Fairfax County Double Murder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there not a YouTube that just posts highlights like this, instead of slogging through the 8 hour court TV feeds?

WUSA AND nBC 4 have wrap ups. Both have lawyers to discuss.

[Anonymous]

Oh for the looooove of God! Can the digital forensic guy provide some teach support to the defense? This is the messiest trial alive ever seen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, they had an Intel person at the lobby where JB, BB and the little one were at the night of the crime.

The kid asked Juliana: “Can I call you mommy now?”
JB said “yes”
Kid: “are you gonna marry my dad?”
JB: “I wish”


What’s going on?
Why did everyone hate CB so much? Bc shortly after Tess moves in and they play house all of them together.

Was this part of the trial??

Yes! It was a defense witness who was the victim advocate. The defense attorney badgered her for 10 minutes asking when she came up with or at what point in time the catfish theory came up and got nowhere with her. During cross examination just took two questions to get this out of her from the prosecution! She asked The witness what made you think Christine may have been set up and then she spills this juicy info.

when a prosecutor illicits this kind of testimony, they can wear spanx for all i care.

[Anonymous]

I’m just waiting for one of these witnesses to say “I’m not on trial, your client is!“.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, they had an Intel person at the lobby where JB, BB and the little one were at the night of the crime.

The kid asked Juliana: “Can I call you mommy now?”
JB said “yes”
Kid: “are you gonna marry my dad?”
JB: “I wish”


What’s going on?
Why did everyone hate CB so much? Bc shortly after Tess moves in and they play house all of them together.

Was this part of the trial??

Yes, it just happened. Last question of Saly Fayez (the head of the victim’s services) testimony. During cross examination.

WOW. Sounds like they had been grooming the child to prepare her for this. "Mommy is going away, when she's gone, Juliana will be your mommy."

Yes, and makes sense while the defense asked for no interviews with the child to be allowed as part of evidence in this trial. Wild and disgusting.

[Anonymous]

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/brendan-banfield-au-pair-murder-trial-day-6-stream-live-updates/4045963/

For the person asking above, NBC has been doing some good live recaps. Also typically there’s not court on Fridays, but there will be tomorrow because of the impending snowstorm.

[Anonymous]

Brendan‘s father and stepmother sitting in the galley. Do they believe his innocence? What did they think or what was their reaction when they heard the part about the little girl calling Juliana mommy the day her own mother died!? They must think that is totally odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/brendan-banfield-au-pair-murder-trial-day-6-stream-live-updates/4045963/

For the person asking above, NBC has been doing some good live recaps. Also typically there’s not court on Fridays, but there will be tomorrow because of the impending snowstorm.

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, they had an Intel person at the lobby where JB, BB and the little one were at the night of the crime.

The kid asked Juliana: “Can I call you mommy now?”
JB said “yes”
Kid: “are you gonna marry my dad?”
JB: “I wish”


What’s going on?
Why did everyone hate CB so much? Bc shortly after Tess moves in and they play house all of them together.

Was this part of the trial??

Yes, it just happened. Last question of Saly Fayez (the head of the victim’s services) testimony. During cross examination.

WOW. Sounds like they had been grooming the child to prepare her for this. "Mommy is going away, when she's gone, Juliana will be your mommy."

Yes, and makes sense while the defense asked for no interviews with the child to be allowed as part of evidence in this trial. Wild and disgusting.

It's odd and speculative. I mean someone tells my 3 year old that the first thing they are doing is coming to ask me about it.

[Anonymous]

As a female attorney, I do not think we should be discussing the prosecutor's outfits. There is just such a long history of punitive and then shifting dress codes for women in court.

That said, I thought she looked fabulous today and I love her style. Which could all be calculated - did I read somewhere this is a younger jury?

I have also been in courtrooms where judges (female, obv) encourage more variety in attire.

[Anonymous]

https://www.courttv.com/news/va-v-brendan-banfield-au-pair-affair-murder-trial/

7:07 an some change…. It’s priceless!

I like the prosecutor!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a female attorney, I do not think we should be discussing the prosecutor's outfits. There is just such a long history of punitive and then shifting dress codes for women in court.

That said, I thought she looked fabulous today and I love her style. Which could all be calculated - did I read somewhere this is a younger jury?

I have also been in courtrooms where judges (female, obv) encourage more variety in attire.

These are all good points. Thank you for your perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a female attorney, I do not think we should be discussing the prosecutor's outfits. There is just such a long history of punitive and then shifting dress codes for women in court.

That said, I thought she looked fabulous today and I love her style. Which could all be calculated - did I read somewhere this is a younger jury?

I have also been in courtrooms where judges (female, obv) encourage more variety in attire.

No one is body shaming. She’s not a POC with natural hair. No one is saying she should have a chignon. She looks unprofessional, (better today) and it matches with her poor performance. If she looked schleppy and was a star it wouldn’t matter. But she is not a star. Shes very out of her depth. I’d say the same if it were a male in khakis and a button down. She is supposed to be a figure of authority and she should look like one. While I’d love to live in a world where appearances don’t matter but they do. This is a murder trial not some kind of training session. It hurts women when you pull the misogyny card when there is none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why don't they have a witness on this issue of the Feti account not being consistent with how she writes. There are experts on this. Basic thing to do. Maybe it is coming.

+1

It wouldn't be that difficult to get a linguistics professor or something to explain this.

The prosecution clearly made a strategic decision to keep their case as simple as possible. Bringing in a linguistics professor, or witnesses to say Christine would never do this just opens the door for the defense to argue. Julianna tells the story, and the most important digital forensics completely support it. So do the crime scene forensics. The defense has failed to make any significant inroads against the prosecution’s version. In the end, Christine, Joe, Julianna, and BB were in the house. Christine and Joe are dead. There is no forensic story that can support Joe stabbing Christine. Who is left? Ultimately the prosecution has done a good job giving the jury what they need to convict.

I am an attorney. I hear you but now she should do on rebuttal since they have raised the issue. Dangerous to leave it alone. Could take just one juror to wonder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, they had an Intel person at the lobby where JB, BB and the little one were at the night of the crime.

The kid asked Juliana: “Can I call you mommy now?”
JB said “yes”
Kid: “are you gonna marry my dad?”
JB: “I wish”


What’s going on?
Why did everyone hate CB so much? Bc shortly after Tess moves in and they play house all of them together.

Was this part of the trial??

Yes! It was a defense witness who was the victim advocate. The defense attorney badgered her for 10 minutes asking when she came up with or at what point in time the catfish theory came up and got nowhere with her. During cross examination just took two questions to get this out of her from the prosecution! She asked The witness what made you think Christine may have been set up and then she spills this juicy info.

Didn’t the CW lose a motion about putting on the kids statement? The defense calling the victim advocate and asking about what the kid said opened that door at least partially.