Fairfax Murder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Much of this is a class issue too. Not the the couple was much different than Joe, but people will judge him for being a stud.

Maybe people will rightly judge him for being a ruthless murderer who may have also gone after the daughter and au pair had not the husband acted in lawful defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Much of this is a class issue too. Not the the couple was much different than Joe, but people will judge him for being a stud.

Maybe people will rightly judge him for being a ruthless murderer who may have also gone after the daughter and au pair had not the husband acted in lawful defense.

Much more likely Joe died doing what he loved, laying pipe.

[Anonymous]

^ Most plausible scenario.

[Anonymous]

There is a reason why a case stays open and continues to be investigated. In this case, clearly, it is believed, by law enforcement, based on physical evidence and testimony that there is a case to be investigated. The case remains open, which means something does NOT fit with the husband‘s story.

I am of the camp that believes there are two distinct victims, Joe and Elizabeth. That is what Law Enforcement has always said in this case. Proving and setting up a criminal case takes time. What is clear is that the investigation was NOT an open and shut case. Or it would be quickly closed based on the physical forensics, alone. It was NOT closed. So maybe people might want to rethink their judgements about who they think Joe is, and who they think the husband was. Let’s all keep in mind the 13 and half minute delay with the 911 call, and the facts which people in the forum think they know but may not be privy to as people closer to the case are. As time passes and the case stays open there is every reason to believe that a full blown investigation is warranted as it’s clearly happening. So continuing to not validate any the people that believe the guilty party or parties are under investigation currently and that justice wont be forth coming seems not very thought out, because I repeat there is an ongoing investigation and that is public record.

Perhaps consider if slinging personal insults at anyone that defends a person they see as a murder victim might be lacking empathy and understanding. Try to see the bigger picture perhaps and try to see that this is a discussion and not a place to make harsh comments about people you don’t know at all, and situations you have limited information about.

[Anonymous]

Who is Elizabeth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is Elizabeth?

no one, I meant Christine, I'm unsure why I would make that name mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anyone seen an update?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone seen an update?

Nada.

[Anonymous]

I keep checking for an update on this story but have heard nothing.

[Anonymous]

the investigation is still totally open. It is clear that if the facts fit the narrative of Joe Ryan killing Christine Banfield was what the police found to be true the case would have closed. It's open because police believe that there is reason to suspect there is a case worth continuing to investigate. Forensics are not fully in yet, and the longer the case stays open the more likely it is that the police believe it should be open, and are actively building a case against those they believe committed a crime. It looks more like the husband killed them both and not less as time goes on. Police are intentionally being quiet because they are building a case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is clear that if the facts fit the narrative of Joe Ryan killing Christine Banfield was what the police found to be true the case would have closed.

I said this wrong, backwards... I wrote that It is clear the facts fit the narrative when what I meant to type is it is clear the facts do NOT fit the narrative of Joe killing Christine. I totally meant NOT fit rather than "just" fit. Omitting the word NOT makes what I wrote not make sense and was not my meaning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is clear that if the facts fit the narrative of Joe Ryan killing Christine Banfield was what the police found to be true the case would have closed.

I said this wrong, backwards... I wrote that It is clear the facts fit the narrative when what I meant to type is it is clear the facts do NOT fit the narrative of Joe killing Christine. I totally meant NOT fit rather than "just" fit. Omitting the word NOT makes what I wrote not make sense and was not my meaning.

What is clear is you have no clue besides what TV has told you. No one cares about your TV detective degree and your assumption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is clear that if the facts fit the narrative of Joe Ryan killing Christine Banfield was what the police found to be true the case would have closed.

I said this wrong, backwards... I wrote that It is clear the facts fit the narrative when what I meant to type is it is clear the facts do NOT fit the narrative of Joe killing Christine. I totally meant NOT fit rather than "just" fit. Omitting the word NOT makes what I wrote not make sense and was not my meaning.

What is clear is you have no clue besides what TV has told you. No one cares about your TV detective degree and your assumption.

Not the person you are replying too but why be so nasty and then say something that does not fit the facts? It is a FACT that the investigation was not closed quickly. It everything seemed to line up with the husband's story, it would have been closed. LE chose to continue to investigate. This case has received little tv coverage so that jab is also a bit nonsensical. Touch grass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is clear that if the facts fit the narrative of Joe Ryan killing Christine Banfield was what the police found to be true the case would have closed.

I said this wrong, backwards... I wrote that It is clear the facts fit the narrative when what I meant to type is it is clear the facts do NOT fit the narrative of Joe killing Christine. I totally meant NOT fit rather than "just" fit. Omitting the word NOT makes what I wrote not make sense and was not my meaning.

What is clear is you have no clue besides what TV has told you. No one cares about your TV detective degree and your assumption.

No what is clear is you are wrong, and this is an open discussion forum. I actually know about the case, and anyone can look that the case is still open and very active. Personally attacking other posters just shows you have a need to invalidate others who might not agree with you.

People reading this should wonder not why I am posting some logical arguments and but why is a person verbally attacking other posters for no valid reason.

[Anonymous]

I think it's clear that the police don't consider this a slam dunk case of self defense. Of course, that doesn't mean that they won't eventually conclude it was self-defense, but given that there's still an active investigation after 2 years, we should all be able to agree that police don't see this as an easy case.