Fairfax County Double Murder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did BB upgrade HIS phone and AP's phone as opposed to his phone and Christine's? Hmm

This isn't weird to me. Christine's might have been relatively new, and AP's was old and the battery was draining too fast to be reliable. I had an au pair and we gave her one of my old phones while I upgraded. I have all the kids on my account and when I upgrade, I often upgrade one of them. My husband is on a separate account. There's a lot that's sketchy here, but I don't think that upgrading the au pair's phone when you upgrade your own is particularly suspicious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did BB upgrade HIS phone and AP's phone as opposed to his phone and Christine's? Hmm

This isn't weird to me. Christine's might have been relatively new, and AP's was old and the battery was draining too fast to be reliable. I had an au pair and we gave her one of my old phones while I upgraded. I have all the kids on my account and when I upgrade, I often upgrade one of them. My husband is on a separate account. There's a lot that's sketchy here, but I don't think that upgrading the au pair's phone when you upgrade your own is particularly suspicious.

Did your husband murder you two days after giving your AP a new phone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did BB upgrade HIS phone and AP's phone as opposed to his phone and Christine's? Hmm

This isn't weird to me. Christine's might have been relatively new, and AP's was old and the battery was draining too fast to be reliable. I had an au pair and we gave her one of my old phones while I upgraded. I have all the kids on my account and when I upgrade, I often upgrade one of them. My husband is on a separate account. There's a lot that's sketchy here, but I don't think that upgrading the au pair's phone when you upgrade your own is particularly suspicious.

Did your husband murder you two days after giving your AP a new phone?

And spoof a f3tlife account with his AP on your behalf?

[Anonymous]

What’s weird to me besides murdering your wife and trying to set up an innocent man to take the fall; is having your beloved daughter be there on that day. You could have easily had her with family out of state. But you needed to use her as part of your twisted plan. You are sick BB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did BB upgrade HIS phone and AP's phone as opposed to his phone and Christine's? Hmm

This isn't weird to me. Christine's might have been relatively new, and AP's was old and the battery was draining too fast to be reliable. I had an au pair and we gave her one of my old phones while I upgraded. I have all the kids on my account and when I upgrade, I often upgrade one of them. My husband is on a separate account. There's a lot that's sketchy here, but I don't think that upgrading the au pair's phone when you upgrade your own is particularly suspicious.

Did your husband murder you two days after giving your AP a new phone?

And spoof a f3tlife account with his AP on your behalf?

This is the key to the whole thing in my opinion. Initial statements from LE implied that CB wasn't in control of the account. Evidence entered by AP's defense seem to indicate CB complicit in the planning of the meetup.

Who planned the encounter:
CB
BB
BB+AP
BB+CB?

At this point there are things that point to all of those options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, here in the U.S., in Virginia, if BB reasonably believed that CB was in imminent danger of mortal threat, then he was allowed to shoot to kill the person creating that mortal threat.

That's why VA police have to link BB to knowing about JR coming over and the knife or role playing gig. If BB knows about those things, then it wouldn't be reasonable for him to tjink CB was in imminent mortal danger. Makes you wonder why his phone and AP's phone were destroyed/thrown out/went missing 2 days earlier, doesn't it?.

Is this actually correct, or one of the many things that are being said after a long game of telephone (pun intended) in this thread? My understanding was that the husband and au pair got new phones a few days before the murder. Getting a new phone is not the same as destroying an old phone. People upgrade all the time. Not saying the timing isn't suspicious, but I'm just curious which is the actual truth.

Did they destroy their old phones and get new, blank, starting-from-scratch phones as people keep repeating in this thread? Or did they simply get new phones, which doesn't mean any kind of erasure?

Wondering about this as well. The timing is less suspicious when you consider it was his birthday, which could be a reason for an upgrade.

Why new phone for AP also days before the crime? She couldn't afford it, she was taken to court by AmEx.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did BB upgrade HIS phone and AP's phone as opposed to his phone and Christine's? Hmm

Seriously. I think we all know the answer to this question.

Also worth noting that BB is very competent at tech/phones. He knows what needed to be wiped.

I'd imagine a lot of his criminal investigative training is re: electronic forensics. Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did BB upgrade HIS phone and AP's phone as opposed to his phone and Christine's? Hmm

This isn't weird to me. Christine's might have been relatively new, and AP's was old and the battery was draining too fast to be reliable. I had an au pair and we gave her one of my old phones while I upgraded. I have all the kids on my account and when I upgrade, I often upgrade one of them. My husband is on a separate account. There's a lot that's sketchy here, but I don't think that upgrading the au pair's phone when you upgrade your own is particularly suspicious.

Did your husband murder you two days after giving your AP a new phone?

And spoof a f3tlife account with his AP on your behalf?

This is the key to the whole thing in my opinion. Initial statements from LE implied that CB wasn't in control of the account. Evidence entered by AP's defense seem to indicate CB complicit in the planning of the meetup.

Who planned the encounter:
CB
BB
BB+AP
BB+CB?

At this point there are things that point to all of those options.

No motive is needed to convict AP. BB is another matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did BB upgrade HIS phone and AP's phone as opposed to his phone and Christine's? Hmm

This isn't weird to me. Christine's might have been relatively new, and AP's was old and the battery was draining too fast to be reliable. I had an au pair and we gave her one of my old phones while I upgraded. I have all the kids on my account and when I upgrade, I often upgrade one of them. My husband is on a separate account. There's a lot that's sketchy here, but I don't think that upgrading the au pair's phone when you upgrade your own is particularly suspicious.

Did your husband murder you two days after giving your AP a new phone?

And spoof a f3tlife account with his AP on your behalf?

This is the key to the whole thing in my opinion. Initial statements from LE implied that CB wasn't in control of the account. Evidence entered by AP's defense seem to indicate CB complicit in the planning of the meetup.

Who planned the encounter:
CB
BB
BB+AP
BB+CB?

At this point there are things that point to all of those options.

To be fair, it is only AP’s defense who is positing that CB controlled the account, and they have obvious motivation to get that idea out there in the public discourse. The Commonwealth indicates that they have reason to believe that someone else, not CB, was controlling that account.

[Anonymous]

The commonwealth never actually indicated this in court. Only FCPD during one early press conferences, when they were still forming their initial theories. If they had any actual evidence for CB not controlling the account, they would have definitely shared that during the prelim. Instead they only focused on circumstantial things like gun range visits. Which is a far weaker case, and risky to argue in court. I find it hard to believe they would withhold any facts that help their case. They've already shown they love to release any information that makes BB/AP look guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did BB upgrade HIS phone and AP's phone as opposed to his phone and Christine's? Hmm

This isn't weird to me. Christine's might have been relatively new, and AP's was old and the battery was draining too fast to be reliable. I had an au pair and we gave her one of my old phones while I upgraded. I have all the kids on my account and when I upgrade, I often upgrade one of them. My husband is on a separate account. There's a lot that's sketchy here, but I don't think that upgrading the au pair's phone when you upgrade your own is particularly suspicious.

Did your husband murder you two days after giving your AP a new phone?

And spoof a f3tlife account with his AP on your behalf?

This is the key to the whole thing in my opinion. Initial statements from LE implied that CB wasn't in control of the account. Evidence entered by AP's defense seem to indicate CB complicit in the planning of the meetup.

Who planned the encounter:
CB
BB
BB+AP
BB+CB?

At this point there are things that point to all of those options.

Who set up the encounter and who knew about it are relevant in assessing whether BB had a reasonable fear that he and/or CB was in imminent danger of mortal injury (i.e. does BB have a legit defense for shooting JR).

Before we get to that, we have to believe that JR had ACTUALLY stabbed CB multiple times. JR couldn't have stabbed her after he was shot by BB. So the only persons who could have stabbed CB are JR (prior to being shot himself) or BB (before or after he shot JR -- most likely after).

In order to believe that BB is innocent, you have to believe JR (who was invited to the home by someone), parked in front with his own car, in broad daylight at 7:40-ish a.m.., never had sex with CB, but killed her within minutes of arriving.

All the other details are just noise.

Either CB is stabbed by JR within minutes of arriving, or she had to be killed by BB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The commonwealth never actually indicated this in court. Only FCPD during one early press conferences, when they were still forming their initial theories. If they had any actual evidence for CB not controlling the account, they would have definitely shared that during the prelim. Instead they only focused on circumstantial things like gun range visits. Which is a far weaker case, and risky to argue in court. I find it hard to believe they would withhold any facts that help their case. They've already shown they love to release any information that makes BB/AP look guilty.

The F&tlife account is not needed as a factor re: the current charges @ AP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did BB upgrade HIS phone and AP's phone as opposed to his phone and Christine's? Hmm

This isn't weird to me. Christine's might have been relatively new, and AP's was old and the battery was draining too fast to be reliable. I had an au pair and we gave her one of my old phones while I upgraded. I have all the kids on my account and when I upgrade, I often upgrade one of them. My husband is on a separate account. There's a lot that's sketchy here, but I don't think that upgrading the au pair's phone when you upgrade your own is particularly suspicious.

Did your husband murder you two days after giving your AP a new phone?

And spoof a f3tlife account with his AP on your behalf?

This is the key to the whole thing in my opinion. Initial statements from LE implied that CB wasn't in control of the account. Evidence entered by AP's defense seem to indicate CB complicit in the planning of the meetup.

Who planned the encounter:
CB
BB
BB+AP
BB+CB?

At this point there are things that point to all of those options.

Who set up the encounter and who knew about it are relevant in assessing whether BB had a reasonable fear that he and/or CB was in imminent danger of mortal injury (i.e. does BB have a legit defense for shooting JR).

Before we get to that, we have to believe that JR had ACTUALLY stabbed CB multiple times. JR couldn't have stabbed her after he was shot by BB. So the only persons who could have stabbed CB are JR (prior to being shot himself) or BB (before or after he shot JR -- most likely after).

In order to believe that BB is innocent, you have to believe JR (who was invited to the home by someone), parked in front with his own car, in broad daylight at 7:40-ish a.m.., never had sex with CB, but killed her within minutes of arriving.

All the other details are just noise.

Either CB is stabbed by JR within minutes of arriving, or she had to be killed by BB.

And all of the above is noise at the moment as BB has not been arrested nor charged.

The charges against AP are straightforward and do not include motive or any of the drama or misdirection perhaps plotted by BB and AP. FF Now lays them out nicely.

https://www.ffxnow.com/2024/04/02/murder-case-against-reston-au-pair-tied-to-fatal-shooting-moves-closer-to-trial/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The commonwealth never actually indicated this in court. Only FCPD during one early press conferences, when they were still forming their initial theories. If they had any actual evidence for CB not controlling the account, they would have definitely shared that during the prelim. Instead they only focused on circumstantial things like gun range visits. Which is a far weaker case, and risky to argue in court. I find it hard to believe they would withhold any facts that help their case. They've already shown they love to release any information that makes BB/AP look guilty.

Strongly disagree. Not needed at the prelim and not necessarily part of case against AP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

BB gave his new and old phone to the police and unlocked them. Just an FYI

Roy here.

Out of all the things that didn’t happen, this didn’t happen the most.