Anonymous wrote:Good! And i dont think Bb had presented any evidence of this meeting, did he?

No and he didn't give a name, just with his manager.

I would have said, "I had a meeting scheduled with my manager, Joe Smith. Not my normal manager, Jane Capsticker."

So we never heard what the voice in th recording supposedly said?

Both sides have rested.

Closing arguments tomorrow at 10am.

Anonymous wrote:T. Patrick Smith testimony:

On Feb 24, 2023, he was the acting supervisor, and Banfield was reporting to him. The supervisor was out of the country, and he was filling in during her absence.

To his knowledge, there was no meeting planned for Brendon that day. He himself was in Baltimore for another meeting.

Brendon said the meeting was with his "manager" but all other supervisors in that office were out of state.

Testified that Brendon's dress that day (in the video) was too casual for any sort of meeting.

What a stupid unforced error on B’s fault. He is one of those compulsive lairs that needs to keep adding detail.

The defense attorney is so inadequate. I think he's trying to get to the point that undercover people do not dress a certain away for meetings, but BB was not undercover, the acting supervisor was.

Or he's trying to get to office gossip as getting around after interviews, but I don't get the point.

Good! And i dont think Bb had presented any evidence of this meeting, did he?

T. Patrick Smith testimony:

On Feb 24, 2023, he was the acting supervisor, and Banfield was reporting to him. The supervisor was out of the country, and he was filling in during her absence.

To his knowledge, there was no meeting planned for Brendon that day. He himself was in Baltimore for another meeting.

Brendon said the meeting was with his "manager" but all other supervisors in that office were out of state.

Testified that Brendon's dress that day (in the video) was too casual for any sort of meeting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That was a flash of “oh f%#$” on BBs face when CW elicited that her expert heard a voice saying something before the groaning!

Right! "And what did the human voice say?" rudely interrupted by another of Carroll's "may we approach" requests. Grr! Don't leave us hanging!

I would think that the jury will share our desire to know just what that was and be none to pleased about the defense obscuring it. Are they supposed to consider it? No. But that bell is not unringing. They know there is something on that tape that the defense desperately wants to conceal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy crap. He considers Julianna a hero. “She saved my life. It’s easy to fall in love with someone who saved my life.”

Juliana or Julianna allegedly broke up with Brendan.

Prosecution grilled him about it, then the kill shot: “So you killed your wife to get back together with Juliana?”

Brendan: “No” Smirk and almost a laugh.

He was stringing her alone while she rotted in jail. Then they presented her with evidence of this other affairs, and how she wasn't the only one. She was just the only one he could get to help him. That's when she started signing a different tune. She thought they'd get away with it and ride back off into the sunset once the smoke cleared (move to Brazil together).

I think what made her come to the right side was the fact that her attorney, paid for by Tess/Brandon, was apparently doing a mediocre job representing her. Can anyone with legal info discuss this? In her letters, her attorney had little time for her and kept asking for a continuances when she did not agree. She didn't realize she would be sitting in prison for so long. If Tess/Brandon paid for the lawyer, they still have a duty to protect/represent JP, right? It certainly did not seem like she was getting great representation.

I am not on JP's side. I'm just pointing out that it is interesting that her Banfield paid for lawyer didn't seem to be in a hurry to help her.

And……

Anonymous wrote:That was a flash of “oh f%#$” on BBs face when CW elicited that her expert heard a voice saying something before the groaning!

Right! "And what did the human voice say?" rudely interrupted by another of Carroll's "may we approach" requests. Grr! Don't leave us hanging!

That was a flash of “oh f%#$” on BBs face when CW elicited that her expert heard a voice saying something before the groaning!

Also because he can testify on Defense rebuttal after this CW witness.

Anonymous wrote:

And why is the little dumbo eared forensics guy still there. He testified for days.

He has helped Carroll with technology the whole time. Finally today, the judge brought in court IT.

The frequency analyst guy’s word salad is confusing for jurors. The short audio clearly distinguishes a dog groan at the start. The short sound at the end is distinctly a different sound/frequency.

And why is the little dumbo eared forensics guy still there. He testified for days.

Brendan concocts yet another narrative that Christine, a former SA counselor/nurse fetishized her patient’s SA. He claimed she was into sort of into BDSM because she’d bring her patient files home.

For the purpose of this trial, he testified that she had bruises on arms, legs, buttocks. No mention of her bleeding disorder. He stated he became aware of it in 2015 or earlier. Their daughter wasn’t conceived yet. It’s possible Christine was still athletically active at that time. Can’t remember what sport. But mild bruising was a known medical fact. Her father testified on her behalf. Brendan knew this and claims they were in therapy to address it.