex prior?  Do you also fail to realize Rape and assault is not about Sex but instead about Power and Control?

In regards to the records being available to the public, the families would love to have this information made public, However, Mike Taylor has repeatedly fought to have this kept quiet. I know what he is trying to hide.  Maybe you should start questioning why he wants it kept under wraps. 

Keeping this information quiet is not by my choice. Pursuant to Florida State Statutes and the fact all were minors at the time I cannot legally release the details of the documents.  It is not at my discretion or I would have already discredited Mike Taylor's responses to his son's guilt or innocence as well as Mike Taylor's involvement.

No one has shown me by the way of evidence that a crime has been committed. This story is one sided and does not present a balanced report of the evidence.

No one was in that room but those 2 individuals. No one knows what happened but them. She said one thing, he said one thing. That's not evidence that convinces me a crime has been committed.

Until I see that evidence then I can's say who is telling the truth. If it is public records and was legally obtained for use in that story. Then I don't care what Mike Taylor or anybody says then its public records and those are for the public to see. The Sheriff stated the records were released with the proper redactions and they followed the law. Well if Folio can get them then anybody should have access to them. PUBLIC RECORDS! Major point.

You made the point about the age. I clarified why there is a huge difference in the age. The law recognizes that difference for a reason. I agree with the decisions of those that made those laws and made that distinction.

As I said show me the evidence. I am more than willing to review whatever you have to present. I will then make a decision but until then I'm not willing to convict anyone in the court of public opinion.

Let me say. Do you remember Jon Bena Ramsey? Her mother was accused of killing her and it was implied that she did. Only because of a high paid lawyer was she able to somewhat defend herself. She died an early death probably from the stress that the situation caused. It has been recently announced that evidence has come forward and she could not have committed that murder. How sad the mother did not live long enough to hear that news. In her heart she always knew she did not kill her child. But many in the public thought she did!

You don't convict people in the court of public opinion. IMHO

Angela-

You have ALOT OF NERVE talking to the mother or one of the victims like that. You obviously don't have any daughters.

You are not even one-sided. You don't even know what your cause is.  You clearly have problems understanding and disseminating information. If you are interested in the records, since they are public, go get them yourself! Why would fedup be inclined to share anything with you, since you are calling her daughter a liar, just like Taylor did?

Well, no you won't go get them, because you are not interested in anything that exposes Taylor for what he is, and that is an arrogant jerk that thinks he doesn't have to follow the same rules as anyone else. It is apparent in another statement you made (that you would be happy with Newman or Taylor) that you are not concerned about justice, you just want to smear Beseler. If Donald Duck was running against Beseler, you would pick him. And it obviously would not be based on merit or credentials.

You sure have been making a lot of blog friends today.

I didn't engage this mother she questioned my statements. I only answered them.

I would make the same statement to God (you can place any deity there) if he asked me the same questions. I didn't call her daugher a liar. I didn't call Mr. Taylor's son a liar. I didn't call Mr. Taylor a liar. I didn't call this mother a liar.

Do you really think asking for evidence that a crime has been committed is too much?

I've already stated that I don't have any children. I've stated I would never vote for Beseler. I stated that I would be happy with Taylor or Newman. What does that have to do with the situation and asking for evidence?

I think this mother believes her daughter. I think Mr Taylor believes his son. I said I don't know who is telling the truth.

I'm not so fragile that I worry about peer pressure or blogging friends. I can only state the facts as I see them. I don't jump on anyones wagon just because they say something. I try to be objective about any information I take in. Some will agree, some will not. Oh well!

It is quite obvious to all here that you have an issue with Law Enforcement.   I am not going to debate this anylonger as I feel I would have a more logical and intelligent conversation with a rock.  You say you are trying to be objective but that has not been your position from day one regarding this topic.  You have been clearly one sided.  Why didn't you answer any questions I presented to you?  You didn't because you are unable to try to twsit them to your way of thinking.  I have not seen you to be for Newman at any time in these blogs but have clearly shown how you feel about Taylor.  I would be willing to take bets on how quickly you would turn on Taylor if he was elected.  I am not going to debate this with you anylonger for I believe I would have a more logical, intelligent, and unbiased conversation with a rock. Now go ahead and try to come up with some statistic or bs to try to impress the other bloggers or justify your way of thinking. I'm Done.

