Fairfax County Double Murder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.ffxnow.com/2024/09/19/trial-for-herndon-man-accused-in-slaying-of-wife-another-man-set-for-february

All I can think about is that, the little girl said ‘bye’ to her dad in the morning and will probably not see him again.

As for BB, imagine thinking you’re better than the police and then learning nothing’s gonna happened until next year. No chance of getting out at all.

Why on Earth would someone risk it all for nothing like that….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don’t understand how the police couldn’t arrest him before and was depending solely on Juliana’s testimony to do so. With so many resources…
Not criticizing the police, just don’t get it.

Because they only have one shot to arrest him. I agree and wish he was arrested much earlier (I am a neighbor and it felt uneasy seeing him walking around the neighborhood) but I do understand why FCPD had to be really careful with this case.

Ultimately, the question should be why did it take this long for Juliana to flip? Is it because her attorney is being paid for by BB? Is she just that clueless and naive hoping they will be back together again? Only time will tell but this arrest is a step in the right direction.

I've seen this speculated on a lot.

BB paying for Juliana's lawyer would be a massive conflict of interest and I am not sure that would be allowed even if Juliana agreed to it. I would be interested to know who is paying though.

Her mother gave an interview (Google it) in which she stated the family was not paying for the lawyer, nor had Brazil offered assistance. He's not appointed nor a PD so who else do you think may have been paying?

No idea. Maybe the au pair agency? It would not surprise me if there was a clause in the au pair contract that obligated the agency to pay for a lawyer in a circumstance like this.

I hope a VA lawyer weighs in. I really want to know.

You think the agency has subrogation clause in their contract that would require the agency to pay for the au pair's lawyer in the event the au pair commits murder while working? OMFG. I am a Virginia lawyer, but you don't need to be one to understand how ludicrous your statement is. 1) murder is not a reasonable action taken in the due course of her work duties of being a nanny, and 2) most employment contracts that have clauses like this have carve outs for willful misconduct and gross negligence, and I would say killing your employer qualifies as such.

And it would not be a "conflict of interest" for Bansfield or his mother to be paying for the au pair's attorney (someone wrote that). Conflict of interest where? Under what? The Virginia bar? There are conflicts of interest in representing clients in where if the same attorney that represented the au, pair, who had been representing her for a year and had obtained privileged information from her, then turned around an also represented Banfield in a criminal and/or civli case. I think it is unethical, but I don't know what you mean.

Posters need to stop the insanity with their Tik Tok/Twitter/Qanon conspiracy theories.

Well, this was unnecessarily hostile and rude.

Yes, I think a suspect in a murder case paying for his affair partner's lawyer when the affair partner was the nanny who happened to be in the room with both victims and the other suspect is at the very least questionable.

And you're the one that made up a scenario involving subrogation and the employer/employee relationship and called it ludicrous. I never suggested that. I believe it's possible an au pair agency could have something along the lines offering legal services insurance (which is a thing).

Most of this thread is speculation. We have people on here who believe Banfield's mom was posting on this thread.

I was not rude. You were still ridiculous and don’t seem to understand how these kind of contracts work. A contract for legal services for an au pair, under your scenario, would cover things that she did during her normal course and duties of being an au pair. Do you think shooting someone and being charged with murder falls in that category? No. So her right to pull on such kind of a legal services contract would be negated because her need for services wouldn’t qualify under the terms.

Do you even know about this kind of law or do you have a crazy imagination? Do you even understand the concepts of what you’re implying? I’m trying to tell you that it doesn’t exist but you won’t listen.

You are definitely upholding the reputation of lawyers as jerks. Calling someone ludicrous, ridiculous, and being hugely condescending is rude. I'm not sure what your problem is.

The problem is your rigidity and twisting yourself into knots with fabricated scenarios and doubling down and you’re 100% wrong. And your example of maybe the au pair has a contract for litigation services via her agency that would pay for her criminal lawyer when she’s charged for murdering her employer and another person is insane and makes my brain hurt. Just read over it again, what you kept proposing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don’t understand how the police couldn’t arrest him before and was depending solely on Juliana’s testimony to do so. With so many resources…
Not criticizing the police, just don’t get it.

Because they only have one shot to arrest him. I agree and wish he was arrested much earlier (I am a neighbor and it felt uneasy seeing him walking around the neighborhood) but I do understand why FCPD had to be really careful with this case.

