Fairfax County Double Murder

[Anonymous]

He argued for that evidence to be brought into trial and rightfully so. Law enforcement need to turn over evidence in discovery including discussions about investigations. Most of the work emails are turned over but it is becoming more common to turn over personal text messages or emails from personal emails discussing work matters. This way the court is making sure nothing that is said “offline” hurts the criminal case. Like for example, if Officer A told officer b on a personal text messages to lie before the judge about what happened in order to get the charges initially in a preliminary hearing. That did not happen here, and the fact the CW turned over the personal messages shows they have no intention of making stuff up just to make the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, he’s been trying (unsuccessfully) to show that the investigators were guided to believe the catfish theory, and were removed from the investigation if they had alternate views.
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/crime/true-crime/brendan-banfield-murder-trial/investigations-integrity-questioned-brendan-banfield-murder-trial-au-pair-affair/65-284fe579-bb21-4463-b61f-e9f35cb2a53a

[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.

Please tell us what is going on here. What are you talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please tell us what is going on here. What are you talking about.

Click on "show earlier posts" at the top of the reply and you can see the entire conversation describing what they're referencing

[Anonymous]

Okay as someone who brought up some of the messages in Fetlife seeming like they’re obviously written by Juliana, I don’t think the CW needs a linguistics expert in this case. I think that could have come up if Juliana was on trial and was asserting the messages were written by Christine. We know that the messages were written by Juliana because she said under oath she was writing messages in there.

My angle was more finding it interesting from the point of BB’s planning that he was pretty sloppy with that. It’s obvious this stuff was arousing suspicion immediately among investigators even if it was hard to immediately pin down. Like you would think from all the lengths he went to he would have been a little more careful about the messages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please tell us what is going on here. What are you talking about.

What is odd and speculative. These posts are out of order. What about a 3 year old.

[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.

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.

Yes we will have to disagree. The defense’s entire theory of the case can be dismissed with 15 minutes from an expert. Jury is probably even wondering if they will see one. You are over thinking. This is easy stuff.

[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.

Wonder why that request was granted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please tell us what is going on here. What are you talking about.

What is odd and speculative. These posts are out of order. What about a 3 year old.

It’s not out of order if you click previous replies.

The Banfield daughter asked Juliana if she could call her “mommy” the day of the murders. An intel source at the hotel heard the conversation. A PP said they wonder if she had been groomed for this to happen (eg if anything happens to mommy, Juliana will be your new mommy). Another PP is saying that is speculative, that if someone coached her own 3 year old to call them mommy , her kid would blab and be like hey mommy, daddy said I should call the babysitter mommy!

[Anonymous]

Kid “Can I call you mommy now?”
Juliana “yes”
Kid “Are you gonna marry my daddy?”
Juliana “I wish”

I think my post was deleted before

[Anonymous]

The defense attorney just said Banfield will testify…!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The defense attorney just said Banfield will testify…!

Whoa!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The defense attorney just said Banfield will testify…!

So Brendan is an idiot. Let’s go prosecution in sorrowful attire!

[Anonymous]

With so many self-inflicted body blows yesterday, it appears to me that John Carroll graduated from the Darrell Brooks School of Law in Waukesha, WI.

[Anonymous]

I can't believe he is testifying. Wow, what arrogance.