Fairfax County Double Murder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:About 10 years ago I was on the jury for a murder trial (large east coast city but not DC). It was pretty straightforward, the state wanted first degree murder and the defendant was arguing that it was self defense, and I think there was also an option for us to pick second degree murder ("heat of passion" or whatever) if we thought that was more appropriate? Spoiler alert, we didn't, we picked first degree murder.

Anyways, my point is, I remember the forensic testimony and I remember taking notes because I felt like I was getting clues to solve a mystery- I was like "oh! the lady said that the stab wounds were at an X degree angle, that means they were pointed downwards, that seems like he was kneeling or on the ground when he was stabbed- that can't be self defense!!" and I felt so proud of myself for being so clever, and wondering why on earth the prosecution was leaving it up to me to connect all of these dots from the testimony.

But, I was wrong. The closing statement tied it all together and pointed out very clearly all of these things that I thought I was supposed to put together on my own. They know that juries are often filled with many not very intelligent people. In this case too, I am sure that during closing arguments, the prosecution will be very clear as to what all of the testimony is pointing towards- they will explain the blood splatter on the shoes as being important, they will explain the blood clotting disorder piece and why it's important, they will explain it all.

I really hope you are right.

Comments on the CW attorney are disheartening. This is a big case. They have had tons of time.

Has the commonwealth attorney himself been there. I thought he was quite accomplished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not sexist or superficial to comment on the prosecutor’s attire when it is that unprofessional. It’s disrespectful to the court and jury. She was wearing culottes today with a baggy sweater. It doesn’t have anything to do with the facts of the but it does not aspire confidence or that the state is taking this case seriously

Can someone post a link and time stamp? I watched some footage today but the prosecutor was off screen for all of it.

https://youtu.be/R6DKKqIkGvk?t=1662
28 minutes
Just chillin'

[Anonymous]

Defense is objecting to things like the photograph with markings to preserve the issue for appeal. Generally on appeal the issue or error has to have been raised contemporaneously to be considered so defense is just doing their job.

I am a little surprised the CW didn’t bring the doctor in or a medical expert to review records. I can understand wanting to stay focused on a cohesive narrative and I think the CW has done a pretty good job of that so far but it seems like it would have been worth it to at least briefly go over those. I guess they got there overall. The dad did say there was a “treatment” that she got, instead of an ongoing medication and it was given by doctors, not the parents. I would assume this was an injection. Overall it seems like it might have been worth it to establish this but I guess I would say I found the dad’s testimony credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Defense is objecting to things like the photograph with markings to preserve the issue for appeal. Generally on appeal the issue or error has to have been raised contemporaneously to be considered so defense is just doing their job.

I am a little surprised the CW didn’t bring the doctor in or a medical expert to review records. I can understand wanting to stay focused on a cohesive narrative and I think the CW has done a pretty good job of that so far but it seems like it would have been worth it to at least briefly go over those. I guess they got there overall. The dad did say there was a “treatment” that she got, instead of an ongoing medication and it was given by doctors, not the parents. I would assume this was an injection. Overall it seems like it might have been worth it to establish this but I guess I would say I found the dad’s testimony credible.

It doesn't feel like enough to me. I'm not sure they established as a fact in the case that CB had a blood clotting disorder that would have led her to bleed out if she engaged in knife play. Listening solely to the testimony, it sounded like she had to be careful as a kid doe to some unknown condition, but it was managed well enough in adulthood and she participated in many sports and they did not establish that she wore any protective gear or took precautions as an adult. I don't think it's absolutely essential to the CW's case, but it's like, why bring it up if they weren't going to establish it very clearly.

[Anonymous]

I haven't been able to watch much of the trial, but I watched a little bit of one of the youtube videos of a famous lawyer (Johnny Depp's) saying that the prosecution was doing a great job and that BB is lucky that the state no longer allows the death penalty. So, I'm feeling pretty good about the jury concluding he's guilty! I'm so sorry to those who knew and lost the victims.

[Anonymous]

If people don’t think BB is guilty they have to believe his story that in essence, Christine is, I can’t see the jury buying that. Really hoping for a conviction.

Re: the former prosecutor on case, he was removed.

[Anonymous]

^ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qudYIqP00SQ

[Anonymous]

Jurors will be empathetic to dad’s refined, nothing-but-the-facts testimony. How he didn’t take a quick left off the stand and knock Banfield’s teeth out is admirable. Justice above all else for his daughter and granddaughter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Defense is objecting to things like the photograph with markings to preserve the issue for appeal. Generally on appeal the issue or error has to have been raised contemporaneously to be considered so defense is just doing their job.

I am a little surprised the CW didn’t bring the doctor in or a medical expert to review records. I can understand wanting to stay focused on a cohesive narrative and I think the CW has done a pretty good job of that so far but it seems like it would have been worth it to at least briefly go over those. I guess they got there overall. The dad did say there was a “treatment” that she got, instead of an ongoing medication and it was given by doctors, not the parents. I would assume this was an injection. Overall it seems like it might have been worth it to establish this but I guess I would say I found the dad’s testimony credible.

It doesn't feel like enough to me. I'm not sure they established as a fact in the case that CB had a blood clotting disorder that would have led her to bleed out if she engaged in knife play. Listening solely to the testimony, it sounded like she had to be careful as a kid doe to some unknown condition, but it was managed well enough in adulthood and she participated in many sports and they did not establish that she wore any protective gear or took precautions as an adult. I don't think it's absolutely essential to the CW's case, but it's like, why bring it up if they weren't going to establish it very clearly.

