Fairfax County Double Murder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did he groom Juliana into this? I'm sure there are lots of young women who, unfortunately, would sleep with their boss, and men know what moves to make to see if she's willing. There are subtle boundaries they can cross to see how the girl reacts.

But very few would participate in murdering the wife, so how did he identify that Juliana was capable, and how did he cultivate that? What kind of hints would you drop, to see if the au pair is down with that?

There was at least one other affair partner of Brendan’s who had the audacity to bring up getting rid of his wife. She was subpoenaed. But not called to the stand.

Wow, really? He brought it up, or she did?

Preliminary court documents did.

I meant did BB or this other women suggest killing his wife?

BB

Wow!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did he groom Juliana into this? I'm sure there are lots of young women who, unfortunately, would sleep with their boss, and men know what moves to make to see if she's willing. There are subtle boundaries they can cross to see how the girl reacts.

But very few would participate in murdering the wife, so how did he identify that Juliana was capable, and how did he cultivate that? What kind of hints would you drop, to see if the au pair is down with that?

There was at least one other affair partner of Brendan’s who had the audacity to bring up getting rid of his wife. She was subpoenaed. But not called to the stand.

Wow, really? He brought it up, or she did?

Preliminary court documents did.

I meant did BB or this other women suggest killing his wife?

BB

Maybe they can call her in rebuttal since BB himself will be testifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t the prosecutor have a supervisor of Brendan Banfield’s testify about what he did in his job: ie, what kind of investigations did he do, what kind of training he had undergone?

Also, it would be interesting to ask his supervisor whether it is typical for someone in that job to carry a loaded weapon, magazines, and handcuffs on a daily basis?

The prosecution has rested, so I believe, this ship has sailed. I think it was wise for the prosecution not to ask these questions because the questions seem to dilute the case.

I'm not aware of what investigations Brendan did. He was a baby agent that was likely working developmental cases. The training for a IRS-CI special agent is about 6 months long. The first three months are general law enforcement training (CITP). Most federal law enforcement job series 1811 attend this training. The second portion of the training for IRS-CI trainees is focused on the IRS specific cases (SABT).

Your question about whether Brendan carried the service weapon, two magazines, handcuffs, and belt badge on a daily basis is a good one. I find it unusual and a bit suspicious. I'm confident the detectives investigating the case would have noted the amount of gear he was carrying that day. I think the CW did a decent job of streamlining the case. (save for the testimony about the nanny's wet spot).

I've tried my best to follow the thread and the testimony but I missed the part about the wet spot. What was the deal with that?

BB and JM were having an affair. the CW sent JM’s sheets for dna testing. one of the CW witnesses testified that JM’s sheets tested positive for BB’s semen.

I’m far more interested in the CW proving the case in chief than that BB was giving the nanny the business. i don’t find the fact that BB was giving the nanny the business to be probative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t the prosecutor have a supervisor of Brendan Banfield’s testify about what he did in his job: ie, what kind of investigations did he do, what kind of training he had undergone?

Also, it would be interesting to ask his supervisor whether it is typical for someone in that job to carry a loaded weapon, magazines, and handcuffs on a daily basis?

The prosecution has rested, so I believe, this ship has sailed. I think it was wise for the prosecution not to ask these questions because the questions seem to dilute the case.

I'm not aware of what investigations Brendan did. He was a baby agent that was likely working developmental cases. The training for a IRS-CI special agent is about 6 months long. The first three months are general law enforcement training (CITP). Most federal law enforcement job series 1811 attend this training. The second portion of the training for IRS-CI trainees is focused on the IRS specific cases (SABT).

Your question about whether Brendan carried the service weapon, two magazines, handcuffs, and belt badge on a daily basis is a good one. I find it unusual and a bit suspicious. I'm confident the detectives investigating the case would have noted the amount of gear he was carrying that day. I think the CW did a decent job of streamlining the case. (save for the testimony about the nanny's wet spot).

I've tried my best to follow the thread and the testimony but I missed the part about the wet spot. What was the deal with that?

BB and JM were having an affair. the CW sent JM’s sheets for dna testing. one of the CW witnesses testified that JM’s sheets tested positive for BB’s semen.

I’m far more interested in the CW proving the case in chief than that BB was giving the nanny the business. i don’t find the fact that BB was giving the nanny the business to be probative.

I'm fine with that as confirmation Juliana is telling the truth about their affair, but I can't get over that there was another girlfriend to whom he suggested murdering Christine and they didn't include it. What a hell of a coincidence it would be that he was having multiple affairs, suggested to an ex-AP that he kill his wife, and then his wife gets killed under these crazy circumstances and the current AP is saying he did it.

