Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are several videos on the Winger case.

https://abc13.com/mark-winger-case-abc-2020-the-perfect-lie-rebecca-simic/10522876/

Ok guy, stop with all the Winger references. We get it- there are case similarities, it doesn't mean this is precisely what happened or will happen with this particular case.

Many on the thread are likely unfamiliar with that case and perhaps how the Wone case played out. There are significant similarities. For all those saying "it makes no sense" those 2 cases may provide some insight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are several videos on the Winger case.

https://abc13.com/mark-winger-case-abc-2020-the-perfect-lie-rebecca-simic/10522876/

Ok guy, stop with all the Winger references. We get it- there are case similarities, it doesn't mean this is precisely what happened or will happen with this particular case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have so many questions about the second gun and the need for the AP to use it...

*Why would BB, a trained LEO with a service weapon on him which he had already used once, need assistance from his employee to access a second gun and finish off the "intruder" when he could have easily done that himself? What possible reason could he have thought up to give authorities for the need for assistance from the AP?

*Obviously, having the AP shoot the second gun was part of BB's plan, but how was BB planning to explain to authorities why his employee knew the location of the gun, the combination of the safe, and how to use the gun? It can't be common practice for households that employ au pairs and have gun safes with guns in them to instruct the au pair on how to access and use the gun. You might instruct them on how to use an alarm system or dial 911 but teach them how to access a gun? Doesn't make sense.

*It seems like BB wanted the AP to be complicit in the shooting, which is why he took her to the gun range to train her on how to use the gun, subsequently purchased a gun for her to use, told her how to access it, and then told her to use it on Joe. But what convoluted reason could he have possibly given her for why she needed to do that in the first place? Was he thinking it would somehow make him personally less culpable if there was a second shooter?

Make it make sense!

I have had the same questions. If they thought Ryan was still a threat even after being shot/ blinded, why did they take the time for her to go to the safe get the code to open the safe, retrieve the gun and shoot it instead of him just shooting again. It just doesn’t make sense.

I'm starting to think that Banfield set this up for Magalhes to carry out on her own, but on the morning of she chickened out and that's why you have this string of events that don't make sense.

Anonymous wrote:There are several videos on the Winger case.

https://abc13.com/mark-winger-case-abc-2020-the-perfect-lie-rebecca-simic/10522876/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have so many questions about the second gun and the need for the AP to use it...

*Why would BB, a trained LEO with a service weapon on him which he had already used once, need assistance from his employee to access a second gun and finish off the "intruder" when he could have easily done that himself? What possible reason could he have thought up to give authorities for the need for assistance from the AP?

*Obviously, having the AP shoot the second gun was part of BB's plan, but how was BB planning to explain to authorities why his employee knew the location of the gun, the combination of the safe, and how to use the gun? It can't be common practice for households that employ au pairs and have gun safes with guns in them to instruct the au pair on how to access and use the gun. You might instruct them on how to use an alarm system or dial 911 but teach them how to access a gun? Doesn't make sense.

*It seems like BB wanted the AP to be complicit in the shooting, which is why he took her to the gun range to train her on how to use the gun, subsequently purchased a gun for her to use, told her how to access it, and then told her to use it on Joe. But what convoluted reason could he have possibly given her for why she needed to do that in the first place? Was he thinking it would somehow make him personally less culpable if there was a second shooter?

Make it make sense!

I have had the same questions. If they thought Ryan was still a threat even after being shot/ blinded, why did they take the time for her to go to the safe get the code to open the safe, retrieve the gun and shoot it instead of him just shooting again. It just doesn’t make sense.

I'm starting to think that Banfield set this up for Magalhes to carry out on her own, but on the morning of she chickened out and that's why you have this string of events that don't make sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to offer the AP US citizenship. That will flip her. And it is reasonable offer for cooperating with a killer. We may not like her or the thought of this offer, but it is for greater good.

I really think it would help. Have had many APs including from Brazil. And her attorney would be a fool not to encourage her to take it.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has no ability to offer that. And I'm pretty sure there's not a visa/citizenship category for flipping on your would be co-defendant in a state murder trial. Plus, an inducement like that wouldn't help the case against Banfield. Any plea the AP cute will be fair game for BB's defense attorney.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have so many questions about the second gun and the need for the AP to use it...

*Why would BB, a trained LEO with a service weapon on him which he had already used once, need assistance from his employee to access a second gun and finish off the "intruder" when he could have easily done that himself? What possible reason could he have thought up to give authorities for the need for assistance from the AP?

*Obviously, having the AP shoot the second gun was part of BB's plan, but how was BB planning to explain to authorities why his employee knew the location of the gun, the combination of the safe, and how to use the gun? It can't be common practice for households that employ au pairs and have gun safes with guns in them to instruct the au pair on how to access and use the gun. You might instruct them on how to use an alarm system or dial 911 but teach them how to access a gun? Doesn't make sense.

*It seems like BB wanted the AP to be complicit in the shooting, which is why he took her to the gun range to train her on how to use the gun, subsequently purchased a gun for her to use, told her how to access it, and then told her to use it on Joe. But what convoluted reason could he have possibly given her for why she needed to do that in the first place? Was he thinking it would somehow make him personally less culpable if there was a second shooter?

Make it make sense!

I have had the same questions. If they thought Ryan was still a threat even after being shot/ blinded, why did they take the time for her to go to the safe get the code to open the safe, retrieve the gun and shoot it instead of him just shooting again. It just doesn’t make sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he thinks his salvation lies in the Commonwealth having to PROVE he was the stabber without AP's testimony.

Not like Joe or Christine can weigh in. It's a lot like the Robert Wone case. Ridiculous story, multiple people in home, government was not able to pin killing on any one of them beyond a reasonable doubt. They also delayed summoning help and were so off that first responders clocked it. Like BB. He thinks he will skate like Joe Price did. He was gonna do Mark Winger one better and NEVER be incarcerated. Hope he is very wrong.

It seems like a risky plan with a lot of moving parts and a lot of trouble to go to to avoid paying alimony. He's an LEO. He knows all the tools other LEO have at their disposal to solve the crime. Like the police weren't going to find out about the purchase of the Glock two months before the incident or the trips to the gun range with the au pair?

Anonymous wrote:Do we know that CB was actually found naked or is that just something the AP/BB testified to?

Part of me is convinced all of this was premeditated to resemble the Robert Wone murder. No way to pin it on one person. The other part of me is like: why do this on a day the child was home?? Let’s assume BB thinks he’s a criminal mastermind/genius. Children are wild cards on their best days. Why did he do this on a day she’d be at the house? I think their original plan fell apart somehow…

Anonymous wrote:I think he thinks his salvation lies in the Commonwealth having to PROVE he was the stabber without AP's testimony.

Not like Joe or Christine can weigh in. It's a lot like the Robert Wone case. Ridiculous story, multiple people in home, government was not able to pin killing on any one of them beyond a reasonable doubt. They also delayed summoning help and were so off that first responders clocked it. Like BB. He thinks he will skate like Joe Price did. He was gonna do Mark Winger one better and NEVER be incarcerated. Hope he is very wrong.

Anonymous wrote:They need to offer the AP US citizenship. That will flip her. And it is reasonable offer for cooperating with a killer. We may not like her or the thought of this offer, but it is for greater good.

I really think it would help. Have had many APs including from Brazil. And her attorney would be a fool not to encourage her to take it.