BB is no longer employed with the IRS as of 9/4/24. |
I am saying B the defense did NOT introduce this at the hearing. The hearing is short, as in a few hours. I think it was three perhaps. I dont remember the exact amount. During the hearing the prosecution lays out just enough evidence and witnesses to get the case to move forward. The case is not a full case it's a fast process. Witnesses called on the prosecution's side. It's all about their burden of proof to proceed so none of this would have been during the pre trial hearing. Only details more or less of how the prosecution intended to try to present a case. I have no idea why the poster got that wrong with listing facts that were not facts or even speculation on the prosecutions part. I stated I dont know how they were so confused and misrepresented what actually happened in court, or if they intentionally were motivated to sway an audience online. I would prefer not to say they lied because it suggests I know their motives. I can't speak to that, I can only speak to the what the prosecution presented and what I recall from the defense. I have a good understanding of this case, I was at the hearing, and I am clear headed and have good observational skills. Why did I not post sooner when I read the original post or why do I not post more often in this forum about the case? I fear I will slip up and give information that might be harmful to Joe and Christine getting justice. I however do not want to go down as to have not stood up publicly either and say some of what I know. It's a fine line and it creates great stress to be careful and closed mouthed while still supporting the victims and wanting the killers to pay for their crimes. |
Interesting that the other poster would be so specific. I'm disappointed if they made up those facts to confuse things. I believe there have been multiple hearings (maybe 3?). How many have you attended and which one are you speaking of? |
It was brought up by prosecution that it was believed that Joe had been communicating with whom he thought was Christine. What was presented by defense is an accurate picture of the murder scene as told by the paramedics, and the police. The state of undress or dress of both parties were in evidence given, as was their injuries. The prosecution did not ever say that Joe arrived to find Christine naked, or who initiated or made the phone calls or texts, because they dont believe it was actually Christine and Joe speaking to each other. They did NOT ever lay out the exact scene when Joe walked in, as that isn't something they need to prove or say in a pretrial hearing. It did NOT happen in the hearing and the person who posted the information on the pretrial hearing intentionally misinformed or unintentionally did so. We don't know if Joe introduced the idea of blood play or a knife, or if the person Joe was communicating with brought it up. I can not reveal more than what was in the pretrial hearing because it wouldn't be a good idea for the case going forward. I will say however anyone relying on the details and opinions in that post should know that another person who went to the case says it isn't what happened, and if you read how it is laid out it has the supposed facts coming from the defense witness, which makes it totally biased and not a fact at all. Read it again for yourself and see the giant holes in their perspective. |
I went only to the evidentiary hearing where the prosecution lays out its case, and gives enough evidence to go forward. It is not a trial scenario at all. It is put in place to insure cases without enough evidence do not waste the courts time or unfairly burden the accused. The other hearing was closed to the public, I was told how it went. The other hearing related to her not being granted bail because she was a flight risk with her visa, and also because of the nature of the crime and charge, 2nd degree murder doesnt usually get to go home. I think there were four hearings but only the one hearing was really related to the actual crime and open to the public. I did wonder and still do the motivation of the other poster why they stated things the way they had. I dont know, a lack of critical thinking, or as I said nefarious reasons? It was well written so this leads me to believe that it was nefarious, and they have actual reasons to mislead people about what occurred in court. |
public record? |
Probably not |
Resignation or dismissal? |
Sweetheart, facts are facts. That's what came out of the bond hearing. You are making thing sup. |
I am not your sweetheart. I clearly I am telling the truth as backed by the reality that there was enough evidence to move the case forward to trial and for the prosecutor to publicly state Joe was a victim and not a perpetrator of a crime. As brendan took the fifth over and over again in court, and the defense protested and suggested the prosecutor was also trying to publicly point out that brendan was also considered a suspect in the crime the Judge said in effect well that may well be and it seems they are trying to do this but I see it as being totally allowed and fair game.
I am not the original poster who said tick tock tick tock... but let me now use the phrase tick tock tick tock. Facts are proven, and the story the previous poster was not the facts or even the false story anyone told in court that day, it was not a trial hearing, it was only an evidentiary hearing so that the trial would proceed. The trial is proceeding, and fingers crossed the next arrest will be pending. There is a reason no news paper, no online articles, no tv spots reported this false story as if it was fact and presented in a court of law, because it's fiction created by someone that wants you the public to believe it. It is a bold lie, don't be manipulated by the poster or the lies the guilty parties, or their families may or will tell. The truth remains to be proven in court, and the prosecution and law enforcement have been clear always since the start of the beginning where the evidence points, and what they believe happened. The case is still very much open, it is open because as stated they see Joe Ryan as the victim of the crime of murder. |
look its Brendan's mom again! |
The 142/144 post was a summary from the BOND hearing which was closed to the public on April 2. |
Well he sure as hell ain't resigning with that administrative leave free vacation. |
it seems like both of these posters are talking about a different court date and hearing. I assume thats why there was a different take on what happened. In that case during the bond hearing which was closed to the public the original poster wasn't present either unless they are part of the defense team. So it's still completely from the defense stand point where they talk about whatever details they claimed are facts but are really just one sided. The other poster said he or she went to the prosecution's evidentiary hearing where the prosecution presents only the facts needed to bring the case to an actual jury hearing, and in that type of hearing the defense legally can only object but can not give testimony at all as here is ZERO cross questioning allowed. It's important when viewing this case being aware of what "real facts" are proven scientific verified evidence, and what credible witness testimony tells us should be what we consider as facts. Not stories given by people that refused to be interviewed by the police after a murder occurred, or people that hung up on a 911 call while letting people bleed out, or people that purchased guns 3 weeks before a gun murder, or people having an affair before and after that murder and than sleeping in the same bedroom as the murdered woman slept while alive. |
Some news outlets were at the bond hearing. |