Ultimately, the question should be why did it take this long for Juliana to flip? Is it because her attorney is being paid for by BB? Is she just that clueless and naive hoping they will be back together again? Only time will tell but this arrest is a step in the right direction.

I've seen this speculated on a lot.

BB paying for Juliana's lawyer would be a massive conflict of interest and I am not sure that would be allowed even if Juliana agreed to it. I would be interested to know who is paying though.

Her mother gave an interview (Google it) in which she stated the family was not paying for the lawyer, nor had Brazil offered assistance. He's not appointed nor a PD so who else do you think may have been paying?

No idea. Maybe the au pair agency? It would not surprise me if there was a clause in the au pair contract that obligated the agency to pay for a lawyer in a circumstance like this.

I hope a VA lawyer weighs in. I really want to know.

You think the agency has subrogation clause in their contract that would require the agency to pay for the au pair's lawyer in the event the au pair commits murder while working? OMFG. I am a Virginia lawyer, but you don't need to be one to understand how ludicrous your statement is. 1) murder is not a reasonable action taken in the due course of her work duties of being a nanny, and 2) most employment contracts that have clauses like this have carve outs for willful misconduct and gross negligence, and I would say killing your employer qualifies as such.

And it would not be a "conflict of interest" for Bansfield or his mother to be paying for the au pair's attorney (someone wrote that). Conflict of interest where? Under what? The Virginia bar? There are conflicts of interest in representing clients in where if the same attorney that represented the au, pair, who had been representing her for a year and had obtained privileged information from her, then turned around an also represented Banfield in a criminal and/or civli case. I think it is unethical, but I don't know what you mean.

Posters need to stop the insanity with their Tik Tok/Twitter/Qanon conspiracy theories.

Well, this was unnecessarily hostile and rude.

Yes, I think a suspect in a murder case paying for his affair partner's lawyer when the affair partner was the nanny who happened to be in the room with both victims and the other suspect is at the very least questionable.

And you're the one that made up a scenario involving subrogation and the employer/employee relationship and called it ludicrous. I never suggested that. I believe it's possible an au pair agency could have something along the lines offering legal services insurance (which is a thing).

Most of this thread is speculation. We have people on here who believe Banfield's mom was posting on this thread.

I was not rude. You were still ridiculous and don’t seem to understand how these kind of contracts work. A contract for legal services for an au pair, under your scenario, would cover things that she did during her normal course and duties of being an au pair. Do you think shooting someone and being charged with murder falls in that category? No. So her right to pull on such kind of a legal services contract would be negated because her need for services wouldn’t qualify under the terms.

Do you even know about this kind of law or do you have a crazy imagination? Do you even understand the concepts of what you’re implying? I’m trying to tell you that it doesn’t exist but you won’t listen.

You are definitely upholding the reputation of lawyers as jerks. Calling someone ludicrous, ridiculous, and being hugely condescending is rude. I'm not sure what your problem is.

The problem is your rigidity and twisting yourself into knots with fabricated scenarios and doubling down and you’re 100% wrong. And your example of maybe the au pair has a contract for litigation services via her agency that would pay for her criminal lawyer when she’s charged for murdering her employer and another person is insane and makes my brain hurt. Just read over it again, what you kept proposing.

DP I meant to thank you for your explanation and ability to bring reason to the situation. We all have watched way too much fictional crime drama, and don’t have a good sense of what really happens in a real life case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don’t understand how the police couldn’t arrest him before and was depending solely on Juliana’s testimony to do so. With so many resources…
Not criticizing the police, just don’t get it.

Because they only have one shot to arrest him. I agree and wish he was arrested much earlier (I am a neighbor and it felt uneasy seeing him walking around the neighborhood) but I do understand why FCPD had to be really careful with this case.

Ultimately, the question should be why did it take this long for Juliana to flip? Is it because her attorney is being paid for by BB? Is she just that clueless and naive hoping they will be back together again? Only time will tell but this arrest is a step in the right direction.

I've seen this speculated on a lot.

BB paying for Juliana's lawyer would be a massive conflict of interest and I am not sure that would be allowed even if Juliana agreed to it. I would be interested to know who is paying though.

Her mother gave an interview (Google it) in which she stated the family was not paying for the lawyer, nor had Brazil offered assistance. He's not appointed nor a PD so who else do you think may have been paying?

No idea. Maybe the au pair agency? It would not surprise me if there was a clause in the au pair contract that obligated the agency to pay for a lawyer in a circumstance like this.