I said I was done but you have now pissed me off.

You stated that you have no children then how about telling the other bloggers why you use your daughter-in-laws name instead of your real name Teresa? 

I've told you before thawt I know more than you think.  Would you like to openly discuss what happened to your son Josh while Lancaster was in office? 

We can take the gloves off or you can refrain from attacking the families.  YOU DECIDE !

You know what Angela? Who cares what you think? You are over the top and out of control on this. You have made yourself to be a lot more important than you are.

You spew so much hatred lately that I wonder about your mental stability. Who are you to say 'show me evidence'? You care not about anyone but what Angela wants to see and think.

Get over your self righteous self and move on to something else. Everyone is allowed their opinion. You have stated and overstated yours way too many times.

You don't want to believe anything in the story fine. You want to think that Beseler illegally let out records fine. You want to attack these girls and their parents as liars and such, that is not fine.

Unless you can produce evidence that they are lying then you yourself have not met your own burden of proof. Go play wannabe detective, wannabe cop, wannabe prosecutor and wannabe whatever else you wannabe someplace else.

I for one am sick and tired of your vitriol. I have yet to hear you ask for one bit of proof that poor Adam is telling the truth. Yet you think it is just fine to call these girls and their parents liars. What is wrong with you?

Have you gone so far over the edge that you can't see that you are nothing more than a prime example of Lily's 'Sewer Harpies"? 

Quit with the poor Adam line. The kid is a predator and needs to be reigned in before he does more harm than he already has.

Get over being such a witch and think about how the girls and the parents feel and how you would feel if it were your child. If you can't at least show some sympathy for them because you don't believe them so be it. But you have harped on this way too long. You have made yourself irrelevant.

Mike Heemer

Mike

Very well stated.  Thanks for the support.

I know I hate law enforcement. I hate children. I hate golf carts. I hate animals. I've heard it all on the blogs before. Oh wait a minute I have multiple blogging names too. I am many different people who have seen me at multiple places in the community all at one time. I have children. I have children who have been arrested. I have all kind of things on here. You didn't just invent anything.

The only thing I see here is I didn't jump on your wagon. By the way, doesn't some of the people happen to be in your opinion well connected in law enforcement. Well I'm now wondering how you determine I hate law enforcement. If they are apart of law enforcement. Yet I am defending law enforcement. Hummmmm! I think I'm better understanding your reasoning now.

I said show me the evidence. When I see that I will believe the evidence. I think any resonable person should and would expect the same.

Do you have any evidence he is a predator? Could you show me that evidence.

Feel free to say whatever you would like. I have nothing to hide. Just make sure that what you say is the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Not what you think is true but what you know to be true. Word of caution!

I have no reason to show you personally any evidence.  HOWEVER, continue with the attacks and I will let out as much as needed in regards to you.  Do you really want to take on this fight?

Can you show me evidence that he is not? Now, I shall leave you to your misery. 

Mike Heemer

You stated: I am many different people who have seen me at multiple places in the community all at one time.

I partially believe this.  I believe you are many different people, but I believe them to be all in your head.

Anything I say other than what is my opinion I can and will be able to back up.  You on the other hand have been making all kinds of allegations about the victims and parents in regards to their actions or inactions. You may need to be the one exercising caution here.

Well I don't think the burden of proof is on people to prove they are not a predator. I think there is a burden of proof to call them one. You made the statement I didn't.

I am sorry if I referred to you as one of the victims' mothers' in error.

What happened to Teresa's son?

Hazing!

Mike Heemer

I read the story. I said put the evidence on here of the statements you made. I didn't call anybody anything. I didn't call anybody a liar either. The evidence is not for me personally but everyone who reads that story and these blogs. Or should I just believe everything I read in Folio is the truth?

Are you saying every person who has taken part in hazing is a predator?

You are not alone!  I have seen the private reports.  Believe it or not, they were passed out at the so called "victims rally".  I actually have a copy!  Obviously someone who recieved them cannot follow laws governing their release either...and the only people who can get copies are the victims families and the Law Enforcement Agencies.  I really do not think FDLE or THE SAO would have copied them to pass out, do you?  Let me see where can the leak be now???

