Fairfax County Double Murder

[Anonymous]

I still think it would be helpful to have an expert testify that the messages look like they were written by two people, one of whom has indicators of a Portuguese native speaker. There's enough examples of Juliana's letters from jail that they should be able to determine her syntax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still think it would be helpful to have an expert testify that the messages look like they were written by two people, one of whom has indicators of a Portuguese native speaker. There's enough examples of Juliana's letters from jail that they should be able to determine her syntax.

I agree with you, especially now that today’s testimony may provide some doubt about the cat fishing to the jury. Most jurors will take ann experts opinion as credible. But as a few have stated his Gmail “fact” is untrue. Your average juror may not know that. If you don’t use Gmail, you would not know that.

[Anonymous]

People elsewhere on line are pointing out you can log in to your gym remotely at many places but I believe the witness showed their cell phones were also located at the sites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought Juliana had testified that he made new email accounts in Christine's name for these accounts. That makes sense, as if I were signing up for those sketchy sites I would not use my regular real name email either. I assume Brendan had complete control over the accounts used.

But if it somehow was her real email, even if the emails weren't deleted, he'd have to have opened the 2FA emails to login, so they wouldn't be showing on Christine's end as new/unread mail, and it would be easier for her to miss or ignore them.

The problem is this witness is demonstrating that bb and the nanny were in different places outside of the house thru cell phone data while the device at the house accessed the account from the house. Could it have been a timed, automated routine? I want to poke holes in this

[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.

Just click on “click to show earlier quotes”. They are talking about what an investigator overheard the child saying on the evening after the murder. The child was a preschooler at the time.

[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.

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.

NP but I disagree. No one can say definitively who wrote it, without any trace of doubt. Juliana says she did. An expert can testify that the writing doesn’t seem like Christine’s typical writing and then a different expert can come say that many people alter their writing style when engaging in online sex activity. And then all you’ve done is make it look like this is actually a point of contention. When it’s really not- you have a witness admitting to writing it as part of the crime set up. The defense is saying the witness is lying but they have no evidence of that and the prosecution drawing more and more attention to the question of who wrote it can only hurt their case. They should keep the focus on the mountain of physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, and eyewitness testimony that points towards his guilt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read all of the evidences.
I am in shock. Evidence 44 shows Juliana telling her friend about one of Christine’s best friend who Brendan cheated on Christine with. That woman is featured on CB’s Instagram. On the photos she is tagged, at a cruise.
This woman was betrayed in so many ways.
This is beyond disgusting!

I just found it, wow, and this is BB's evidence! If she would travel for a week, he would find somebody to have sex with.
https://webcache.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuitcourt/Evidence%20Admitted%20January%2021%2C%202026/BB%20Exhibit%2044.pdf

Kinda wondering why the CW didn't try to get some of this evidence in to establish his motives.

Because being a serial cheater doesn’t make you a murderer and if the prosecution tried to argue that because BB was a serial cheater and that was somehow relevant, they’d be torn apart by the defense. “So he had casual sex with hundreds of women during his marriage. Yet you’re saying that he somehow suddenly had to murder his wife? Despite having all of the casual sex he wanted while she was alive?”

See? It weakens their case by confusing things. The fact is that he killed her based on the evidence. They should stick to that. And possibly the theory that he wanted to play house with the au pair, which he couldn’t do when his wife was alive. He clearly could (and did!) have sex with all sorts of women while his wife was alive so that being a motive for killing her doesn’t hold water and a good defense attorney would be all over that. And it would muddy the waters .

Nah - it’s pretty standard to demonstrate character and motive. The whole thing is so impersonal. We know nothing more about either of them really. Very odd.

But my point is that him cheating on his wife a bunch of times is a very weak motive that is actually easy for the defense to flip around to show it was a reason for him NOT to have killed her. They’d argue that because he had all this casual sex while she was alive, plus she was the primary earner, there was no motive at all to murder her- Juliana even mentioned in a letter that Christine might have been aware of his cheating. See? The defense could easily say “well the fact that his wife might have even known, and didn’t care, shows that killing her wasn’t necessary at all”.

Such a weak idea that it’s done at virtually every trial when a husband is charged with murdering his wife except this one.

Yes, if the motive was to live with the affair partner . And the fact that Brendan and Juliana were affair partners has been heavily discussed. His other affairs are completely irrelevant and all they do is let the defense say “see? He had affairs all the time! And now you’re saying this dim witted unattractive babysitter was somehow a very special affair worth killing his wife for?? Ridiculous!” It HELPS the defense to point out that Juliana was one of many. It HURTS the defense if the jury goes to deliberate thinking that Juliana was his one special affair .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read all of the evidences.
I am in shock. Evidence 44 shows Juliana telling her friend about one of Christine’s best friend who Brendan cheated on Christine with. That woman is featured on CB’s Instagram. On the photos she is tagged, at a cruise.
This woman was betrayed in so many ways.
This is beyond disgusting!