I hope a VA lawyer weighs in. I really want to know.

You think the agency has subrogation clause in their contract that would require the agency to pay for the au pair's lawyer in the event the au pair commits murder while working? OMFG. I am a Virginia lawyer, but you don't need to be one to understand how ludicrous your statement is. 1) murder is not a reasonable action taken in the due course of her work duties of being a nanny, and 2) most employment contracts that have clauses like this have carve outs for willful misconduct and gross negligence, and I would say killing your employer qualifies as such.

And it would not be a "conflict of interest" for Bansfield or his mother to be paying for the au pair's attorney (someone wrote that). Conflict of interest where? Under what? The Virginia bar? There are conflicts of interest in representing clients in where if the same attorney that represented the au, pair, who had been representing her for a year and had obtained privileged information from her, then turned around an also represented Banfield in a criminal and/or civli case. I think it is unethical, but I don't know what you mean.

Posters need to stop the insanity with their Tik Tok/Twitter/Qanon conspiracy theories.

Well, this was unnecessarily hostile and rude.

Yes, I think a suspect in a murder case paying for his affair partner's lawyer when the affair partner was the nanny who happened to be in the room with both victims and the other suspect is at the very least questionable.

And you're the one that made up a scenario involving subrogation and the employer/employee relationship and called it ludicrous. I never suggested that. I believe it's possible an au pair agency could have something along the lines offering legal services insurance (which is a thing).

Most of this thread is speculation. We have people on here who believe Banfield's mom was posting on this thread.

I was not rude. You were still ridiculous and don’t seem to understand how these kind of contracts work. A contract for legal services for an au pair, under your scenario, would cover things that she did during her normal course and duties of being an au pair. Do you think shooting someone and being charged with murder falls in that category? No. So her right to pull on such kind of a legal services contract would be negated because her need for services wouldn’t qualify under the terms.

Do you even know about this kind of law or do you have a crazy imagination? Do you even understand the concepts of what you’re implying? I’m trying to tell you that it doesn’t exist but you won’t listen.

You are definitely upholding the reputation of lawyers as jerks. Calling someone ludicrous, ridiculous, and being hugely condescending is rude. I'm not sure what your problem is.

The problem is your rigidity and twisting yourself into knots with fabricated scenarios and doubling down and you’re 100% wrong. And your example of maybe the au pair has a contract for litigation services via her agency that would pay for her criminal lawyer when she’s charged for murdering her employer and another person is insane and makes my brain hurt. Just read over it again, what you kept proposing.

I don't think you were rude at all. (DP HERE). In fact, you took way more time to carefully write out what should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone know what happened in julianas hearing this morning?

I don’t know what happened and I haven’t seen it reported anywhere, but there is yet another motion scheduled for her case.

Motion Hearing - Criminal 09/26/2024 09:00 AM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don’t understand how the police couldn’t arrest him before and was depending solely on Juliana’s testimony to do so. With so many resources…
Not criticizing the police, just don’t get it.

Because they only have one shot to arrest him. I agree and wish he was arrested much earlier (I am a neighbor and it felt uneasy seeing him walking around the neighborhood) but I do understand why FCPD had to be really careful with this case.

Ultimately, the question should be why did it take this long for Juliana to flip? Is it because her attorney is being paid for by BB? Is she just that clueless and naive hoping they will be back together again? Only time will tell but this arrest is a step in the right direction.

I've seen this speculated on a lot.

BB paying for Juliana's lawyer would be a massive conflict of interest and I am not sure that would be allowed even if Juliana agreed to it. I would be interested to know who is paying though.

Her mother gave an interview (Google it) in which she stated the family was not paying for the lawyer, nor had Brazil offered assistance. He's not appointed nor a PD so who else do you think may have been paying?

No idea. Maybe the au pair agency? It would not surprise me if there was a clause in the au pair contract that obligated the agency to pay for a lawyer in a circumstance like this.

I hope a VA lawyer weighs in. I really want to know.

You think the agency has subrogation clause in their contract that would require the agency to pay for the au pair's lawyer in the event the au pair commits murder while working? OMFG. I am a Virginia lawyer, but you don't need to be one to understand how ludicrous your statement is. 1) murder is not a reasonable action taken in the due course of her work duties of being a nanny, and 2) most employment contracts that have clauses like this have carve outs for willful misconduct and gross negligence, and I would say killing your employer qualifies as such.

