Fairfax County Double Murder
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
This should be a direct link to the video.
https://webcache.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuitcourt/Evidence%20Admitted%20January%2023%2C%202026/Def%20exhibit%2082.mp4 |
Anonymous
I wonder if he is trying to set up an ineffective counsel appeal and is planning to retire or something. It feels deliberate. |
Anonymous
Good for her. It's really been appalling - counsel is completely out of his element and woefully struggling to do basic questioning and trial management. It doesn't rise to ineffective counsel per se (as others have said, that's a pretty high bar - falling asleep etc. doesn't even meet it) - it's simply bad. |
Anonymous
I don’t think they definitively showed that today, but I would imagine that to be the case. I also remember Juliana saying something to that effect. Going back to our birthday discussion, the birthday visitor seemed to imply Brendan mentioned some complicated thing with the phone to explain why he had a new phone or got an android. And they didn’t really follow it. But that piques my interest because I wonder if he had been saying he had phone problems, because this could be a cover both for asking Christine to use her phone sometimes and for getting the new one on the 23rd. In one of the defense exhibits today, I guess their aim was to show Christine was awake, there was a text which was from CB to BB which said (not word for word because I can’t find it posted yet) CB: I’m going to bed, please bring some toilet paper up BB: I’ll be up in a few min He might have also said “I’m almost done”?! I can’t remember, it wasn’t up on the screen super long. But I mean that establishes that Christine was upstairs and he was downstairs. And rather than come down there, she texted him. And possibly even understood him to be doing something. Is it possible he mostly just had to obscure his true activities, and not every single thing that could have indicated he was on there? I don’t think he had the phone all the time. Just when he needed it. Laptop was probably easier to get. |
Anonymous
|
Also, didn’t the window guy testify they contacted him at some point and got a quote, but he didn’t come back until more than a year later and that’s when Brendan asked for a quote for triple pane windows in some places? The stuff today about Christine looking into windows was from like 2021/2022. So it sounds like something they had been talking about, didn’t do, but then much closer to Feb 2023 (I don’t remember exactly when the windows actually got done) Brendan finalized it and asked for a triple pane quote.
I mean there’s no way he was going to get the windows replaced without Christine knowing or noticing. None of that stuff seemed to indicate she was searching about noise or triple pane. She makes a comment about the price too and has other concerns which could be handled with basic options. |
Anonymous
His testimony was so fast that I missed it. The NBC site said something about talking about audio with the dog barking, but no other details. Anything of interest anyone can share? The witness said he’s an audio specialist, can’t remember the exact title he used, but he analyzes audio clips using specialized equipment. He then said he had been forwarded two audio clips related to this investigation. One was what he called the first 911 call, which we’ve referred to here as the 911 hang up. The second was a clip named Lilly3 which is an audio clip of Lilly, the Banfield’s husky, making sounds (I definitely heard something like whining or howling, not just barking in his description). He described the second one as a “known sample,” that’s my terminology I forget what the technical term was, in the sense that it’s known that Lilly made the sounds in those clips. The 911 hang up call was the “unknown” or “comparison” sample (again my terminology, I don’t know the technical). That was about as far as we got, but I would speculate that defense was planning to use the testimony of the expert witness to imply that the sounds heard on the 911 hang up call (widely believed on here to be Joe moaning) could have instead been the Banfield’s husky making sounds. I am not an audio specialist, and I do not think that is believable, but it seems like that is what was being set up. |
Anonymous
The witness said he’s an audio specialist, can’t remember the exact title he used, but he analyzes audio clips using specialized equipment. He then said he had been forwarded two audio clips related to this investigation. One was what he called the first 911 call, which we’ve referred to here as the 911 hang up. The second was a clip named Lilly3 which is an audio clip of Lilly, the Banfield’s husky, making sounds (I definitely heard something like whining or howling, not just barking in his description). He described the second one as a “known sample,” that’s my terminology I forget what the technical term was, in the sense that it’s known that Lilly made the sounds in those clips. The 911 hang up call was the “unknown” or “comparison” sample (again my terminology, I don’t know the technical). That was about as far as we got, but I would speculate that defense was planning to use the testimony of the expert witness to imply that the sounds heard on the 911 hang up call (widely believed on here to be Joe moaning) could have instead been the Banfield’s husky making sounds. I am not an audio specialist, and I do not think that is believable, but it seems like that is what was being set up. Interesting how they would explain the dog being in the bedroom during all this happening, and then being brought outside again? Having no blood on her? Ridiculous strategy if that’s what they’re going for. |
Anonymous
|
I like how the judge is firm with both the CW and the defense. There is no doubt who is in control of that courtroom.
