Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!!??

nuts!!

a little inside baseball for yall. smith also testified that he was the tech agent. he went into the role a little. the tech agents role (among others) is to facilitate the recording of a uc meet. there are a variety of devices to do this. sometimes the uc has strong preferences about what device they want to use.

this takes a lot of coordination by the tech agents.

smith would have multiple reasons to know of the planned uc and meetings related to the uc.

closing friday morning and deliberations in the afternoon would be cool. verdict tomorrow?

I can definitely see a verdict tomorrow. Felony Friday. My favorite.

Anonymous wrote:I have a question for criminal attorneys who practice in Virginia. My background is in civil litigation where you get all kinds of discovery and get to depose the relevant witnesses beforehand.

Is there any obligation at all or anyway at all for the prosecution to have generally understood what BB was going to testify to? I assume not because they probably don’t even know at last minute he would testify. But any hint of his arguments in pre trial motions?

I asked because there are so many aspects of his testimony that should be easy to rebut. Like who was throwing this party and what were the circumstances around that. I’m sure there’s no love lost with that friend and BB at this point.

Also could CB really just take home the files of her SA patients? I am sure that’s prohibited. I’m sure it’s technically hard if not impossible and I’m sure there would be a trail if she had downloaded things.

Did the medical examiner find any old bruises on CB‘s body? (I am assuming from the posts here that BB’s point was she was into this kind of fetish stuff before and had bruises because of it am I right on that? Related. If someone said. If that were true, why was BB so distraught that he had to run from McDonald’s and confront the guy thinking he was murdering her?)

Etc etc.

I'm not a criminal attorney in VA so can't answer that, but the CW asked BB if he ever told his story before and he said no. She asked a very pointed question to get him on record to say he has made no statements or attempts to til his story until now, AFTER HEARING ALL THE CW'S EVIDENCE.

He testified the cops did not ask him after it happened or any time after. Says he was willing to talk, but no one ever asked. That is super strange to me that he would not be asked to give a statement after admittedly killing someone, but they presented no evidence to rebut that. She asked why he didn't say any of this at a prelim hearing, where he would not so much confirm anything including being married to CW, and he said he was instructed by counsel not to say anything there. He intended to testify at JPM's trial.

I do wonder why she didn't at least ask him which friends were throwing the party. I also wonder why didn't she ask do you have any evidence of any of this stuff... party invites, meeting invites, work calendar, emails... or ANY evidence of CB being into this fetish stuff? Maybe she isn't allowed to ask?

I actually thought his testimony was fine as far as him not getting caught in major lies. I don't believe him and find his story preposterous but thought he did ok explaining stuff away. There was a testy moment where she was trying to get him to admit he was in love with JPM based on his texts but this could just be a man leading a woman on. She tried to get him stuck on a detail of why he hadn't visited that gun range in a while but he said the IRS contract that let him practice free ran out so he changed ranges, which seemed plausible enough, and that JPM went along to learn shooting because it was a way they could spend time together away from CB. If you're inclined to believe BB which I am not, I guess you could find it reasonable.

The stuff about CB's bruises and her being into S&M, I'm pretty sure he said that was back in NY, so a long time ago. It's all so convenient. Bruising on parts of her body that friends and family wouldn't see, secret fantasies and affairs and relationships she only confessed to him, her husband. But there is ZERO EVIDENCE of her having any affairs or any of this. There is zero evidence her working as an SA assault nurse had anything to do with her personal life! It's so unfair, it's like slander, even though I know you can't sue for slander based on court testimony, BUT UGH. And it's basically unfalsifiable because you can get 100 people to testify she never ever spoke of this and it seems so unlike her, but of course you can always say well it's so personal, she would never admit that to her parents or friends, etc.

I wish the CW would have asked him, if you knew CB to be involved in this stuff, why did you not discuss a safety protocol? Like why leave your door unlocked and invite a man with a knife into your home and just assume he will respect your safe words? Why not tell your LEO husband who is aware of these affairs where you will be and let him vet the guy?

Hoping for a banger of a closing argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!!??

nuts!!

a little inside baseball for yall. smith also testified that he was the tech agent. he went into the role a little. the tech agents role (among others) is to facilitate the recording of a uc meet. there are a variety of devices to do this. sometimes the uc has strong preferences about what device they want to use.

this takes a lot of coordination by the tech agents.

smith would have multiple reasons to know of the planned uc and meetings related to the uc.

closing friday morning and deliberations in the afternoon would be cool. verdict tomorrow?

Doubtful. Verdict sometime next week. I'd guess Tuesday.

Fast verdict = bad for the defense
Slow verdict = bad for the prosecution

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!!??

nuts!!

a little inside baseball for yall. smith also testified that he was the tech agent. he went into the role a little. the tech agents role (among others) is to facilitate the recording of a uc meet. there are a variety of devices to do this. sometimes the uc has strong preferences about what device they want to use.

this takes a lot of coordination by the tech agents.

smith would have multiple reasons to know of the planned uc and meetings related to the uc.

closing friday morning and deliberations in the afternoon would be cool. verdict tomorrow?

Doubtful. Verdict sometime next week. I'd guess Tuesday.

Sounds like you are saying this witness made the point that the Defense witness was being dishonest and misleading. That the dog groaning was from a different timeline? Did he say what that was? I was not following you. Sorry for the questions.