He said she had to take precautions during childbirth. Anytime he tried to give more detail Defense objected. In the redirect CW tried to ask about BB being in the delivery room (aware of precautions)but defense objected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About 10 years ago I was on the jury for a murder trial (large east coast city but not DC). It was pretty straightforward, the state wanted first degree murder and the defendant was arguing that it was self defense, and I think there was also an option for us to pick second degree murder ("heat of passion" or whatever) if we thought that was more appropriate? Spoiler alert, we didn't, we picked first degree murder.

Anyways, my point is, I remember the forensic testimony and I remember taking notes because I felt like I was getting clues to solve a mystery- I was like "oh! the lady said that the stab wounds were at an X degree angle, that means they were pointed downwards, that seems like he was kneeling or on the ground when he was stabbed- that can't be self defense!!" and I felt so proud of myself for being so clever, and wondering why on earth the prosecution was leaving it up to me to connect all of these dots from the testimony.

But, I was wrong. The closing statement tied it all together and pointed out very clearly all of these things that I thought I was supposed to put together on my own. They know that juries are often filled with many not very intelligent people. In this case too, I am sure that during closing arguments, the prosecution will be very clear as to what all of the testimony is pointing towards- they will explain the blood splatter on the shoes as being important, they will explain the blood clotting disorder piece and why it's important, they will explain it all.

I really hope you are right.

Comments on the CW attorney are disheartening. This is a big case. They have had tons of time.

Has the commonwealth attorney himself been there. I thought he was quite accomplished.

Are you serious? The CW attorney doesn't try cases because he doesn't know how. He's a glorified manager. It's embarrassing that the county keeps electing him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Defense is objecting to things like the photograph with markings to preserve the issue for appeal. Generally on appeal the issue or error has to have been raised contemporaneously to be considered so defense is just doing their job.

I am a little surprised the CW didn’t bring the doctor in or a medical expert to review records. I can understand wanting to stay focused on a cohesive narrative and I think the CW has done a pretty good job of that so far but it seems like it would have been worth it to at least briefly go over those. I guess they got there overall. The dad did say there was a “treatment” that she got, instead of an ongoing medication and it was given by doctors, not the parents. I would assume this was an injection. Overall it seems like it might have been worth it to establish this but I guess I would say I found the dad’s testimony credible.

They have a few turnovers, just hope we can find him guilty, or at least for some chargers .

[Anonymous]

Follow up question- can he be found guilty of other chargers? I know in some states they will add additional chargers that are not as bad as the first one..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:About 10 years ago I was on the jury for a murder trial (large east coast city but not DC). It was pretty straightforward, the state wanted first degree murder and the defendant was arguing that it was self defense, and I think there was also an option for us to pick second degree murder ("heat of passion" or whatever) if we thought that was more appropriate? Spoiler alert, we didn't, we picked first degree murder.

Anyways, my point is, I remember the forensic testimony and I remember taking notes because I felt like I was getting clues to solve a mystery- I was like "oh! the lady said that the stab wounds were at an X degree angle, that means they were pointed downwards, that seems like he was kneeling or on the ground when he was stabbed- that can't be self defense!!" and I felt so proud of myself for being so clever, and wondering why on earth the prosecution was leaving it up to me to connect all of these dots from the testimony.

But, I was wrong. The closing statement tied it all together and pointed out very clearly all of these things that I thought I was supposed to put together on my own. They know that juries are often filled with many not very intelligent people. In this case too, I am sure that during closing arguments, the prosecution will be very clear as to what all of the testimony is pointing towards- they will explain the blood splatter on the shoes as being important, they will explain the blood clotting disorder piece and why it's important, they will explain it all.

Yes I was on a first degree murder trial as well and this is exactly how the closing argument went down. They will tie it together, ask the jury to look closely at certain key evidence, think about certain inconsistencies, etc. In my case, the prosecution also presented some evidence for the first time in closing argument, which I didn't know they could do. And it was powerful evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Defense is objecting to things like the photograph with markings to preserve the issue for appeal. Generally on appeal the issue or error has to have been raised contemporaneously to be considered so defense is just doing their job.

I am a little surprised the CW didn’t bring the doctor in or a medical expert to review records. I can understand wanting to stay focused on a cohesive narrative and I think the CW has done a pretty good job of that so far but it seems like it would have been worth it to at least briefly go over those. I guess they got there overall. The dad did say there was a “treatment” that she got, instead of an ongoing medication and it was given by doctors, not the parents. I would assume this was an injection. Overall it seems like it might have been worth it to establish this but I guess I would say I found the dad’s testimony credible.

It doesn't feel like enough to me. I'm not sure they established as a fact in the case that CB had a blood clotting disorder that would have led her to bleed out if she engaged in knife play. Listening solely to the testimony, it sounded like she had to be careful as a kid doe to some unknown condition, but it was managed well enough in adulthood and she participated in many sports and they did not establish that she wore any protective gear or took precautions as an adult. I don't think it's absolutely essential to the CW's case, but it's like, why bring it up if they weren't going to establish it very clearly.

Problem is, unless you read all the motions leading up to trial (and maybe you did), it's hard to know what the judge decided was off limits. Maybe the judge decided that the blood clotting disorder couldn't be brought in or something because the probative value is out weighted by prejudicial value. Again, I have no idea of this is the case, but I am the PP who was on another murder trial and the court did not allow a VERY key piece of the puzzle into play. We only found out after the trial when googling the case. It would have killed the defense's case from the get go, but wasn't allowed to be mentioned. We all felt certain parts of the trial were really awkward, like prosection hinting around something but never completing a picture and defense objecting like crazy around certain things, only to learn later prosecution had their hands tied.

[Anonymous]

Again dressed for book club. Why did no one in the office tell her?