[Anonymous]

While court is closed, do we know anything about the other male fetlife users who engaged online with BB and JM but were turned down because they wanted to meet face-to-face before any “intimate” encounter occurred? Can you imagine what these men must feel having come so close to being catfished? In asking that I mean no disrespect whatsoever for Joe Ryan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t the prosecutor have a supervisor of Brendan Banfield’s testify about what he did in his job: ie, what kind of investigations did he do, what kind of training he had undergone?

Also, it would be interesting to ask his supervisor whether it is typical for someone in that job to carry a loaded weapon, magazines, and handcuffs on a daily basis?

The prosecution has rested, so I believe, this ship has sailed. I think it was wise for the prosecution not to ask these questions because the questions seem to dilute the case.

I'm not aware of what investigations Brendan did. He was a baby agent that was likely working developmental cases. The training for a IRS-CI special agent is about 6 months long. The first three months are general law enforcement training (CITP). Most federal law enforcement job series 1811 attend this training. The second portion of the training for IRS-CI trainees is focused on the IRS specific cases (SABT).

Your question about whether Brendan carried the service weapon, two magazines, handcuffs, and belt badge on a daily basis is a good one. I find it unusual and a bit suspicious. I'm confident the detectives investigating the case would have noted the amount of gear he was carrying that day. I think the CW did a decent job of streamlining the case. (save for the testimony about the nanny's wet spot).

I've tried my best to follow the thread and the testimony but I missed the part about the wet spot. What was the deal with that?

BB and JM were having an affair. the CW sent JM’s sheets for dna testing. one of the CW witnesses testified that JM’s sheets tested positive for BB’s semen.

I’m far more interested in the CW proving the case in chief than that BB was giving the nanny the business. i don’t find the fact that BB was giving the nanny the business to be probative.

I'm fine with that as confirmation Juliana is telling the truth about their affair, but I can't get over that there was another girlfriend to whom he suggested murdering Christine and they didn't include it. What a hell of a coincidence it would be that he was having multiple affairs, suggested to an ex-AP that he kill his wife, and then his wife gets killed under these crazy circumstances and the current AP is saying he did it.

Do not mislead anyone saying he suggested anything to the ex au pair.
She was friends with Christine and loved her deeply. She’s still not over what happened and she was in the courtroom when Juliana testified, crying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t the prosecutor have a supervisor of Brendan Banfield’s testify about what he did in his job: ie, what kind of investigations did he do, what kind of training he had undergone?

Also, it would be interesting to ask his supervisor whether it is typical for someone in that job to carry a loaded weapon, magazines, and handcuffs on a daily basis?

The prosecution has rested, so I believe, this ship has sailed. I think it was wise for the prosecution not to ask these questions because the questions seem to dilute the case.

I'm not aware of what investigations Brendan did. He was a baby agent that was likely working developmental cases. The training for a IRS-CI special agent is about 6 months long. The first three months are general law enforcement training (CITP). Most federal law enforcement job series 1811 attend this training. The second portion of the training for IRS-CI trainees is focused on the IRS specific cases (SABT).

Your question about whether Brendan carried the service weapon, two magazines, handcuffs, and belt badge on a daily basis is a good one. I find it unusual and a bit suspicious. I'm confident the detectives investigating the case would have noted the amount of gear he was carrying that day. I think the CW did a decent job of streamlining the case. (save for the testimony about the nanny's wet spot).

I've tried my best to follow the thread and the testimony but I missed the part about the wet spot. What was the deal with that?

BB and JM were having an affair. the CW sent JM’s sheets for dna testing. one of the CW witnesses testified that JM’s sheets tested positive for BB’s semen.

I’m far more interested in the CW proving the case in chief than that BB was giving the nanny the business. i don’t find the fact that BB was giving the nanny the business to be probative.

I'm fine with that as confirmation Juliana is telling the truth about their affair, but I can't get over that there was another girlfriend to whom he suggested murdering Christine and they didn't include it. What a hell of a coincidence it would be that he was having multiple affairs, suggested to an ex-AP that he kill his wife, and then his wife gets killed under these crazy circumstances and the current AP is saying he did it.

Do not mislead anyone saying he suggested anything to the ex au pair.
She was friends with Christine and loved her deeply. She’s still not over what happened and she was in the courtroom when Juliana testified, crying.

She's saying AP= affair partner, not Au Pair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t the prosecutor have a supervisor of Brendan Banfield’s testify about what he did in his job: ie, what kind of investigations did he do, what kind of training he had undergone?