I just found it, wow, and this is BB's evidence! If she would travel for a week, he would find somebody to have sex with.
https://webcache.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuitcourt/Evidence%20Admitted%20January%2021%2C%202026/BB%20Exhibit%2044.pdf

Kinda wondering why the CW didn't try to get some of this evidence in to establish his motives.

Because being a serial cheater doesn’t make you a murderer and if the prosecution tried to argue that because BB was a serial cheater and that was somehow relevant, they’d be torn apart by the defense. “So he had casual sex with hundreds of women during his marriage. Yet you’re saying that he somehow suddenly had to murder his wife? Despite having all of the casual sex he wanted while she was alive?”

See? It weakens their case by confusing things. The fact is that he killed her based on the evidence. They should stick to that. And possibly the theory that he wanted to play house with the au pair, which he couldn’t do when his wife was alive. He clearly could (and did!) have sex with all sorts of women while his wife was alive so that being a motive for killing her doesn’t hold water and a good defense attorney would be all over that. And it would muddy the waters .

Nah - it’s pretty standard to demonstrate character and motive. The whole thing is so impersonal. We know nothing more about either of them really. Very odd.

But my point is that him cheating on his wife a bunch of times is a very weak motive that is actually easy for the defense to flip around to show it was a reason for him NOT to have killed her. They’d argue that because he had all this casual sex while she was alive, plus she was the primary earner, there was no motive at all to murder her- Juliana even mentioned in a letter that Christine might have been aware of his cheating. See? The defense could easily say “well the fact that his wife might have even known, and didn’t care, shows that killing her wasn’t necessary at all”.

Such a weak idea that it’s done at virtually every trial when a husband is charged with murdering his wife except this one.

Yes, if the motive was to live with the affair partner . And the fact that Brendan and Juliana were affair partners has been heavily discussed. His other affairs are completely irrelevant and all they do is let the defense say “see? He had affairs all the time! And now you’re saying this dim witted unattractive babysitter was somehow a very special affair worth killing his wife for?? Ridiculous!” It HELPS the defense to point out that Juliana was one of many. It HURTS the defense if the jury goes to deliberate thinking that Juliana was his one special affair .

You really don’t understand anything about human beings do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to see the entire screen of cb’s email. The defense witness is saying cb would have seen the 2 factor authentication emails in her inbox as they weren’t deleted. If she had a full busy in box she could miss those. I’d love to see all the data related to these accounts

He actually can’t say that they weren’t deleted. This witness referred to the witness yesterday saying it was deleted but the witness yesterday (Miller?) said he couldn’t see whether something was deleted from the image defense counsel showed him.

Thanks for pointing that out but I thought I heard him say that they weren’t deleted. You can also set up a routine to automatically log in to apps because now he’s testifying that cell tower data shows bb and the nanny were in different places outside of tithe house while someone logged into the account from the house.

If Juliana was at the gym, couldn’t she have had his phone at the gym with her?

I was just thinking this. Both phones being at the gym just means that! That both phones were at the gym. One person can take both phones to the gym to make it look like , to an investigator,
That both people were at the gym. This is so basic! Don’t these people have kids who leave their phones at a friends house “for a sleepover with the girls!” when they go sneak over to their boyfriends house?? Is everyone in this case a tech illiterate dinosaur?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think it would be helpful to have an expert testify that the messages look like they were written by two people, one of whom has indicators of a Portuguese native speaker. There's enough examples of Juliana's letters from jail that they should be able to determine her syntax.

I agree with you, especially now that today’s testimony may provide some doubt about the cat fishing to the jury. Most jurors will take ann experts opinion as credible. But as a few have stated his Gmail “fact” is untrue. Your average juror may not know that. If you don’t use Gmail, you would not know that.

They can always call one on rebuttal if it seems necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought Juliana had testified that he made new email accounts in Christine's name for these accounts. That makes sense, as if I were signing up for those sketchy sites I would not use my regular real name email either. I assume Brendan had complete control over the accounts used.

But if it somehow was her real email, even if the emails weren't deleted, he'd have to have opened the 2FA emails to login, so they wouldn't be showing on Christine's end as new/unread mail, and it would be easier for her to miss or ignore them.

The problem is this witness is demonstrating that bb and the nanny were in different places outside of the house thru cell phone data while the device at the house accessed the account from the house. Could it have been a timed, automated routine? I want to poke holes in this

Yes, but one of them could have taken the other's phone to the gym. Pretty easy to have thought to do this if you’ve been elaborately planning a crime like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read all of the evidences.
I am in shock. Evidence 44 shows Juliana telling her friend about one of Christine’s best friend who Brendan cheated on Christine with. That woman is featured on CB’s Instagram. On the photos she is tagged, at a cruise.
This woman was betrayed in so many ways.
This is beyond disgusting!