And it would not be a "conflict of interest" for Bansfield or his mother to be paying for the au pair's attorney (someone wrote that). Conflict of interest where? Under what? The Virginia bar? There are conflicts of interest in representing clients in where if the same attorney that represented the au, pair, who had been representing her for a year and had obtained privileged information from her, then turned around an also represented Banfield in a criminal and/or civli case. I think it is unethical, but I don't know what you mean.

Posters need to stop the insanity with their Tik Tok/Twitter/Qanon conspiracy theories.

Well, this was unnecessarily hostile and rude.

Yes, I think a suspect in a murder case paying for his affair partner's lawyer when the affair partner was the nanny who happened to be in the room with both victims and the other suspect is at the very least questionable.

And you're the one that made up a scenario involving subrogation and the employer/employee relationship and called it ludicrous. I never suggested that. I believe it's possible an au pair agency could have something along the lines offering legal services insurance (which is a thing).

Most of this thread is speculation. We have people on here who believe Banfield's mom was posting on this thread.

I was not rude. You were still ridiculous and don’t seem to understand how these kind of contracts work. A contract for legal services for an au pair, under your scenario, would cover things that she did during her normal course and duties of being an au pair. Do you think shooting someone and being charged with murder falls in that category? No. So her right to pull on such kind of a legal services contract would be negated because her need for services wouldn’t qualify under the terms.

Do you even know about this kind of law or do you have a crazy imagination? Do you even understand the concepts of what you’re implying? I’m trying to tell you that it doesn’t exist but you won’t listen.

You are definitely upholding the reputation of lawyers as jerks. Calling someone ludicrous, ridiculous, and being hugely condescending is rude. I'm not sure what your problem is.

The problem is your rigidity and twisting yourself into knots with fabricated scenarios and doubling down and you’re 100% wrong. And your example of maybe the au pair has a contract for litigation services via her agency that would pay for her criminal lawyer when she’s charged for murdering her employer and another person is insane and makes my brain hurt. Just read over it again, what you kept proposing.

I don't think you were rude at all. (DP HERE). In fact, you took way more time to carefully write out what should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

What is a DP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any update on BB’s hearing that was scheduled for 9am this morning?

His trial is set for Feb. 3

is that a win for BB or commonwealth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don’t understand how the police couldn’t arrest him before and was depending solely on Juliana’s testimony to do so. With so many resources…
Not criticizing the police, just don’t get it.

Because they only have one shot to arrest him. I agree and wish he was arrested much earlier (I am a neighbor and it felt uneasy seeing him walking around the neighborhood) but I do understand why FCPD had to be really careful with this case.

Ultimately, the question should be why did it take this long for Juliana to flip? Is it because her attorney is being paid for by BB? Is she just that clueless and naive hoping they will be back together again? Only time will tell but this arrest is a step in the right direction.

I've seen this speculated on a lot.

BB paying for Juliana's lawyer would be a massive conflict of interest and I am not sure that would be allowed even if Juliana agreed to it. I would be interested to know who is paying though.

Her mother gave an interview (Google it) in which she stated the family was not paying for the lawyer, nor had Brazil offered assistance. He's not appointed nor a PD so who else do you think may have been paying?

No idea. Maybe the au pair agency? It would not surprise me if there was a clause in the au pair contract that obligated the agency to pay for a lawyer in a circumstance like this.

I hope a VA lawyer weighs in. I really want to know.

You think the agency has subrogation clause in their contract that would require the agency to pay for the au pair's lawyer in the event the au pair commits murder while working? OMFG. I am a Virginia lawyer, but you don't need to be one to understand how ludicrous your statement is. 1) murder is not a reasonable action taken in the due course of her work duties of being a nanny, and 2) most employment contracts that have clauses like this have carve outs for willful misconduct and gross negligence, and I would say killing your employer qualifies as such.

And it would not be a "conflict of interest" for Bansfield or his mother to be paying for the au pair's attorney (someone wrote that). Conflict of interest where? Under what? The Virginia bar? There are conflicts of interest in representing clients in where if the same attorney that represented the au, pair, who had been representing her for a year and had obtained privileged information from her, then turned around an also represented Banfield in a criminal and/or civli case. I think it is unethical, but I don't know what you mean.

Posters need to stop the insanity with their Tik Tok/Twitter/Qanon conspiracy theories.

Well, this was unnecessarily hostile and rude.

Yes, I think a suspect in a murder case paying for his affair partner's lawyer when the affair partner was the nanny who happened to be in the room with both victims and the other suspect is at the very least questionable.

