I think the judge is the only one in the courtroom with a brain.

Anonymous wrote:None of these defense theories make any sense. If I were him, I’d think th best defense would be to blame it all on tj AP. Yes, I was sleeping with the AP but if meant nothing because I’m a huge player. She got obsessed with me and she planned this whole setup without me. She had access to my wife’s computer and phone to plan stuff for kid. She set up the Joe thing hersel, shot him and stabbed my wife — when I came in C was already stabbed and AP was screaming and I naturally concluded that this guy was an intruder so I shot him again.
I don’t think the blood pattern matches any of this so it wouldn’t really work but it’s way more persuasive than what seems to be the defense theory of the case — that C suddenly got totally into kinky stuff, set up this very extreme meetup (on her husbands birthday) as her first foray into kink, locked her phone downstairs in a drawer so she wouldn’t be able to check and see if the guy was trying to reach her, and that Joe decided that—even though he had a long history of kink without non consensual violence and no history of violence against women—that he was going to stab this woman to death instead of having sex with her. That theory just makes utterly no sense.

This version of events is incompatible with the known facts in this investigation, including the original story that was given by the defendant himself. Brendan has given multiple statements to investigators since the day of the murders, and has always said he entered the room and shot Joe first. There is no way that defense could now assert that Juliana did all that and Brendan came and shot him second.

But I do think we’ve touched multiple times on the idea Brendan may have set things up so Juliana could take the fall, so to speak. I think that’s possible (that he thought that) but was not any more of a realistic thought than anything else involved in this plot.

Defense doesn’t want to assert that Juliana was the sole catfisher (and everything else happened as it did, assuming Brendan’s assertion Joe was using the knife). They technically could, but I don’t think it’s the best avenue available because a) it would only be strengthening the prosecution’s case that catfishing happened and b) there may be evidence that would easily disprove this. I’m not sure off the top of my head, but I seem to recall one of the pictures usd on the account was one that Christine sent to Brendan but didn’t post. I’m not 100% on this, I know the defense exhibit yesterday showed one that was downloaded from Facebook. But I believe the prosecution case at some point included a photo sent specifically to Brendan. IF that’s the case (and I don’t have a hard source on that, so if someone does, drop it here) then defense basically could not assert catfishing happened but without the cooperation of Brendan. It would either have to be Christine, or other parties including Brendan.

Right now trying to create doubt the catfishing theory is correct is the best avenue for the defense, as far as I can see. I think they just need better organization and witness management.

Another thing that is important that I think some people are missing, with respect to the last thought quoted - Joe “intending” to stab or kill anyone isn’t a factor in Brendan’s use of self defense. The factor is what Brendan could reasonable believe at the time (which realistically is…nothing, because he created the situation). Joe could have nothing but good intentions in the scenario, while Brendan reasonably doesn’t know that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was bored last night and read a few of the letter Juliana wrote to Brendan. Bless her heart. She sounds like she’s in junior high. She even doodles their names together with hearts and includes lyrics to cheesy love songs.

In one letter, she says that her lawyer wants to find a character witness for her and she says she has no one who could testify to her good qualities. Oof.

She also says something to the effect of “I bet they’ll have some friends and family talk about how great Joe was”. Something about the way she called him “Joe” and not, say, “that awful guy who broke into your house and ruined our lives” seemed weird to me. Like she had a familiarity to him… In fact in none of the letters that I read does she ever say anything to indicate that he was guilty or should be blamed.

Lastly she said that when she and Brendan decided to move her into the master room and go public with their relationship, Brendan’s l said it was a bad idea. YA THINK?!?

Brendan’s what said that?

Tess?

Yeah Tess.

Anonymous wrote:None of these defense theories make any sense. If I were him, I’d think th best defense would be to blame it all on tj AP. Yes, I was sleeping with the AP but if meant nothing because I’m a huge player. She got obsessed with me and she planned this whole setup without me. She had access to my wife’s computer and phone to plan stuff for kid. She set up the Joe thing hersel, shot him and stabbed my wife — when I came in C was already stabbed and AP was screaming and I naturally concluded that this guy was an intruder so I shot him again.
I don’t think the blood pattern matches any of this so it wouldn’t really work but it’s way more persuasive than what seems to be the defense theory of the case — that C suddenly got totally into kinky stuff, set up this very extreme meetup (on her husbands birthday) as her first foray into kink, locked her phone downstairs in a drawer so she wouldn’t be able to check and see if the guy was trying to reach her, and that Joe decided that—even though he had a long history of kink without non consensual violence and no history of violence against women—that he was going to stab this woman to death instead of having sex with her. That theory just makes utterly no sense.

I think it was the day after BB’s bday, like a present to himself.

RIP Joe and Christine.

Anonymous wrote:None of these defense theories make any sense. If I were him, I’d think th best defense would be to blame it all on tj AP. Yes, I was sleeping with the AP but if meant nothing because I’m a huge player. She got obsessed with me and she planned this whole setup without me. She had access to my wife’s computer and phone to plan stuff for kid. She set up the Joe thing hersel, shot him and stabbed my wife — when I came in C was already stabbed and AP was screaming and I naturally concluded that this guy was an intruder so I shot him again.
I don’t think the blood pattern matches any of this so it wouldn’t really work but it’s way more persuasive than what seems to be the defense theory of the case — that C suddenly got totally into kinky stuff, set up this very extreme meetup (on her husbands birthday) as her first foray into kink, locked her phone downstairs in a drawer so she wouldn’t be able to check and see if the guy was trying to reach her, and that Joe decided that—even though he had a long history of kink without non consensual violence and no history of violence against women—that he was going to stab this woman to death instead of having sex with her. That theory just makes utterly no sense.

