Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why weren’t the dogs going crazy with an unknown person in the house?

Not if crated, perhaps in ap suite in basement?

Sadly, their husky is old. Probably didn’t care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why weren’t the dogs going crazy with an unknown person in the house?

Not if crated, perhaps in ap suite in basement?

Anonymous wrote:Why weren’t the dogs going crazy with an unknown person in the house?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don’t understand how the police couldn’t arrest him before and was depending solely on Juliana’s testimony to do so. With so many resources…
Not criticizing the police, just don’t get it.

Because they only have one shot to arrest him. I agree and wish he was arrested much earlier (I am a neighbor and it felt uneasy seeing him walking around the neighborhood) but I do understand why FCPD had to be really careful with this case.

Ultimately, the question should be why did it take this long for Juliana to flip? Is it because her attorney is being paid for by BB? Is she just that clueless and naive hoping they will be back together again? Only time will tell but this arrest is a step in the right direction.

I've seen this speculated on a lot.

BB paying for Juliana's lawyer would be a massive conflict of interest and I am not sure that would be allowed even if Juliana agreed to it. I would be interested to know who is paying though.

Her mother gave an interview (Google it) in which she stated the family was not paying for the lawyer, nor had Brazil offered assistance. He's not appointed nor a PD so who else do you think may have been paying?

No idea. Maybe the au pair agency? It would not surprise me if there was a clause in the au pair contract that obligated the agency to pay for a lawyer in a circumstance like this.

I hope a VA lawyer weighs in. I really want to know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something to consider: AP brought the child into the house following the "intruder" she was so concerned about. Unless she knew what was going to happen, including BB shooting the "intruder," why on earth would any rational person do this?

The other scenario since she went in the house with Brendan and the daughter is that he told her bring her in and keep her safe in the basement.

That makes zero sense. Any parent would not want their kid even in the house! Stay in the car. Stop making stuff up.

To clarify, I meant that BB knew what was going on all along. He knew it was OK for the daughter to be in there because he had already stabbed Christine.

Anonymous wrote:Do you guys think there’s a chance he actually plotted it all and involved Juliana too?

What if BB and AP were starting an affair, he tells her he knew CB was cheating on him, found her profile on fet life and all of that.

He stabs CB before leaving the house, AP doesn’t know at this point, she’s getting ready w the kid to go out.

She leaves (or leaves and comes back) and sees JR going in, tells BB. BB goes in first, shoots him while she’s putting the kid in the basement. She did testify when she got into the room, CB was already stabbed. BB asks her to take the gun and shoot JR so he doesn’t get up while he’s trying to “save” Christine, now she’s also involved.
That would justify her calling 911 and hanging up. Maybe he took the phone away from her and asked her to get the gun at that very moment.

He plays the victim to her, tells her that he caught JR stabbing CB and all of that. Juliana is stupid enough to never tell this to the police until now that she’s noticing he won’t do anything for her.


I thought about that bc I remember at the trial, when he pledge the fifth , and specially when the prosecutor said he was trying to help her, she was looking in disbelief.

I do think she’s trash for getting involved w him, accepting sleeping in CB’s bed and all. But I also think there’s a chance BB knows more than she does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If JM did in fact turn on BB and accept some sort of plea, would BB’s trial then come first?

Great question. Any lawyers out there with insight on this? Will JM’s trial date get pushed back and BB goes first?

If you accept a plea agreement, a judge will sentence you without a trial. The prosecutor may offer a deal for a reduced sentence or no jail time if you agree to plead guilty. As part of plea deals, you cannot go back and fight the charges, because you already pleaded guilty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If JM did in fact turn on BB and accept some sort of plea, would BB’s trial then come first?

Great question. Any lawyers out there with insight on this? Will JM’s trial date get pushed back and BB goes first?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If JM did in fact turn on BB and accept some sort of plea, would BB’s trial then come first?

If she accepts a plea, there will be no trial for her.

Anonymous wrote:If JM did in fact turn on BB and accept some sort of plea, would BB’s trial then come first?

Anonymous wrote:If JM did in fact turn on BB and accept some sort of plea, would BB’s trial then come first?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don’t understand how the police couldn’t arrest him before and was depending solely on Juliana’s testimony to do so. With so many resources…
Not criticizing the police, just don’t get it.

Because they only have one shot to arrest him. I agree and wish he was arrested much earlier (I am a neighbor and it felt uneasy seeing him walking around the neighborhood) but I do understand why FCPD had to be really careful with this case.

Ultimately, the question should be why did it take this long for Juliana to flip? Is it because her attorney is being paid for by BB? Is she just that clueless and naive hoping they will be back together again? Only time will tell but this arrest is a step in the right direction.

I've seen this speculated on a lot.

BB paying for Juliana's lawyer would be a massive conflict of interest and I am not sure that would be allowed even if Juliana agreed to it. I would be interested to know who is paying though.

Her mother gave an interview (Google it) in which she stated the family was not paying for the lawyer, nor had Brazil offered assistance. He's not appointed nor a PD so who else do you think may have been paying?

No idea. Maybe the au pair agency? It would not surprise me if there was a clause in the au pair contract that obligated the agency to pay for a lawyer in a circumstance like this.

I hope a VA lawyer weighs in. I really want to know.