Also, it would be interesting to ask his supervisor whether it is typical for someone in that job to carry a loaded weapon, magazines, and handcuffs on a daily basis?

The prosecution has rested, so I believe, this ship has sailed. I think it was wise for the prosecution not to ask these questions because the questions seem to dilute the case.

I'm not aware of what investigations Brendan did. He was a baby agent that was likely working developmental cases. The training for a IRS-CI special agent is about 6 months long. The first three months are general law enforcement training (CITP). Most federal law enforcement job series 1811 attend this training. The second portion of the training for IRS-CI trainees is focused on the IRS specific cases (SABT).

Your question about whether Brendan carried the service weapon, two magazines, handcuffs, and belt badge on a daily basis is a good one. I find it unusual and a bit suspicious. I'm confident the detectives investigating the case would have noted the amount of gear he was carrying that day. I think the CW did a decent job of streamlining the case. (save for the testimony about the nanny's wet spot).

I've tried my best to follow the thread and the testimony but I missed the part about the wet spot. What was the deal with that?

BB and JM were having an affair. the CW sent JM’s sheets for dna testing. one of the CW witnesses testified that JM’s sheets tested positive for BB’s semen.

I’m far more interested in the CW proving the case in chief than that BB was giving the nanny the business. i don’t find the fact that BB was giving the nanny the business to be probative.

I'm fine with that as confirmation Juliana is telling the truth about their affair, but I can't get over that there was another girlfriend to whom he suggested murdering Christine and they didn't include it. What a hell of a coincidence it would be that he was having multiple affairs, suggested to an ex-AP that he kill his wife, and then his wife gets killed under these crazy circumstances and the current AP is saying he did it.

Do not mislead anyone saying he suggested anything to the ex au pair.
She was friends with Christine and loved her deeply. She’s still not over what happened and she was in the courtroom when Juliana testified, crying.

She posted something recently on her IG about healing from blaming herself for something that happened. I hope its not this scenario re: leaving the Banfield to get married, resulting in them hiring JPM. Broke my heart, she and CB and daughter really loved each other.

[Anonymous]

Courts are supposed to be open on Wed. They may have to send the police/sherrifs out to get some of the jurors if they can't get out of their streets!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did he groom Juliana into this? I'm sure there are lots of young women who, unfortunately, would sleep with their boss, and men know what moves to make to see if she's willing. There are subtle boundaries they can cross to see how the girl reacts.

But very few would participate in murdering the wife, so how did he identify that Juliana was capable, and how did he cultivate that? What kind of hints would you drop, to see if the au pair is down with that?

There was at least one other affair partner of Brendan’s who had the audacity to bring up getting rid of his wife. She was subpoenaed. But not called to the stand.

Wow, really? He brought it up, or she did?

Preliminary court documents did.

I meant did BB or this other women suggest killing his wife?

BB

Maybe they can call her in rebuttal since BB himself will be testifying.

He will???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
BB

Maybe they can call her in rebuttal since BB himself will be testifying.

He will???

When finalizing some of the jury instructions, the commonwealth said they are using a “waterfall” instruction (common with these elements) which means basically there will be a step by step document for the jury to go through elements and come to the answer. The commonwealth said there would be two different versions based on whether the defendant testified (because the defendant has a 5th amendment constitutional right not to testify and in that case the waterfall instructions would include something like: the defendant does not have to testify and you can’t infer anything from the defendant’s choice not to testify). In this discussion, Carroll said he will be testifying.

So I mean it isn’t set in stone, he still has a right to not testify. But based on that comment, the defense case has it factored in, I guess. I think it’s pretty unusual but there’s been a few unusual things about the defense. I won’t lie, I’m waiting for it with bated breath of course, but from a defense standpoint it is extremely difficult for me to imagine how this could be at all helpful. By testifying he has to answer prosecution on cross. In Virginia, the prosecutor is not limited to scope of the defendant’s testimony and can ask other things relevant to the case (wherever relevant objections aren’t sustained by the judge of course). In short, given what we know about this case it seems insane, but I don’t care about Brendan Banfield so I do hope it happens.

[Anonymous]

Are we back tomorrow?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are we back tomorrow?

The website says they are open tomorrow so I’m assuming yes. Especially with the potential for more snow this weekend, the judge probably wants to wrap it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This should be a direct link to the video.

https://webcache.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuitcourt/Evidence%20Admitted%20January%2023%2C%202026/Def%20exhibit%2082.mp4

Thanks

[Anonymous]

will they be able to view the video when they deliberating?