Anonymous wrote:

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!!??

nuts!!

a little inside baseball for yall. smith also testified that he was the tech agent. he went into the role a little. the tech agents role (among others) is to facilitate the recording of a uc meet. there are a variety of devices to do this. sometimes the uc has strong preferences about what device they want to use.

this takes a lot of coordination by the tech agents.

smith would have multiple reasons to know of the planned uc and meetings related to the uc.

closing friday morning and deliberations in the afternoon would be cool. verdict tomorrow?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then why wouldn't the prosecution enter it into evidence? The last part?

I thought prosecutor entered the paper analysis into evidence. He was only given a paper report which prosecution entered into evidence. Detective didn’t need the entire report to simplify it for jurors.

Rebuttal witness Detective Augustine- Fairfax County technical, forensic, audio analyst.
Expert in video and audio analysis. Poked holes in specter frequency guy analysis. He conducted a wave form analysis and listening critical analysis to separate that portion of audio.

Remember the word “stitched.” Jurors breathed a sigh of relief.

Augustine’s deeper analysis explains how the defense expert stitched two files together- exemplar was stitched to 911 call.

In the exemplar, there’s a 6 second sample. But there are two different audio files, both 200hz that look similar. To me, being a non-expert, it’s easy to take two snippets based on same sound pitch or whatever lol. I mean, weren’t we all DJs back in the vinyl days with new mixing technology.

First 6 seconds is dog moaning. Nothing lines up until that specific time. Juncture point is stitched. When listening there was no desensitizing of the two files, no point of ending of first or beginning of last file, it’s faded or mixture of both files deliberately 6 seconds of dog groan, mix into 911 audio and human groan believed to be Joe.

Augustine putt 911 call into audio software looked at wave form and critical listening. Observed and heard the 911 call computerized voice operator ask where is your emergency? He simply increased the volume of one portion of the 911 call and detected a human voice (Joe).

Any one of us following this case with sharp hearing can absolutely hear a human voice groaning. The second analyst may have a speech challenge but he heard what we all heard. Clearly defense has two guys on team Brenda.

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!!??

Anonymous wrote:I have a question for criminal attorneys who practice in Virginia. My background is in civil litigation where you get all kinds of discovery and get to depose the relevant witnesses beforehand.

Is there any obligation at all or anyway at all for the prosecution to have generally understood what BB was going to testify to? I assume not because they probably don’t even know at last minute he would testify. But any hint of his arguments in pre trial motions?

I asked because there are so many aspects of his testimony that should be easy to rebut. Like who was throwing this party and what were the circumstances around that. I’m sure there’s no love lost with that friend and BB at this point.

Also could CB really just take home the files of her SA patients? I am sure that’s prohibited. I’m sure it’s technically hard if not impossible and I’m sure there would be a trail if she had downloaded things.

Did the medical examiner find any old bruises on CB‘s body? (I am assuming from the posts here that BB’s point was she was into this kind of fetish stuff before and had bruises because of it am I right on that? Related. If someone said. If that were true, why was BB so distraught that he had to run from McDonald’s and confront the guy thinking he was murdering her?)

Etc etc.

I’m so shocked he went there. It does seem like it would be hard for her to take it home (everything is digital, she would have to print stuff out at work - which I think would be logged - and it would be a huge HIPPA violation).

It seems more likely that she would be looking stuff up on her home computer and didn’t the digital forensics witness say there was nothing like that in her browser history?

Did BB share this with investigators? Seems like it would be super relevant.

I have a question for criminal attorneys who practice in Virginia. My background is in civil litigation where you get all kinds of discovery and get to depose the relevant witnesses beforehand.

Is there any obligation at all or anyway at all for the prosecution to have generally understood what BB was going to testify to? I assume not because they probably don’t even know at last minute he would testify. But any hint of his arguments in pre trial motions?

I asked because there are so many aspects of his testimony that should be easy to rebut. Like who was throwing this party and what were the circumstances around that. I’m sure there’s no love lost with that friend and BB at this point.

Also could CB really just take home the files of her SA patients? I am sure that’s prohibited. I’m sure it’s technically hard if not impossible and I’m sure there would be a trail if she had downloaded things.

Did the medical examiner find any old bruises on CB‘s body? (I am assuming from the posts here that BB’s point was she was into this kind of fetish stuff before and had bruises because of it am I right on that? Related. If someone said. If that were true, why was BB so distraught that he had to run from McDonald’s and confront the guy thinking he was murdering her?)

Etc etc.

We can get up to a 90/10 with a really good closing argument by prosecution.

What notes could BB be possibly taking there now? The supervisor just said there was nobody in the office that morning BB could have had a meeting with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both sides have rested.

Closing arguments tomorrow at 10am.

Odds on guilty? Jurors are unpredictable at best.. should be 90/10 but afraid more like 60/40

I think 80/20.

I really think guilty with appeal in ineffective counsel, + mistrial request tomorrow morning (which will be denied).

Anonymous wrote:Both sides have rested.

Closing arguments tomorrow at 10am.

Odds on guilty? Jurors are unpredictable at best.. should be 90/10 but afraid more like 60/40

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then why wouldn't the prosecution enter it into evidence? The last part?