Anonymous wrote:It’s appalling to me that people aren’t paying attention to this very important testimony. I am not saying I believe this defense witness but this is the type of information that can prove a person guilty or innocent in a case. I am NOT referring to this case though. He has not proved that cb was accessing the fetlife related accounts herself.

This information really isn’t complex but all over the internet people are saying this is boring and useless and they don’t understand the point. The point is very important.

I think it's important too and agree with you, but I think the defense loses points when almost every single interaction has been:

Defense: "Are you familiar with this image?"
Expert: "Yes, it's xyz."
Prosecution: "Objection."
Judge: "Sustained."

Repeat fifty times.

It's like Brendon's attorney has no idea what might pass or not, so he throws more spaghetti at the wall.

In the meantime, his other expert from Nashville has been waiting all day to be called up.

Anonymous wrote:So I'm going to guess we won't see Brandon on the stand today after this repetitive drivel, no?

Doubt it because they won’t have much time- and the jury will likely have to wait at least until Wednesday to hear more. Better to start fresh with him next week.

So I'm going to guess we won't see Brandon on the stand today after this repetitive drivel, no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to see the entire screen of cb’s email. The defense witness is saying cb would have seen the 2 factor authentication emails in her inbox as they weren’t deleted. If she had a full busy in box she could miss those. I’d love to see all the data related to these accounts

He actually can’t say that they weren’t deleted. This witness referred to the witness yesterday saying it was deleted but the witness yesterday (Miller?) said he couldn’t see whether something was deleted from the image defense counsel showed him.

Thanks for pointing that out but I thought I heard him say that they weren’t deleted. You can also set up a routine to automatically log in to apps because now he’s testifying that cell tower data shows bb and the nanny were in different places outside of tithe house while someone logged into the account from the house.

If Juliana was at the gym, couldn’t she have had his phone at the gym with her?

I was just thinking this. Both phones being at the gym just means that! That both phones were at the gym. One person can take both phones to the gym to make it look like , to an investigator,
That both people were at the gym. This is so basic! Don’t these people have kids who leave their phones at a friends house “for a sleepover with the girls!” when they go sneak over to their boyfriends house?? Is everyone in this case a tech illiterate dinosaur?

I didn’t realize the data he was discussing that both bb and the nanny were at the gym. I thought it showed the nanny and bb were in different places. If what you’re saying is right, this is complete bs. Like you say either one could have taken both phones to the gym.

Even if so, it is actually not difficult to go and park your car somewhere and leave your phone in it and then take an Uber back home and an Uber back out to your car again. These people did seem to plan it pretty meticulously so it wouldn’t surprise me if they thought to do that as well.

It’s appalling to me that people aren’t paying attention to this very important testimony. I am not saying I believe this defense witness but this is the type of information that can prove a person guilty or innocent in a case. I am NOT referring to this case though. He has not proved that cb was accessing the fetlife related accounts herself.

This information really isn’t complex but all over the internet people are saying this is boring and useless and they don’t understand the point. The point is very important.

I am loving the bailiff they imported from 1973.

Also can people refuse jury duty because of ADHD because I'd have be doodling in my notebook hours ago?

The defense witness did a terrible job documenting what he retrieved off of the devices.

The defense witness is so intentionally slow. He’s trying to establish that someone at the house is accessing the fetlife account whil other devices are doing other things in the house at the same time. I’m active on two diff laptops and my phone rn.

Analysis from NBC on today’s digital evidence testimony.
S

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/brendan-banfield-au-pair-murder-trial-day-7-stream-live-updates/4046720/?cardId=1:14:4047196

These poor jurors having to come in today instead of storm prep, listening to this guy yammer on all day long. Brutal.

How much is BB paying for this "forensic expert"?

Anonymous wrote:I actually wonder if the CW wants to hide the fact that BB was having affairs frequently. I would not be surprised it BB says when he testifies that they both had affairs and were in an open marriage . Juliana said in one of those letters they submitted that Brendan had sex with another woman on a family vacation and she speculated that Christine might have known about it. It seems like submitting that letter as evidence for the defense is setting up a defense theory that they had an open marriage and Christine did meet ups all the time.

IMO, he can say that regardless. There is either evidence (other than self-serving testimony) CB was having affairs and interested in open relationships, or there's not. There was already testimony that they searched her devices back for years and she never so much opened a porn site. Seems unlikely that she would suddenly be interested in some extremely dangerous stuff out of nowhere. I don't think it hurts the case at all to show that BB, only BB, was having multiple affairs. If they do have evidence CB had affairs then hopefully CW is prepared to address it (affairs doesn't necessarily mean she is into the stuff that was on the telegram chat, that's such a huge leap from just an affair).

I’m not sure I would even call a rebuttal witness on the tech. The jury has to be bored with this and will likely know things that posters in here already have. Perhaps this is best addressed in closing arguments, simply saying if you throw out everything else and look at the crime scene forensics there can only be one conclusion.

If they are relying on cell tower triangulation that is not precise enough to place someone at a building. Flimsy theory they are trying to etablish. The defense is planting seeds of doubt for laymen, now the prosecution needs to clearly lay out a plausible explanation which should be straightforward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to see the entire screen of cb’s email. The defense witness is saying cb would have seen the 2 factor authentication emails in her inbox as they weren’t deleted. If she had a full busy in box she could miss those. I’d love to see all the data related to these accounts

He actually can’t say that they weren’t deleted. This witness referred to the witness yesterday saying it was deleted but the witness yesterday (Miller?) said he couldn’t see whether something was deleted from the image defense counsel showed him.

Thanks for pointing that out but I thought I heard him say that they weren’t deleted. You can also set up a routine to automatically log in to apps because now he’s testifying that cell tower data shows bb and the nanny were in different places outside of tithe house while someone logged into the account from the house.

If Juliana was at the gym, couldn’t she have had his phone at the gym with her?

I was just thinking this. Both phones being at the gym just means that! That both phones were at the gym. One person can take both phones to the gym to make it look like , to an investigator,
That both people were at the gym. This is so basic! Don’t these people have kids who leave their phones at a friends house “for a sleepover with the girls!” when they go sneak over to their boyfriends house?? Is everyone in this case a tech illiterate dinosaur?

I didn’t realize the data he was discussing that both bb and the nanny were at the gym. I thought it showed the nanny and bb were in different places. If what you’re saying is right, this is complete bs. Like you say either one could have taken both phones to the gym.