I don't need your help in making up my mind. You place WAY too much importance upon yourself.

Please don't patronize me and the rest of the blogerati with your 'it isn't for me, it's for you'. BS!

You don't have to believe anything. You don't have to believe that on occasion you act like an idiot either but there is plenty of evidence of that here on this site.

Mike Heemer

Well I didn't go to the rally. So I wasn't privileged to the information. Evidently it is not being given out as a public records request. Then evidently its not public records. As a person who is given confidential records for whatever reasons and then released they may suffer the consequences of that decision.

Joshua Martin- Arrested Christmas Day 2003 for felony possession of drugs (>20 grams of marijuana, FELONY), and 2 seperate counts of Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer (FELONIES).

This happened during Lancasters' administration, but when Beseler came into office Teresa requested the case be reinvestigated. It goes without saying that the outcome was not to her liking. Hence the hatred toward Beseler. Source: BCC Minutes, and Clerk of Court website.

Placing a statement on a blog that an individual is a predator without any evidence may not be the smartest decision I've ever seen a person make. But that's just me.

I did not go either.  I was working.  But apparently, information was being dispursed there and have obtained a copy by someone who did attend.

I think you may be wrong. I watched that BCC meeting. Beseler refused to investiate according to the lady and the documents she submitted. I think she asked the BCC to have this investigated.

I don't think that would be a smart decision either. That's just me.

The case was reviewed under Beselers administration at your request, but outcome was the same.

But thanks for confirming your identity.

I will not disclose information or names, but it amazes me this is still going on with the information contained in these records...

I have looked up the information you provided. The person was found not guilty and the marijuana was dropped. Sounds interesting! You have anymore information?

Wasn't one.

I certain if there were enough evidence it would have been taken care of in the court of law.

You are right!

Enough,

If you were not at the victims' rally, how do you know that private reports were passed out? 

Does not matter what the outcome of that case was. The point is that you have a personal grudge because you feel your son was wronged, and he wasn't, and you can't handle that. Since you missed it again, I will tell you what the big picture is. You have a personal problem and you are unable to be objective. You made a big mistake in insulting the victims of a sex crime. That is generally unacceptable to people. And if you really expect anyone to believe that you looked up that information in 10 minutes, while blogging (3 posts) at the same time, you are wrong!

Again, thanks for confirming what so many people suspected all along.

Well I saw those meetings because I watch all the meetings. I remember her submitting evidence it was not properly investigated. You think this is another he said she said case. She seemed to have alot of evidence. I haven't seen her in awhile. So maybe they are investigating the information. Maybe you have more information than I do. As far as this case we are talking about I haven't seen any evidence yet.

Look in the mirror. If you can stand it.

And how would you know by watching a meeting that she had evidence that it was not properly investigated? Do you really just believe something that a stranger says? Actually, didn't you say at one point that you know her? So which is it-you watched the meeting or you know her. Be careful- we are not dumb. Don't make the mistake of thinking we are. When you lie, it gets difficult to cover your tracks. Mistakes are made.

Well how many computers do I have? Have many words can I type per minutes. How many screens do I have on my computer? How do you know what I can look up and  in how many minutes. It is but a finger access away you know. A click of your mouse. You provided the name. Wait a minute was he on a golf cart when he was arrested? Right. Did he have his dog with him? Right. Gosh your a genius.

maybe the so-called friends of the victims are not as loyal as you think!

I think maybe you should start watching the meetings. I think I would place more validity in a women placing evidence in a public record at the BCC meeting. Than I would people submitting their side of a story with no evidence in an article in Folio.

The rally was open to the public.

I have a copy of the "sealed police report".  The only people this report was given to are the families of the victims and the Law Enforcement agencies.  Unless CCSO made copies of them to pass out, there is only one other way copies were made...

Yes, we know you would. And we also know that you have no credibility whatsoever in your opinions, because they are in no way based on fact. Only the world according to Angela/Teresa. Oh, and by the way- please do remember that there have been no lawsuits brought forth by the Taylor family about this article. So one would believe that there is nothing in there that could be disputed in a court of law..

Oh, by the way-your son was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Here's to hoping that you did not keep him from getting the help he needed and deserved.

You may want to quit while you think you are ahead.