Anonymous wrote:\Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Defense is objecting to things like the photograph with markings to preserve the issue for appeal. Generally on appeal the issue or error has to have been raised contemporaneously to be considered so defense is just doing their job.
I am a little surprised the CW didn’t bring the doctor in or a medical expert to review records. I can understand wanting to stay focused on a cohesive narrative and I think the CW has done a pretty good job of that so far but it seems like it would have been worth it to at least briefly go over those. I guess they got there overall. The dad did say there was a “treatment” that she got, instead of an ongoing medication and it was given by doctors, not the parents. I would assume this was an injection. Overall it seems like it might have been worth it to establish this but I guess I would say I found the dad’s testimony credible.
It doesn't feel like enough to me. I'm not sure they established as a fact in the case that CB had a blood clotting disorder that would have led her to bleed out if she engaged in knife play. Listening solely to the testimony, it sounded like she had to be careful as a kid doe to some unknown condition, but it was managed well enough in adulthood and she participated in many sports and they did not establish that she wore any protective gear or took precautions as an adult. I don't think it's absolutely essential to the CW's case, but it's like, why bring it up if they weren't going to establish it very clearly.
Is it possible that the clotting disorder isn't even very serious, so they can't really get into it much more than that? Do we even know what disorder it is?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:She died of blood loss? Doctor said her airway was fine. So the 911 hang up was a deadly delay?
The 911 hang up could have been because she hadn't been attacked yet, or if she had, she wasn't yet close enough to being dead.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm a couple hours behind but watching the audio of Brendan going to hospital. Doctor says "your wife has died."
I assume bluntness by the doctor is the right approach so people can process and understand the news. In a general situation however is it normal for the doctor/officer to stick to their roles and be fairly silent while someone processes the loss of their spouse or do you think they were treading carefully here because it was a crime scene?
I was about to ask that!!! Can someone answer this ?
Training for doctors and similarly for first responders/LEOs is to keep words to a minimum and very clear ‘X has died’ because of the unpredictability of response, cultural differences and difficulty grasping death if euphemisms are used (passed away, no longer with us, in a better place) and for legal precision.
Additionally some doctors and LEOs aren’t really comfortable with death or grief, but they must perform the professional duty of information sharing with next of kin. If you watch much true crime or crime dramas, you’ll see cops speak to one another about the worst part of the job being death notifications. Most doctors feel the same. Some folks being notified lose their shit, some get violent, some blame the messenger etc. It’s not an easy task.
When it comes to LEOs, their training is to being suspicion to the task because they could be notifying the perpetrator so they are always looking for evidence in the way the response unfolds.
For folks who don’t have experience of ER medicine or law enforcement it might be hard to understand what this is like for those of us who do. Imagine if you had to do that kind of thing routinely; there is a lot of vicarious trauma.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:She died of blood loss? Doctor said her airway was fine. So the 911 hang up was a deadly delay?
The 911 hang up could have been because she hadn't been attacked yet, or if she had, she wasn't yet close enough to being dead.
Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the defense is playing these body cam recordings without injecting with any questions that tell the story.
Anonymous wrote:There’s just so many unanswered questions. No testimony about the state of the marriage. No testimony about her work habits and schedule like when she last worked, how tiring that would be - anything to establish that she isn’t likely to do something like this. Nothing to show that she did or didn’t use her laptop in the evening normally. No one asked Julian why she would go along with something like this? The whole thing feels so incomplete thus far. I can see jurors saying “I think he did it but they didn’t prove it.”
Anonymous wrote:She died of blood loss? Doctor said her airway was fine. So the 911 hang up was a deadly delay?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ok.
Say catfish theory is out. CB did invite JR over. He still stabbed her and they both killed JR.
You think JM made all that up? You think JM knew exactly words and timing of when messages were sent by “Christine” if JM wasn’t the one writing them? No.
Calm down. I’m not defending her.
I’m saying that the defense attorney keeps saying that it wasn’t catfish. Even if it wasn’t, they still killed CB and JR so it doesn’t matter.
What evidence do you have that they killed CB?
I don’t have any. That’s with the CW.
I believe BB is guilty as hell, but in my opinion, CW has not done a good job of establishing She was stabbed by Brendan. I hope they can really pull it together in the closing statements for the jury but I’m worried this guy is gonna go free.
