Fairfax County Double Murder

[Anonymous]

The defense atty says he has

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The defense atty says he has

Entered too soon. Defense atty says he has lots more qs for the witness so they’re stopping with him, going to a remote witness who is worried about losing power next week, and will double back to this witness. No defendant testimony today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am loving the bailiff they imported from 1973.

Also can people refuse jury duty because of ADHD because I'd have be doodling in my notebook hours ago?

oh my gosh thank you for point that dude out. He's stealing the show!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Then what would be the justification for BB even coming home or shouting "police" when running into the bedroom? If he knows Christine does this all the time and they have an open relationship, then he would just leave her alone, not come home from McDonald's, and not assume it is an intruder (you don't yell "police" unless you think there is an intruder not a planned meet up) and not shoot someone he would have assumed to be her consensual partner. BB wouldn't have known/heard "Brandon he has a knife" until after the point when he shouted "police" and ran in with a gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Then what would be the justification for BB even coming home or shouting "police" when running into the bedroom? If he knows Christine does this all the time and they have an open relationship, then he would just leave her alone, not come home from McDonald's, and not assume it is an intruder (you don't yell "police" unless you think there is an intruder not a planned meet up) and not shoot someone he would have assumed to be her consensual partner. BB wouldn't have known/heard "Brandon he has a knife" until after the point when he shouted "police" and ran in with a gun.

Great point!
And to be real, if I came home and saw a strange car in the driveway, I would not be alarmed at all. I'd figure it was a visitor, delivery-person, repair-person, whatever. Makes no sense for JM to call BB and for him to be alarmed enough to come home-or else why not just call 911 then? And like you said, if he's used to these encounters he'd have just told JM to go ahead to the zoo and get lunch there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s appalling to me that people aren’t paying attention to this very important testimony. I am not saying I believe this defense witness but this is the type of information that can prove a person guilty or innocent in a case. I am NOT referring to this case though. He has not proved that cb was accessing the fetlife related accounts herself.

This information really isn’t complex but all over the internet people are saying this is boring and useless and they don’t understand the point. The point is very important.

I think it's important too and agree with you, but I think the defense loses points when almost every single interaction has been:

Defense: "Are you familiar with this image?"
Expert: "Yes, it's xyz."
Prosecution: "Objection."
Judge: "Sustained."

Repeat fifty times.

It's like Brendon's attorney has no idea what might pass or not, so he throws more spaghetti at the wall.

In the meantime, his other expert from Nashville has been waiting all day to be called up.

And this four corners slower than anything you’ll ever encounter in life approach is clearly intentional. I don’t get how that would work for them. I also feel the constant misidentification of evidence and trying to introduce evidence that was denied is clearly intentional. I don’t see how this helps the defendant other than buying them time. But for what?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]It’s appalling to me that people aren’t paying attention to this very important testimony. I am not saying I believe this defense witness but this is the type of information that can prove a person guilty or innocent in a case. I am NOT referring to this case though. He has not proved that cb was accessing the fetlife related accounts herself.

This information really isn’t complex but all over the internet people are saying this is boring and useless and they don’t understand the point. The point is very important. [/quote]

The defense is making it boring.

[Anonymous]

The defense is really timing this poorly. Bringing back this witness for so long today, in an unorganized manner, then putting him on pause, bringing someone else in then they won’t bring the other guy back until sometime mid week after all these jurors have dealt with the snowstorm and their kids, etc all weekend. He’s losing any momentum he may have gained.

[Anonymous]

I'm really surprise the defense's digital forensic "expert" stated on the stand that multiple gmail accounts could not be open at the same time on one device. As I write this, I have three gmail accounts open at once on this computer. For me, this damages his credibility, and I'm assuming at least one juror could also easily correct this from their experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The defense is really timing this poorly. Bringing back this witness for so long today, in an unorganized manner, then putting him on pause, bringing someone else in then they won’t bring the other guy back until sometime mid week after all these jurors have dealt with the snowstorm and their kids, etc all weekend. He’s losing any momentum he may have gained.

I cannot imagine sitting the jury box watching this counsel muck around and stumble/bumble his way through questions. I would be insulted by both his incompetence as well as utter lack of compassion for folks on jury. And it would be make me incredibly disposed to rule against him. If this is being done intentionally, it is absolutely not having whatever crazy desired effect he's hoping for. You've got to weave the story you want believed, not frustrate everyone with confusion...

[Anonymous]

What is the current witness going to address? He’s trying to educate us about audio signals. I assume we’ll be hearing that we didn’t hear Joe moaning. They’re going to try to feed us some lies about the timelines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The defense is really timing this poorly. Bringing back this witness for so long today, in an unorganized manner, then putting him on pause, bringing someone else in then they won’t bring the other guy back until sometime mid week after all these jurors have dealt with the snowstorm and their kids, etc all weekend. He’s losing any momentum he may have gained.

I cannot imagine sitting the jury box watching this counsel muck around and stumble/bumble his way through questions. I would be insulted by both his incompetence as well as utter lack of compassion for folks on jury. And it would be make me incredibly disposed to rule against him. If this is being done intentionally, it is absolutely not having whatever crazy desired effect he's hoping for. You've got to weave the story you want believed, not frustrate everyone with confusion...

100%. It’s all he’s got. Try to make it seem like cb was all up in the fetlife stuff without actually showing it. He was able to imply that without having any real data to prove it. The defense attorney is up a creek without a paddle with a pod of boat hating orcas following him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the current witness going to address? He’s trying to educate us about audio signals. I assume we’ll be hearing that we didn’t hear Joe moaning. They’re going to try to feed us some lies about the timelines.

What was the point of bringing that virtual expert on for 15 minutes, then pausing him again? This is a cluster.

[Anonymous]

Even though they're not supposed to, I'm betting some jurors go home and try logging into different accounts on their device at the same time or talk to their friends who will tell them it's BS that you can't do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the current witness going to address? He’s trying to educate us about audio signals. I assume we’ll be hearing that we didn’t hear Joe moaning. They’re going to try to feed us some lies about the timelines.

What was the point of bringing that virtual expert on for 15 minutes, then pausing him again? This is a cluster.

What was the virtual expert testifying about? The same topic?