Anonymous wrote:Agree to previous poster, and to add if CB was actually awake and knew about your big meeting as he said she did, she would definitely ask why are you so dressed down?

Duh, she was busy on her phone. She needed to check her socials real quick before she went downstairs to hide her phone in a drawer.

I’ve considered that there may have been a conversation with Christine that made him worry whether she would leave or expose him. If it was verbal and she didn’t disclose this to anyone else, it would be difficult to know for sure.

But I hadn’t considered that Juliana may have been the one leaving him. Interesting.

Christmas 2022: he says Juliana was upset, didn’t want to see him with his family, so she went to a hotel (guess she probably just told Christine she was visiting someone)

Jan 13th: account creation

Feb 14th: discord conversation with Juliana where she says she’ll leave him and he says what can I do, etc

Feb 19th: the Telegram conversation with Joe starts (unless this is just a portion they posted, but I think it makes sense it moved to telegram there). Based on the way the conversation picks up, it’s clear some messages have been exchanged elsewhere, presumably on Fetlife’s messenger? Also was in utc time and I didn’t bother to try to convert so maybe in VA it was the 18th or 20th. But not long after. I think we can assume they found and first messaged Joe maybe a day before that as well. So they start to zero in on Joe pretty soon after their conversation on the 14th.

Feb 23rd: Brendan’s birthday. Per our source new phones probably happened either this day or maybe a day before based on how Brendan presented it.

Feb 24th: the day of the murders, Juliana and Brendan stay in one hotel room and the conversation with the child was overheard by intel detectives in the lobby.

He definitely wanted to get rid of something on those phones. He was also the last person to handle Christine’s phone. But it seems relatively unlikely he could have deleted something that wouldn’t be recovered later.

he's cooked hhaha

Do you think he found guilty on Friday or Monday?

I wish they could upload the letter he wrote to Juliana. Prosecutor brought it up today and I am curious to read it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Closing argument should be: 1) no chance CB undertakes all this cloak and dagger stuff and arranges something at 7:30am on day everybody's in house when she'll reportedly have rest of weekend to herself and 2) clown lied about having an early morning important meeting (if he lied about that and provided excruciating details on it, then he likely lied about everything else). getting caught up in audio file/tech nonsense that most jurors won't understand will not be productive.

Agree. This is all they need. Hopefully it will be a quick verdict.

Let’s not forget the au pair testimony. She’s too dumb to have cooked this all up herself. I think that’s very persuasive.

Anybody have audio equipment (or know someone who does) that can go through this audio to hear what was said after the operator spoke and prior to Joe moaning? The expert said he clipped that part out and listened to it - he called it "clip gain"

There is more than one call on this audio, but the call he was talking about is the first one.

https://webcache.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuitcourt/Evidence%20Admitted%20January%2013%2C%202026/CW%201%2002-24-23%2007.47.32%20(703)%20511-8466%20-%20Tow1%20(5497).wav

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

HIPAA doesn’t apply to law enforcement after death.

The PP was referring to Brendan's testimony that when his wife worked as a sexual assault nurse, she brought home her case files and read them often.

I am new to this, but I am an RN and no way that is true. Plus documentation has been electronic for a long time so there is nothing to bring home.

DP to add, something that is a part of a patient chart like that, even if on paper, you can't just remove it from the chart. It would be noticed. It is a huge violation, immediately fireable offence for which a nurse would lose their job and nursing license. Also nurses don't always work back to back shifts so it would be noticed. Missing paperwork like that would trigger a major safety event and investigation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

HIPAA doesn’t apply to law enforcement after death.

The PP was referring to Brendan's testimony that when his wife worked as a sexual assault nurse, she brought home her case files and read them often.

I am new to this, but I am an RN and no way that is true. Plus documentation has been electronic for a long time so there is nothing to bring home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

HIPAA doesn’t apply to law enforcement after death.

The PP was referring to Brendan's testimony that when his wife worked as a sexual assault nurse, she brought home her case files and read them often.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

HIPAA doesn’t apply to law enforcement after death.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The IRS supervisor was key. Brendan whole important day was about him getting up early and leaving earlier than his usual time because of a meeting. The fact he lied so early in his direct testimony should make the juror feel that his testimony about the morning is unreliable. The fact that he wore in my opinion clothes that he wouldn’t care if he got blood on and had to throw away would show how this was premeditated !!

I mean he spent 30k on the windows. He should have just ruined a nice suit.

This shouldn't have made me laugh but...I snorted. Touche.

The irony - the guy used to work for the IRS catching liars cheating on their taxes, to only then have his former Employer IRS catch him lying about work and cheating!

They’ve caught him in a flat footed lie, he had no important meeting that day as his boss testified . And there’s no way he forgot such an important detail from that day.

Anonymous wrote:Just looked at the exhibits of their pictures. I’m not trying to be jerk but the jury is going to visually see these pictures of a grown career mom that has less time to get fit, and compare those to the young au pair workout partner and see BB was a complete stereotypical male chasing younger tail

I had the same exact thought! And I’m in the same boat so also not trying to be a jerk.