Anonymous wrote:Never, ever allow another woman to move into your home. Look what happened to Maria Schwarzenegger. He had sex with the ugly housekeeper and she had his illegitimate son.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

the news played the full 911 call and so that Joe's mom heard the call and publicly said it was her son and it was devastating. In the pretrial there was one of Joe's friends that also identified it as his voice. It was as clear as day for both of them. Which means the dog and voice expert should find another home and job! It also means Julianna's testimony is totally accurate about the actual murder scene.

So the prosecution needs to call these people in rebuttal if the dog theory is in. Don't leave loose threads. Tie it together in the closing argument that BB is grasping at straws.

Anonymous wrote:Never, ever allow another woman to move into your home. Look what happened to Maria Schwarzenegger. He had sex with the ugly housekeeper and she had his illegitimate son.

Anonymous wrote:
Two things in response—
1) the photo C sent to B doesn’t preclude J being the sole catfisher — if J had access to C’a phone she could have just gotten the photo off that phone
2) the point about Joe stabbing C isn’t about Brendan’s state of mind and whether it was reasonably defense of others to shoot Joe. The point is that Brendan’s theory depends on Joe actually stabbing Christine, because she definitely was stabbed and B’s not saying that he did it himself or that Juliana did it or that Christine did it. There were only 4 people in the room and B’s theory of the case seems to be that Joe stabbed her. Which just seems flatly ridiculous given all the evidence about Joe. Why would he stab her?
B’s biggest problem is that the forensic evidence, including the blood spatter, pretty clearly points to him. The catfishing is all secondary — the question is really just who stabbed C, and the answer is very clearly her husband.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

the news played the full 911 call and so that Joe's mom heard the call and publicly said it was her son and it was devastating. In the pretrial there was one of Joe's friends that also identified it as his voice. It was as clear as day for both of them. Which means the dog and voice expert should find another home and job! It also means Julianna's testimony is totally accurate about the actual murder scene.

So the prosecution needs to call these people in rebuttal if the dog theory is in. Don't leave loose threads. Tie it together in the closing argument that BB is grasping at straws.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.

the news played the full 911 call and so that Joe's mom heard the call and publicly said it was her son and it was devastating. In the pretrial there was one of Joe's friends that also identified it as his voice. It was as clear as day for both of them. Which means the dog and voice expert should find another home and job! It also means Julianna's testimony is totally accurate about the actual murder scene.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wasn’t the dog locked in the basement with the kid?

Yes, the dog was in the basement, but Juliana and Brendan also were in the basement too. In Juliana’s testimony she was down there a bit longer than him, but it seemed like not by much. When she came up he was outside the master bedroom, I think she said on the landing, listening, and he motioned for her to listen. They listened for a bit and then they entered the master bedroom. Brendan shot Joe, Christine told Juliana to call 911 and she did, Juliana hung up because Brendan gestured at her, and after that he would have cut/stabbed Christine and staged the scene. Then Juliana called 911 again.

Presumably the “dog audio theory” would seek to place at least Juliana in the basement for longer, after that 911 call. Basically, an attempt to create doubt about Juliana’s testimony, which is corroborated by the audio on the 911 hang up call (widely believed to be Joe Ryan moaning after the shot which is known to have disabled him, but not killed him).

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.