Good points here. Someone earlier pointed out that he would have been proclaiming from the beginning that the au pair did it if that was the defense, but I’ve also been wondering if they will try to float that theory.

He should have just plead guilty and not wasted all of this money that may have been needed to support his young child.

None of these defense theories make any sense. If I were him, I’d think th best defense would be to blame it all on tj AP. Yes, I was sleeping with the AP but if meant nothing because I’m a huge player. She got obsessed with me and she planned this whole setup without me. She had access to my wife’s computer and phone to plan stuff for kid. She set up the Joe thing hersel, shot him and stabbed my wife — when I came in C was already stabbed and AP was screaming and I naturally concluded that this guy was an intruder so I shot him again.
I don’t think the blood pattern matches any of this so it wouldn’t really work but it’s way more persuasive than what seems to be the defense theory of the case — that C suddenly got totally into kinky stuff, set up this very extreme meetup (on her husbands birthday) as her first foray into kink, locked her phone downstairs in a drawer so she wouldn’t be able to check and see if the guy was trying to reach her, and that Joe decided that—even though he had a long history of kink without non consensual violence and no history of violence against women—that he was going to stab this woman to death instead of having sex with her. That theory just makes utterly no sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless someone can definitively prove that the defense attorney is not the “I’m not a cat” guy from the pandemic, that’s what I’m going with.

HAHAHA!!!

The best thing is he asked the judge to proceed anyway. I see this video all the time and laugh hysterically every time.

I love I’m not a cat guy. Let’s not malign him here by comparing him to defense counsel!

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?

Yeah, even if his phone is at the gym and hers is at the mall—-it’s very easy to just leave your phone in the gym locker, go home and do whatever, then go back for the phone. The gym is basically perfect for that, if you’re trying to create a fake digital footprint.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/brendan-banfield-au-pair-murder-trial-day-7-stream-live-updates/4046720/?utm_sf_post_ref=658096026&utm_sf_cserv_ref=14980820&_osource=SocialFlowTwt_DCBrand

CB was looking at websites for Frozen performances while “her laptop” was on Fetlife, can the jury be buying this?

CB on her PHONE

Anonymous wrote:I was bored last night and read a few of the letter Juliana wrote to Brendan. Bless her heart. She sounds like she’s in junior high. She even doodles their names together with hearts and includes lyrics to cheesy love songs.

In one letter, she says that her lawyer wants to find a character witness for her and she says she has no one who could testify to her good qualities. Oof.

She also says something to the effect of “I bet they’ll have some friends and family talk about how great Joe was”. Something about the way she called him “Joe” and not, say, “that awful guy who broke into your house and ruined our lives” seemed weird to me. Like she had a familiarity to him… In fact in none of the letters that I read does she ever say anything to indicate that he was guilty or should be blamed.

Lastly she said that when she and Brendan decided to move her into the master room and go public with their relationship, Brendan’s l said it was a bad idea. YA THINK?!?

Brendan’s what said that?

Tess?

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/brendan-banfield-au-pair-murder-trial-day-7-stream-live-updates/4046720/?utm_sf_post_ref=658096026&utm_sf_cserv_ref=14980820&_osource=SocialFlowTwt_DCBrand

CB was looking at websites for Frozen performances while “her laptop” was on Fetlife, can the jury be buying this?

I was bored last night and read a few of the letter Juliana wrote to Brendan. Bless her heart. She sounds like she’s in junior high. She even doodles their names together with hearts and includes lyrics to cheesy love songs.

In one letter, she says that her lawyer wants to find a character witness for her and she says she has no one who could testify to her good qualities. Oof.

She also says something to the effect of “I bet they’ll have some friends and family talk about how great Joe was”. Something about the way she called him “Joe” and not, say, “that awful guy who broke into your house and ruined our lives” seemed weird to me. Like she had a familiarity to him… In fact in none of the letters that I read does she ever say anything to indicate that he was guilty or should be blamed.

Lastly she said that when she and Brendan decided to move her into the master room and go public with their relationship, Brendan’s l said it was a bad idea. YA THINK?!?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ahh yes, that seems reasonable. Rush home because his Au pair saw a stranger enter the house and he can’t get a hold of his wife, but once he gets home, hang out in the basement for 10 minutes playing fetch with his dog before he checks on his wife. Makes perfect sense.

I agree in the sense it just didn’t happen. Obviously the version Juliana told is true (or at least basically so) and that is Joe on there and he has already been shot. But in trying to create doubt, IF someone believed Juliana was in the basement for longer, then it would create doubt about a lot of elements.

How Carroll planned to run this “Lilly3” clip through the gauntlet of super obvious objections from the prosecution, I have no idea. Unless it’s an audio clip of the dog from previously established bodycam, which was not mentioned at all when the objection came up. It sounds like it was just a random clip which wasn’t authenticated or entered into evidence in any way prior to the expert witness coming on. Nor did there seem to be a plan to do so in that portion of the defense presentation.

My bad, I thought their theory was going to be that both Juliana and BB stayed in the basement for 10 minutes. It is somewhat more plausible if it was just Juliana but (1) her testimony contradicts it and (2) her version of events makes so more sense.

I wonder when investigators asked them about the noise in the background of the call and if they said it was the husky from day 1, or if this is a “defense” they came up with later.

Sounds like the clip is unauthenticated. I wonder if they can pull the metadata and see when it was created. So crazy to think about this psycho training his husky in the last few months to sound like a dying guy.

Carroll is the managing partner of his own firm and there are many lawyers there. Truly strange that he doesn’t have more support but perhaps he is also a narcissist.