I just found it, wow, and this is BB's evidence! If she would travel for a week, he would find somebody to have sex with.
https://webcache.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuitcourt/Evidence%20Admitted%20January%2021%2C%202026/BB%20Exhibit%2044.pdf

Kinda wondering why the CW didn't try to get some of this evidence in to establish his motives.

Because being a serial cheater doesn’t make you a murderer and if the prosecution tried to argue that because BB was a serial cheater and that was somehow relevant, they’d be torn apart by the defense. “So he had casual sex with hundreds of women during his marriage. Yet you’re saying that he somehow suddenly had to murder his wife? Despite having all of the casual sex he wanted while she was alive?”

See? It weakens their case by confusing things. The fact is that he killed her based on the evidence. They should stick to that. And possibly the theory that he wanted to play house with the au pair, which he couldn’t do when his wife was alive. He clearly could (and did!) have sex with all sorts of women while his wife was alive so that being a motive for killing her doesn’t hold water and a good defense attorney would be all over that. And it would muddy the waters .

Nah - it’s pretty standard to demonstrate character and motive. The whole thing is so impersonal. We know nothing more about either of them really. Very odd.

But my point is that him cheating on his wife a bunch of times is a very weak motive that is actually easy for the defense to flip around to show it was a reason for him NOT to have killed her. They’d argue that because he had all this casual sex while she was alive, plus she was the primary earner, there was no motive at all to murder her- Juliana even mentioned in a letter that Christine might have been aware of his cheating. See? The defense could easily say “well the fact that his wife might have even known, and didn’t care, shows that killing her wasn’t necessary at all”.

Such a weak idea that it’s done at virtually every trial when a husband is charged with murdering his wife except this one.

Yes, if the motive was to live with the affair partner . And the fact that Brendan and Juliana were affair partners has been heavily discussed. His other affairs are completely irrelevant and all they do is let the defense say “see? He had affairs all the time! And now you’re saying this dim witted unattractive babysitter was somehow a very special affair worth killing his wife for?? Ridiculous!” It HELPS the defense to point out that Juliana was one of many. It HURTS the defense if the jury goes to deliberate thinking that Juliana was his one special affair .

You really don’t understand anything about human beings do you.

You are wrong. Not to mention if they say Brendan had tons of affairs, what else does that open the door to? Brendan saying they were in an open marriage! Christine knew! Christine even had affairs too, he will say. He’ll say look, Christine even set up this fet life account to have a kinky sexual encounter! I was fully aware of it! Things were very open between us!

Can’t you see how human beings might start to doubt the prosecution in this case??

[Anonymous]

I actually wonder if the CW wants to hide the fact that BB was having affairs frequently. I would not be surprised it BB says when he testifies that they both had affairs and were in an open marriage . Juliana said in one of those letters they submitted that Brendan had sex with another woman on a family vacation and she speculated that Christine might have known about it. It seems like submitting that letter as evidence for the defense is setting up a defense theory that they had an open marriage and Christine did meet ups all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP but I disagree. No one can say definitively who wrote it, without any trace of doubt. Juliana says she did. An expert can testify that the writing doesn’t seem like Christine’s typical writing and then a different expert can come say that many people alter their writing style when engaging in online sex activity. And then all you’ve done is make it look like this is actually a point of contention. When it’s really not- you have a witness admitting to writing it as part of the crime set up. The defense is saying the witness is lying but they have no evidence of that and the prosecution drawing more and more attention to the question of who wrote it can only hurt their case. They should keep the focus on the mountain of physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, and eyewitness testimony that points towards his guilt.

The defense witness is showing, I believe- please correct me if I’m wrong, that the account was accessed from cbs phone or iPad or laptop while cell phone data showed bb and the nanny were both out of the house in different places. It’s hard to follow because they are so slow in explaining this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP but I disagree. No one can say definitively who wrote it, without any trace of doubt. Juliana says she did. An expert can testify that the writing doesn’t seem like Christine’s typical writing and then a different expert can come say that many people alter their writing style when engaging in online sex activity. And then all you’ve done is make it look like this is actually a point of contention. When it’s really not- you have a witness admitting to writing it as part of the crime set up. The defense is saying the witness is lying but they have no evidence of that and the prosecution drawing more and more attention to the question of who wrote it can only hurt their case. They should keep the focus on the mountain of physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, and eyewitness testimony that points towards his guilt.

The defense witness is showing, I believe- please correct me if I’m wrong, that the account was accessed from cbs phone or iPad or laptop while cell phone data showed bb and the nanny were both out of the house in different places. It’s hard to follow because they are so slow in explaining this

Yes, I think that’s what they are attempting to show, but the prosecution can point out that someone’s phone being in a place does not mean that the phone owner is also there.