Fairfax County Double Murder

[Anonymous]

The digital forensics detective testified that there were 60 devices that they extracted data from. Did I hear that right? How could there be 60 different devices?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The digital forensics detective testified that there were 60 devices that they extracted data from. Did I hear that right? How could there be 60 different devices?

Maybe 16? 16 seems more reasonable for a 4 person household. Phones, laptops, tablets, old devices...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Personally I would find it so much easier to follow "these messages have the grammatical indicators of a Portuguese native speaker, while these messages don't" than forensics stuff. That would prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that JM sent the messages and is therefore telling the truth. Just how my brain works.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why juries come up with wrong verdicts all the time. Because some people can’t understand forensic evidence but they say “the killer wrote a note that sounded like he might be Black, so, the killer definitely can’t be the White guy.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Personally I would find it so much easier to follow "these messages have the grammatical indicators of a Portuguese native speaker, while these messages don't" than forensics stuff. That would prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that JM sent the messages and is therefore telling the truth. Just how my brain works.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why juries come up with wrong verdicts all the time. Because some people can’t understand forensic evidence but they say “the killer wrote a note that sounded like he might be Black, so, the killer definitely can’t be the White guy.”

That is completely different than talking about someone who is not a native English speaker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Personally I would find it so much easier to follow "these messages have the grammatical indicators of a Portuguese native speaker, while these messages don't" than forensics stuff. That would prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that JM sent the messages and is therefore telling the truth. Just how my brain works.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why juries come up with wrong verdicts all the time. Because some people can’t understand forensic evidence but they say “the killer wrote a note that sounded like he might be Black, so, the killer definitely can’t be the White guy.”

That is completely different than talking about someone who is not a native English speaker.

True. But the point here is, if a professor was called up to testify that the writing seemed like a native Portuguese speaker, the defense could then call multiple rebuttal witnesses to testify that it’s very common for people to speak differently on sites like fet life, etc along with using fake names (as BB and JP did!) so that they are not recognized. And then you’ve muddied the waters and cast doubt in jurors minds, making them think “hmmm so maybe she DID write this stuff after all.” Better not to bring to and confuse things

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Defense to investigator:”do you find it odd the lead investigator and a head digital forensics investigator were removed from the investigation?”
Witness: “no, that happens all the time”.

😂

Is he trying to suggest that investigators were removed because their inclinations didn't align with others that Brandon did it? Like there's some sort of corruption?

[Anonymous]

I love 0% of the employees are mornos

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We will have to agree to disagree. Brendan’s defense has done such a poor job of creating doubt around the elements of the crime. I think their shade at Christine looked desperate and I doubt the jury liked it. I think keeping the focus on Brendan’s actions is the correct course. Don’t steer them to evaluating Christine or Joe in any way. Additionally, the victim advocate really landed a major blow. Don’t get in your enemy’s way when they’re making a mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Im a lawyer and I absolutely disagree with you. Putting on an expert on linguistics is a major distraction — I don’t know that you could do that effectively on rebuttal at all. You really don’t want the jury thinking this is an important point. It currently smacks of desperation but if you start having some expert testify fo hours on it, they will start to think there’s something there. I read the chats and they don’t scream Portuguese speaker to me so I suspect she had help from B or AO to write them. But it doesn’t matter. This case is so, so persuasive without that.

[Anonymous]

Right now the Defense is leaning super heavy on the fact that forensic evidence shows that it was Christine‘s devices that were used to create the email account, the fetlife and the telegram account and that is factual. At the same time, they are trying to discredit the fact that law-enforcement could only tie Brendan to those devices of Christine‘s once Juliana “recanted”. And since “she’s a liar”, we can’t believe what she says about Brendan and her being the ones to set up all of those accounts and lure Joe.
Except his argument is super weak, blood evidence proves BB killed Christine. Forensic/geolocation proves Juliana is now telling what really happened. Brendan wanted his wife dead so he found somebody on a fetish website and used that to be able to kill his wife, smear her name and leave their child an orphan.

[Anonymous]

I've only watched a small snippet of the trail, but man the defense attorney is NOT good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Personally I would find it so much easier to follow "these messages have the grammatical indicators of a Portuguese native speaker, while these messages don't" than forensics stuff. That would prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that JM sent the messages and is therefore telling the truth. Just how my brain works.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why juries come up with wrong verdicts all the time. Because some people can’t understand forensic evidence but they say “the killer wrote a note that sounded like he might be Black, so, the killer definitely can’t be the White guy.”

That is completely different than talking about someone who is not a native English speaker.

You clearly don't have a middle schooler who never learned grammar and punctuation in school.

[Anonymous]

Guys,
How did defense get all those printshots from the police department?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guys,
How did defense get all those printshots from the police department?

I'm still catching up and don't know what the print shots are, but the defense attorney also represents police officers at discipline hearings. I assume police tipped him off when the reassignments were happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 I agree.