What specifically are you looking for, forensic evidence (something about angle of knife wounds or blood etc)? There is a lot of eyewitness testimony that he is the one who stabbed her, and further, that he had been planning to stab her for months.
There are only really 3 possibilities: she was stabbed by Joe; she was stabbed by Brendan; she was stabbed by Juliana.
Most of this will come down to how credible a witness Juliana was. But even if you wanted to discount her testimony as biased or made up, I think there will be significant facts referred to in closing argument by the CW about how Joe was NOT the one who stabbed Christine. The jury is allowed to make inferences and draw on circumstantial evidence.
Not predicting anything as to this particular jury, however!!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ok.
Say catfish theory is out. CB did invite JR over. He still stabbed her and they both killed JR.
You think JM made all that up? You think JM knew exactly words and timing of when messages were sent by “Christine” if JM wasn’t the one writing them? No.
Calm down. I’m not defending her.
I’m saying that the defense attorney keeps saying that it wasn’t catfish. Even if it wasn’t, they still killed CB and JR so it doesn’t matter.
What evidence do you have that they killed CB?
Anonymous wrote:I'm a couple hours behind but watching the audio of Brendan going to hospital. Doctor says "your wife has died."
I assume bluntness by the doctor is the right approach so people can process and understand the news. In a general situation however is it normal for the doctor/officer to stick to their roles and be fairly silent while someone processes the loss of their spouse or do you think they were treading carefully here because it was a crime scene?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ok.
Say catfish theory is out. CB did invite JR over. He still stabbed her and they both killed JR.
What evidence is there that BB stabbed her?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm a couple hours behind but watching the audio of Brendan going to hospital. Doctor says "your wife has died."
I assume bluntness by the doctor is the right approach so people can process and understand the news. In a general situation however is it normal for the doctor/officer to stick to their roles and be fairly silent while someone processes the loss of their spouse or do you think they were treading carefully here because it was a crime scene?
I was about to ask that!!! Can someone answer this ?
\Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Defense is objecting to things like the photograph with markings to preserve the issue for appeal. Generally on appeal the issue or error has to have been raised contemporaneously to be considered so defense is just doing their job.
I am a little surprised the CW didn’t bring the doctor in or a medical expert to review records. I can understand wanting to stay focused on a cohesive narrative and I think the CW has done a pretty good job of that so far but it seems like it would have been worth it to at least briefly go over those. I guess they got there overall. The dad did say there was a “treatment” that she got, instead of an ongoing medication and it was given by doctors, not the parents. I would assume this was an injection. Overall it seems like it might have been worth it to establish this but I guess I would say I found the dad’s testimony credible.
It doesn't feel like enough to me. I'm not sure they established as a fact in the case that CB had a blood clotting disorder that would have led her to bleed out if she engaged in knife play. Listening solely to the testimony, it sounded like she had to be careful as a kid doe to some unknown condition, but it was managed well enough in adulthood and she participated in many sports and they did not establish that she wore any protective gear or took precautions as an adult. I don't think it's absolutely essential to the CW's case, but it's like, why bring it up if they weren't going to establish it very clearly.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:About 10 years ago I was on the jury for a murder trial (large east coast city but not DC). It was pretty straightforward, the state wanted first degree murder and the defendant was arguing that it was self defense, and I think there was also an option for us to pick second degree murder ("heat of passion" or whatever) if we thought that was more appropriate? Spoiler alert, we didn't, we picked first degree murder.
Anyways, my point is, I remember the forensic testimony and I remember taking notes because I felt like I was getting clues to solve a mystery- I was like "oh! the lady said that the stab wounds were at an X degree angle, that means they were pointed downwards, that seems like he was kneeling or on the ground when he was stabbed- that can't be self defense!!" and I felt so proud of myself for being so clever, and wondering why on earth the prosecution was leaving it up to me to connect all of these dots from the testimony.
But, I was wrong. The closing statement tied it all together and pointed out very clearly all of these things that I thought I was supposed to put together on my own. They know that juries are often filled with many not very intelligent people. In this case too, I am sure that during closing arguments, the prosecution will be very clear as to what all of the testimony is pointing towards- they will explain the blood splatter on the shoes as being important, they will explain the blood clotting disorder piece and why it's important, they will explain it all.
I really hope you are right.
Comments on the CW attorney are disheartening. This is a big case. They have had tons of time.
Has the commonwealth attorney himself been there. I thought he was quite accomplished.