The Brandon Miller testifying looks like a lush. The defense hasn't been completely hapless. He's managed to obfuscate some details. It seems obvious that it's not in Brendan Banfield's best interest to testify. I wonder if the assertion that BB will testify outside the presence of he jury may be gamesmanship to misdirect the CW weekend efforts. I also feel like the motion to dismiss after prosecution rests is pro forma.. but well delivered. |
Anonymous
The witness said he’s an audio specialist, can’t remember the exact title he used, but he analyzes audio clips using specialized equipment. He then said he had been forwarded two audio clips related to this investigation. One was what he called the first 911 call, which we’ve referred to here as the 911 hang up. The second was a clip named Lilly3 which is an audio clip of Lilly, the Banfield’s husky, making sounds (I definitely heard something like whining or howling, not just barking in his description). He described the second one as a “known sample,” that’s my terminology I forget what the technical term was, in the sense that it’s known that Lilly made the sounds in those clips. The 911 hang up call was the “unknown” or “comparison” sample (again my terminology, I don’t know the technical). That was about as far as we got, but I would speculate that defense was planning to use the testimony of the expert witness to imply that the sounds heard on the 911 hang up call (widely believed on here to be Joe moaning) could have instead been the Banfield’s husky making sounds. I am not an audio specialist, and I do not think that is believable, but it seems like that is what was being set up. Interesting. I agree that it sounds like the defenses posture. It seems to me that a fair jury will understand that the noise is that of a gravely injured person with a brain injury (Joe) making sound that is unfamiliar to most outside of first responders. |
Anonymous
| Thanks for the analysis on the audio expert, very interesting! |
Anonymous
Yes, it’s likely that that’s why they got the windows on the first place. But the fact that he screamed inside with Juliana outside shows that he used them to his advantage re the murders. |
Anonymous
The dog was in the basement, which has an entrance that was used by Brendan, Juliana, and the child that day when they coincidentally “returned.” Leaving aside everything else the 911 hang up is problematic for the defense because if they really stumbled into what they believed was an intruder harming Christine, they shouldn’t have hung up and then called back again when they did (which I don’t remember the exact time but it’s way too long, like ten minutes) So I guess they would hope to imply that they were in the basement for longer. And that is where the 911 hang up call was made for…some reason. I suppose that the logical thought process there would be Juliana started dialing, decided there was no emergency yet and they tried to call out or whatever, and then later stumbled into the scene in the master bedroom and made the “real” 911 call. Not really sure anyone would buy that but I mean the defense doesn’t have a lot to work with, I was actually a little impressed when that was being set up. |
Anonymous
How on earth was he a Fairfax county prosecutor? Is he having in cognitive decline? |
Anonymous
| Should also note the above thought process relies on the other assertion by the defense that Juliana read all the discovery in the case and then made up her testimony (which is that she called 911 too early when Christine yelled for her to do so, and then hung up when Brendan gestured at her). |
Anonymous
The witness said he’s an audio specialist, can’t remember the exact title he used, but he analyzes audio clips using specialized equipment. He then said he had been forwarded two audio clips related to this investigation. One was what he called the first 911 call, which we’ve referred to here as the 911 hang up. The second was a clip named Lilly3 which is an audio clip of Lilly, the Banfield’s husky, making sounds (I definitely heard something like whining or howling, not just barking in his description). He described the second one as a “known sample,” that’s my terminology I forget what the technical term was, in the sense that it’s known that Lilly made the sounds in those clips. The 911 hang up call was the “unknown” or “comparison” sample (again my terminology, I don’t know the technical). That was about as far as we got, but I would speculate that defense was planning to use the testimony of the expert witness to imply that the sounds heard on the 911 hang up call (widely believed on here to be Joe moaning) could have instead been the Banfield’s husky making sounds. I am not an audio specialist, and I do not think that is believable, but it seems like that is what was being set up. Wasn’t the dog locked in the basement with the kid? |