Anonymous wrote: Concerning the news report that a FFX police officer doing digital forensics concluded Christine was behind the FetLife profile and communicated with JR (and that said report was reviewed and validated by another LE agency). First I totally believe B and the au pair plotted and committed these crimes. But can anyone out there elaborate a bit on digital forensics? Namely, without testimonial collaboration from a human being, how can investigator determine with any accuracy which person was behind the digital trail. In other words, how would the digital trail alone identify one person especially as a married couple have access to each others’ devices.

It can be determined the likely times Christine could have been on devices and where they made. In addition in this case it was her family and friends that said they did not believe Christine wrote in the way they believed she would write. Meaning her choice of words and writing style. It didn't relate to her personality but writing style that caused people to come forward. Of course they also didn't see it as her likely behavior, though it was really the choice of words used to communicate. That's what I have read anyway about this case. it would and is impossible for the IT forensics to be looked at by one person early on and not have the idea that it was Christine. It was only after time and looking more deeply that the digital forensics revealed something different after people came forward and the communications were more closely analyzed. In nearly all cases that are investigated properly there are many theories about any case. It is also normal within a police force to have movement of the officers and detectives.

I agree with the pervious poster who said they thought it was a tactic used by the defense to cause doubt and conspiracy. The lead detective in this case stayed on the entire time. When he testified in court he said that he had had other theories early on but they had evolved as they got further in the investigation. So his earlier believe that the communications were from Christine were a normal assumption until he learned otherwise based on testimonies, and other factors. I do think the defense will attempt to blame the police investigation, the prosecution, and the two victims JR and CB as much as possible. That's what they do, don't be fooled folks!

Additional thought from PP “Concerning…” I further think that AP is getting such a sweetheart deal not only because her testimony will give clarity to the digital trail but ALSO because Fairfax County already knew they had a potential problem with the officer whose digital investigation concluded C was behind the accounts. That officer was transferred and a supervisor admitted in court he told that officer he would never work forensics again. I have a lot of faith in Fairfax police but they really stepped in it here

Anonymous wrote: Concerning the news report that a FFX police officer doing digital forensics concluded Christine was behind the FetLife profile and communicated with JR (and that said report was reviewed and validated by another LE agency). First I totally believe B and the au pair plotted and committed these crimes. But can anyone out there elaborate a bit on digital forensics? Namely, without testimonial collaboration from a human being, how can investigator determine with any accuracy which person was behind the digital trail. In other words, how would the digital trail alone identify one person especially as a married couple have access to each others’ devices.

Agreed. The explanation seems to be that she was active at certain times and talking to more than one person. But that could all be Brendan as well.

Concerning the news report that a FFX police officer doing digital forensics concluded Christine was behind the FetLife profile and communicated with JR (and that said report was reviewed and validated by another LE agency). First I totally believe B and the au pair plotted and committed these crimes. But can anyone out there elaborate a bit on digital forensics? Namely, without testimonial collaboration from a human being, how can investigator determine with any accuracy which person was behind the digital trail. In other words, how would the digital trail alone identify one person especially as a married couple have access to each others’ devices.

Havent been following very closely but can someone please explain why the girl is living with the paternal grandmother??? This is so disturbing. How is this possible? Are the maternal grandparents not fighting for her?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it. What part of her testimony did she recant? Wouldn’t that nullify her deal?

No she recanted her first statements/testimony with the second testimony which she detailed how Branden and she catfished, and killed Joe and that Branden killed Christine himself. Thats when they gave her the deal to be willing to testify in court what the real or new story was.

This. She lied first, but when they offered her a deal, she told a different story.

She’ll make a great witness.

She gave an extremely detailed account. Many witnesses give testimony in cases that is very damning for the defense and supports the prosecution. It is not automatically discreated by the jury at all. is she a weaker witness if she wasn’t a killer and a liar also? Yes she is weaker but still a strong clear account at least according to the prosecution. What is a jury going to believe the defenses conspiracy theories about the investigation or the mountain of forensic evidence like Joe’s body was moved to fit Brandens story? Or will they believe Juliana who can detail what happened. Yes she has motive to tell this story but it is compelling enough to have gotten that deal. It will be up to a jury to decide which side presents a more reasonable and logical case, and not a forum quickly making a judgement before they have even heard all the witness testimony, and expert forensic evidence. I suggest you not attempt to shade the witness or the prosecution team before the trial based on what little actual facts you have read in the press. It is clear to Me who is guilty here, and that is Branden, and Julianna and I will keep putting that out because I care about justice and the lives of the victims family and friends in this case. A fast statement about lies isn’t supporting the truth or the judicial process. I personally want justice for Joe, and Christine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it. What part of her testimony did she recant? Wouldn’t that nullify her deal?

No she recanted her first statements/testimony with the second testimony which she detailed how Branden and she catfished, and killed Joe and that Branden killed Christine himself. Thats when they gave her the deal to be willing to testify in court what the real or new story was.

This. She lied first, but when they offered her a deal, she told a different story.

She’ll make a great witness.

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it. What part of her testimony did she recant? Wouldn’t that nullify her deal?

No she recanted her first statements/testimony with the second testimony which she detailed how Branden and she catfished, and killed Joe and that Branden killed Christine himself. Thats when they gave her the deal to be willing to testify in court what the real or new story was.

I don't get it. What part of her testimony did she recant? Wouldn’t that nullify her deal?

Rot in hell, Brendan

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean by:
"Julianna recanted her original testimony, and than she gave testimony against Brandon that was clear, involved, and damaging to his case."

I thought she made confession then recanted that confession. I know there have been hearings prior to the case. Has Julianna testified in court already?

She gave testimony in the form of a confession the second time she gave a police interview. She gave her personal testimony on both occasions when question. It is a choice of words and perhaps the wrong words used on my part. I am the original poster you are quoting.

She plead guilty in court on her own charges, and had them reduced. She gave a full confession which is considered very strong evidence against Branden. That statement included the catfishing both she and Branden perpetrated on Joseph Ryan. She admitted to the call speaking with Ryan, and spoke of the other communications Branden had with Joe as Christine priar to the murder of Christine and Joseph. It included her full confession of the laying in wait for the victim Joe, and how the murder went down on that day.

The articles that have come out about the catfishing theory being a police conspiracy are just that a conspiracy theory placed by the defense to cast doubt on the police force itself. It didnt stick with the judge, she did rule the case would continue as is she saw NO MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATION or of the district autonies office. She did rule that anything about the forensic officers movement of his position be disclosed to the defense team, but did not allow that information about the lead detective Kyle Bryant be disclosed as he stayed with the case the entirety of the case, and his was a literal move with the department and not cause for questioning. In addition it is clear also during the court hearing that it is typical to have many multiple theories about a case among many detectives, it is the nature of an investigation, nothing is set until it is set and goes to trial. This case has a vast amount of carefully collected and anylized evidence and a strong eye witness account, and confession with Julianna.

Again I say this is a nothing burger presented as a conspiracy by the defense and reporters are not emphasizing the ruling by the judge or the common occurrences of such a movement made by the defense attorney. This is not unusual for pre trial, and the cat fishing still very much stands as part of the prosecutions case against Branden. News reporters can and have gotten many things wrong, they have proven they jump to conclusions, or mislead in titles of articles to grab attention or make it news worthy. There is no fresh meat here….