Reply to Fairfax County Double Murder

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Fairfax County Double Murder"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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?
[/quote]

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).

[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

She's saying AP= affair partner, not Au Pair.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics