Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the defense is playing these body cam recordings without injecting with any questions that tell the story.

Because it is not the opening or closing arguments. They are not supposed to be arguing anything, just presenting facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bunch of letters were admitted today. I haven't read all of them, just skimmed a few. These are the ones she wrote to Tess

https://webcache.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuitcourt/Evidence%20Admitted%20January%2021%2C%202026/BB%20Exhibit%204.pdf

https://webcache.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuitcourt/Evidence%20Admitted%20January%2021%2C%202026/BB%20Exhibit%208.pdf

https://webcache.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuitcourt/Evidence%20Admitted%20January%2021%2C%202026/BB%20Exhibit%2011.pdf

https://webcache.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuitcourt/Evidence%20Admitted%20January%2021%2C%202026/BB%20Exhibit%202.pdf

And her communications with Kate Brower about the documentary etc are here

https://webcache.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuitcourt/Evidence%20Admitted%20January%2021%2C%202026/BB%20Exhibit%2063.pdf

I read the first one and what stands out is the lack of any mention of Christine. I'd think an innocent person would be something like "I can't believe this tragedy has happened to your family and I wish I could be there to continue to be with Brendan and to support (child) as she grieves". Or SOMETHING. But this reads like Christine never existed and she's calling brendan's mom her MIL. So, so weird.

Anonymous wrote:Her phone being in a kitchen drawer needs to be a key point emphasized in closing arguments.

Anonymous wrote:Bunch of letters were admitted today. I haven't read all of them, just skimmed a few. These are the ones she wrote to Tess

https://webcache.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuitcourt/Evidence%20Admitted%20January%2021%2C%202026/BB%20Exhibit%204.pdf

https://webcache.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuitcourt/Evidence%20Admitted%20January%2021%2C%202026/BB%20Exhibit%208.pdf

https://webcache.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuitcourt/Evidence%20Admitted%20January%2021%2C%202026/BB%20Exhibit%2011.pdf

https://webcache.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuitcourt/Evidence%20Admitted%20January%2021%2C%202026/BB%20Exhibit%202.pdf

And her communications with Kate Brower about the documentary etc are here

https://webcache.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuitcourt/Evidence%20Admitted%20January%2021%2C%202026/BB%20Exhibit%2063.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Among the many, many things I don’t get about these psycho’s plans: why would the dude have killed her? Cut her and raped her, maybe, based on the catfishing. Not saying that would be okay, imo! But it makes no sense that he would stab her to death?

The defense probably goes something like, "And then he lost control. You know how those sex fiends are."

So will defense call someone to testify to Joe's temperament, etc? Don't they need to paint him as a killer?

Joe is not on trial

The defense depends on Joe killing Christine. The messages show a consensual meet up. Why would he go nuts in the first 10 minutes when he's had no issues with many other meet ups?

They can’t find anyone to paint joe as a killer since he wasn’t one . And if they did find someone willing to paint him that way, the prosecution could then call 836 rebuttal witnesses to testify the exact opposite. So that’s why.

They just need to create "doubt."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Among the many, many things I don’t get about these psycho’s plans: why would the dude have killed her? Cut her and raped her, maybe, based on the catfishing. Not saying that would be okay, imo! But it makes no sense that he would stab her to death?

The defense probably goes something like, "And then he lost control. You know how those sex fiends are."

So will defense call someone to testify to Joe's temperament, etc? Don't they need to paint him as a killer?

Joe is not on trial

The defense depends on Joe killing Christine. The messages show a consensual meet up. Why would he go nuts in the first 10 minutes when he's had no issues with many other meet ups?

They can’t find anyone to paint joe as a killer since he wasn’t one . And if they did find someone willing to paint him that way, the prosecution could then call 836 rebuttal witnesses to testify the exact opposite. So that’s why.

Anonymous wrote:My bets is a hang jury -
Or guilty in some chargers

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My bets is a hang jury -
Or guilty in some chargers

I would wait until the closing arguments . Remember- there can’t be a “mystery fourth party” who came in and did this. It is basically liked a locked room murder mystery- it had to be one of the people present. Juliana, Joe, or Brendan.i doubt anyone will believe it was Juliana acting alone since Brendan would have told the police immediately and the 911 calls make no sense with the Juliana theory. The next theory would be Joe, but the forensics make no sense with it being Joe, plus the 911 calls make no sense then either. Also, there is no motivation for Juliana to lie and say it was Brendan if it was actually Joe. The third theory is Brendan, and that’s where the forensics point, and that’s what Juliana testifies. Yes of course she could be lying and it could have been her- but if so, Brendan would be shouting from the rooftops that it was Juliana from the very start. And he has never said that. Basically the only theory that makes any sense is that it was Brendan. I can’t imagine a scenario where anyone would honestly believe different

Anonymous wrote:
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:My bets is a hang jury -
Or guilty in some chargers