You think the agency has subrogation clause in their contract that would require the agency to pay for the au pair's lawyer in the event the au pair commits murder while working? OMFG. I am a Virginia lawyer, but you don't need to be one to understand how ludicrous your statement is. 1) murder is not a reasonable action taken in the due course of her work duties of being a nanny, and 2) most employment contracts that have clauses like this have carve outs for willful misconduct and gross negligence, and I would say killing your employer qualifies as such.

And it would not be a "conflict of interest" for Bansfield or his mother to be paying for the au pair's attorney (someone wrote that). Conflict of interest where? Under what? The Virginia bar? There are conflicts of interest in representing clients in where if the same attorney that represented the au, pair, who had been representing her for a year and had obtained privileged information from her, then turned around an also represented Banfield in a criminal and/or civli case. I think it is unethical, but I don't know what you mean.

Posters need to stop the insanity with their Tik Tok/Twitter/Qanon conspiracy theories.

Well, this was unnecessarily hostile and rude.

Yes, I think a suspect in a murder case paying for his affair partner's lawyer when the affair partner was the nanny who happened to be in the room with both victims and the other suspect is at the very least questionable.

And you're the one that made up a scenario involving subrogation and the employer/employee relationship and called it ludicrous. I never suggested that. I believe it's possible an au pair agency could have something along the lines offering legal services insurance (which is a thing).

Most of this thread is speculation. We have people on here who believe Banfield's mom was posting on this thread.

I was not rude. You were still ridiculous and don’t seem to understand how these kind of contracts work. A contract for legal services for an au pair, under your scenario, would cover things that she did during her normal course and duties of being an au pair. Do you think shooting someone and being charged with murder falls in that category? No. So her right to pull on such kind of a legal services contract would be negated because her need for services wouldn’t qualify under the terms.

Do you even know about this kind of law or do you have a crazy imagination? Do you even understand the concepts of what you’re implying? I’m trying to tell you that it doesn’t exist but you won’t listen.

You are definitely upholding the reputation of lawyers as jerks. Calling someone ludicrous, ridiculous, and being hugely condescending is rude. I'm not sure what your problem is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don’t understand how the police couldn’t arrest him before and was depending solely on Juliana’s testimony to do so. With so many resources…
Not criticizing the police, just don’t get it.

Because they only have one shot to arrest him. I agree and wish he was arrested much earlier (I am a neighbor and it felt uneasy seeing him walking around the neighborhood) but I do understand why FCPD had to be really careful with this case.

Ultimately, the question should be why did it take this long for Juliana to flip? Is it because her attorney is being paid for by BB? Is she just that clueless and naive hoping they will be back together again? Only time will tell but this arrest is a step in the right direction.

I've seen this speculated on a lot.

BB paying for Juliana's lawyer would be a massive conflict of interest and I am not sure that would be allowed even if Juliana agreed to it. I would be interested to know who is paying though.

Her mother gave an interview (Google it) in which she stated the family was not paying for the lawyer, nor had Brazil offered assistance. He's not appointed nor a PD so who else do you think may have been paying?

No idea. Maybe the au pair agency? It would not surprise me if there was a clause in the au pair contract that obligated the agency to pay for a lawyer in a circumstance like this.

I hope a VA lawyer weighs in. I really want to know.

You think the agency has subrogation clause in their contract that would require the agency to pay for the au pair's lawyer in the event the au pair commits murder while working? OMFG. I am a Virginia lawyer, but you don't need to be one to understand how ludicrous your statement is. 1) murder is not a reasonable action taken in the due course of her work duties of being a nanny, and 2) most employment contracts that have clauses like this have carve outs for willful misconduct and gross negligence, and I would say killing your employer qualifies as such.

And it would not be a "conflict of interest" for Bansfield or his mother to be paying for the au pair's attorney (someone wrote that). Conflict of interest where? Under what? The Virginia bar? There are conflicts of interest in representing clients in where if the same attorney that represented the au, pair, who had been representing her for a year and had obtained privileged information from her, then turned around an also represented Banfield in a criminal and/or civli case. I think it is unethical, but I don't know what you mean.

Posters need to stop the insanity with their Tik Tok/Twitter/Qanon conspiracy theories.

Well, this was unnecessarily hostile and rude.

Yes, I think a suspect in a murder case paying for his affair partner's lawyer when the affair partner was the nanny who happened to be in the room with both victims and the other suspect is at the very least questionable.

And you're the one that made up a scenario involving subrogation and the employer/employee relationship and called it ludicrous. I never suggested that. I believe it's possible an au pair agency could have something along the lines offering legal services insurance (which is a thing).

Most of this thread is speculation. We have people on here who believe Banfield's mom was posting on this thread.

I was not rude. You were still ridiculous and don’t seem to understand how these kind of contracts work. A contract for legal services for an au pair, under your scenario, would cover things that she did during her normal course and duties of being an au pair. Do you think shooting someone and being charged with murder falls in that category? No. So her right to pull on such kind of a legal services contract would be negated because her need for services wouldn’t qualify under the terms.

Do you even know about this kind of law or do you have a crazy imagination? Do you even understand the concepts of what you’re implying? I’m trying to tell you that it doesn’t exist but you won’t listen.