And you're the one that made up a scenario involving subrogation and the employer/employee relationship and called it ludicrous. I never suggested that. I believe it's possible an au pair agency could have something along the lines offering legal services insurance (which is a thing).

Most of this thread is speculation. We have people on here who believe Banfield's mom was posting on this thread.

I was not rude. You were still ridiculous and don’t seem to understand how these kind of contracts work. A contract for legal services for an au pair, under your scenario, would cover things that she did during her normal course and duties of being an au pair. Do you think shooting someone and being charged with murder falls in that category? No. So her right to pull on such kind of a legal services contract would be negated because her need for services wouldn’t qualify under the terms.

Do you even know about this kind of law or do you have a crazy imagination? Do you even understand the concepts of what you’re implying? I’m trying to tell you that it doesn’t exist but you won’t listen.

You are definitely upholding the reputation of lawyers as jerks. Calling someone ludicrous, ridiculous, and being hugely condescending is rude. I'm not sure what your problem is.

The problem is your rigidity and twisting yourself into knots with fabricated scenarios and doubling down and you’re 100% wrong. And your example of maybe the au pair has a contract for litigation services via her agency that would pay for her criminal lawyer when she’s charged for murdering her employer and another person is insane and makes my brain hurt. Just read over it again, what you kept proposing.

I don't think you were rude at all. (DP HERE). In fact, you took way more time to carefully write out what should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

What is a DP?

Different poster.

[Anonymous]

Neighbor here, i've been on the fence for a while if BB is guilty or not. So far all the evidence the commonwealth released has been pretty circumstantial. And it's hard to believe that CB and JR would have been found in the bedroom, if CB didn't have knowledge of his coming. Which makes the whole "Secret Fetlife" account theory moot.


Looks like they were doing a lot of PR in the background during the arrest. He definitely looks incredibly guilty in public opinion.

Also, did anyone else think it's weird that the TV camera's were ready to capture his perp walk? Normally they just drive suspects directly into the jail, where no cameras can see them

[Anonymous]

I just want to point out that in many cases when one participant in a crime accepts a plea deal sentencing is delayed until after the trial of the other participant.

In other words, if part of the AP's plea deal--assuming she accepted one-- is that she will testify against BB, the only way to make sure that actually happens is to wait until after she testifies in BB's case to sentence her.

Otherwise, there's a risk that she'll say something entirely different on the stand. If BB is then acquitted because of her change in her statements to the prosecutor and during the actual testimony on the stand, he cannot be tried again because of the doctrine of double jeopardy.

Here, any plea agreement between the prosecutor and the AP will probably involve her testimony against BB, so I don't expect her to be sentenced until she's testified against BB. Again, all this assumes she has agreed to plead guilty.

[Anonymous]

Can’t they get sworn statements from her before trial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Neighbor here, i've been on the fence for a while if BB is guilty or not. So far all the evidence the commonwealth released has been pretty circumstantial. And it's hard to believe that CB and JR would have been found in the bedroom, if CB didn't have knowledge of his coming. Which makes the whole "Secret Fetlife" account theory moot.


Looks like they were doing a lot of PR in the background during the arrest. He definitely looks incredibly guilty in public opinion.

Also, did anyone else think it's weird that the TV camera's were ready to capture his perp walk? Normally they just drive suspects directly into the jail, where no cameras can see them

I am unclear on the length of time between when JR entered the house vs BB and au pair. It's possible they went in right after him and held them both at gunpoint, made CB strip, etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neighbor here, i've been on the fence for a while if BB is guilty or not. So far all the evidence the commonwealth released has been pretty circumstantial. And it's hard to believe that CB and JR would have been found in the bedroom, if CB didn't have knowledge of his coming. Which makes the whole "Secret Fetlife" account theory moot.


I am unclear on the length of time between when JR entered the house vs BB and au pair. It's possible they went in right after him and held them both at gunpoint, made CB strip, etc

Exactly. CB may very well have been pressured into the FetLife profile by BB who then handled all the interactions and set up the encounter which CB agreed too (under duress) and all along BB intended to “stumble” upon an attack on CB and killed both. Please no one forget this guy was bedding the au pair in the family home. He has zero morals.

[Anonymous]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/09/19/brendan-banfield-juliana-magalhes/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/09/19/brendan-banfield-juliana-magalhes/

Super interesting details have emerged.