Fairfax County Double Murder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every time I watch Brendand's attorney, I am confused by what he's trying to accomplish and sometimes by what he's even asking. Is he terrible, or am I missing something?

i don’t think he’s terrible. i thought he did not come across smooth but was making the best of the sh.t hand he was dealt. He was doing a pretty good job with what he had to work with.

Question for the bar. did defense fumble somehow yesterday with the victim advocate by “opening the door” to allow the prosecution to inquire about the statements of the minor child?

That testimony, while not directly related to the murders, seems hard to overcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did he say he'll testify today?

No, because you didnt read anything , im going to say NO.

Court TV is reporting that Banfield will testify

i was being sarcastic if you didnt pick that up

[Anonymous]

The defense attorney’s constant confusion over the evidence- he is constantly corrected by the prosecuting attorney and judge as to what the item numbers are and whether they were disallowed is so bad as to seem intentional. Is he trying to confuse the jury or is he trying to give bb the possibility of appeal based on incompetent representation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did he say he'll testify today?

No, because you didnt read anything , im going to say NO.

Court TV is reporting that Banfield will testify

i was being sarcastic if you didnt pick that up

I ask if he’d testify TODAY. Not if he’ll testify in general. Ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The defense attorney’s constant confusion over the evidence- he is constantly corrected by the prosecuting attorney and judge as to what the item numbers are and whether they were disallowed is so bad as to seem intentional. Is he trying to confuse the jury or is he trying to give bb the possibility of appeal based on incompetent representation?

I think he's a dinosaur who can't easily navigate this new fangled technology.

[Anonymous]

Anyone watching this IT guy? His whole thing is that the devices were logged in to Christine's accounts, so she must have been the one to make the Fetlife posts. But isn't it just possible that Brendon logged in with her ID? I know how to log in to my spouse's and kids' accounts. This doesn't seem to be rare.

If they can prove that posts were made from the home on the account when Christine was confirmed home, Brenden was confirmed to be at work and the nanny has an alibi that she was out of the house somewhere else, then get to it.

But I doubt it because he wouldn't wait until now to present this information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone watching this IT guy? His whole thing is that the devices were logged in to Christine's accounts, so she must have been the one to make the Fetlife posts. But isn't it just possible that Brendon logged in with her ID? I know how to log in to my spouse's and kids' accounts. This doesn't seem to be rare.

If they can prove that posts were made from the home on the account when Christine was confirmed home, Brenden was confirmed to be at work and the nanny has an alibi that she was out of the house somewhere else, then get to it.

But I doubt it because he wouldn't wait until now to present this information.

My can’t stand this witness. He’s so sure of Brendan’s innocence. He is biased by the data. But it’s more than data, the human competent (who was actually behind the screen) matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone watching this IT guy? His whole thing is that the devices were logged in to Christine's accounts, so she must have been the one to make the Fetlife posts. But isn't it just possible that Brendon logged in with her ID? I know how to log in to my spouse's and kids' accounts. This doesn't seem to be rare.

If they can prove that posts were made from the home on the account when Christine was confirmed home, Brenden was confirmed to be at work and the nanny has an alibi that she was out of the house somewhere else, then get to it.

But I doubt it because he wouldn't wait until now to present this information.

My can’t stand this witness. He’s so sure of Brendan’s innocence. He is biased by the data. But it’s more than data, the human competent (who was actually behind the screen) matters.

We have no idea if he is sure of Brendan‘s innocence. The dude is getting paid to regurgitate information that Miller already confirmed. That the forensic show that Christine‘s laptop was used, but we there’s no way to know by who unless there is a camera in the room or a witness to doing it like Juliana.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The defense attorney’s constant confusion over the evidence- he is constantly corrected by the prosecuting attorney and judge as to what the item numbers are and whether they were disallowed is so bad as to seem intentional. Is he trying to confuse the jury or is he trying to give bb the possibility of appeal based on incompetent representation?

Not really important to much, but a lead attorney doesn't keep track of these things. Too much in his/her head going on. So this is common. What isn't common is not having anyone, not even a admin assistant, helping you with this stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every time I watch Brendand's attorney, I am confused by what he's trying to accomplish and sometimes by what he's even asking. Is he terrible, or am I missing something?

i don’t think he’s terrible. i thought he did not come across smooth but was making the best of the sh.t hand he was dealt. He was doing a pretty good job with what he had to work with.

Question for the bar. did defense fumble somehow yesterday with the victim advocate by “opening the door” to allow the prosecution to inquire about the statements of the minor child?

That testimony, while not directly related to the murders, seems hard to overcome.

Yes, that was an enormous blunder.

The defense attorney is terrible. Worse than the tech, worse than his meandering and vocal pauses, is that he keeps putting up witnesses that he can’t control and who won’t say what he clearly wants them to say.

I am not surprised that Brendan is going to testify. I’m sure he has full faith in his ability to convince the jury that the sky is green.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone watching this IT guy? His whole thing is that the devices were logged in to Christine's accounts, so she must have been the one to make the Fetlife posts. But isn't it just possible that Brendon logged in with her ID? I know how to log in to my spouse's and kids' accounts. This doesn't seem to be rare.

If they can prove that posts were made from the home on the account when Christine was confirmed home, Brenden was confirmed to be at work and the nanny has an alibi that she was out of the house somewhere else, then get to it.

But I doubt it because he wouldn't wait until now to present this information.

My can’t stand this witness. He’s so sure of Brendan’s innocence. He is biased by the data. But it’s more than data, the human competent (who was actually behind the screen) matters.

We have no idea if he is sure of Brendan‘s innocence. The dude is getting paid to regurgitate information that Miller already confirmed. That the forensic show that Christine‘s laptop was used, but we there’s no way to know by who unless there is a camera in the room or a witness to doing it like Juliana.

It was pretty clear to me in his testimony. IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone watching this IT guy? His whole thing is that the devices were logged in to Christine's accounts, so she must have been the one to make the Fetlife posts. But isn't it just possible that Brendon logged in with her ID? I know how to log in to my spouse's and kids' accounts. This doesn't seem to be rare.

If they can prove that posts were made from the home on the account when Christine was confirmed home, Brenden was confirmed to be at work and the nanny has an alibi that she was out of the house somewhere else, then get to it.

But I doubt it because he wouldn't wait until now to present this information.

They don't need to prove that if Juliana already testified her knowledge of the accounts. I haven't been closely following all the testimony but if she knew details only Christine could have known then that discredits the defense theory that Christine was the account creator.

[Anonymous]

Witness is completely wrong re being signed into different email accounts on an item. You can log into as many different Gmail accounts from the same device. How are they letting this by? It’s not hard to do.

[Anonymous]

I am guessing BB will take stand and lie and say he knew CB was setting up the fantasy. But as a cautious husband he stayed in the area in case something went wrong and CB or neighbor called. He will say he came home and defended his wife. He’s had a lot of time to rehearse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Witness is completely wrong re being signed into different email accounts on an item. You can log into as many different Gmail accounts from the same device. How are they letting this by? It’s not hard to do.

This witness is so lacking in technical knowledge that I hope the prosecution knows this.