Anonymous wrote:Who are Miller and SF? Good analysis!

Miller is the re-assigned detective who made the report about the devices that concluded Christine would have been the source of the fetlock and telegram activity. He made this conclusion based on digital returns that showed the activity was done from her devices only when she was home.

There was internal dissent over this because the catfish theory had already emerged. Miller is still employed with the department as far as I know.

On the stand Carroll left a question way too open ended and instead of just asking whether the digital data changed, he just generally asked if anything changed. And Miller said something like “yes, the co-defendant testified that they were the ones using the devices.” So then Carroll quickly said something like “well okay but the data didn’t change, right” and Miller said no but you can only establish that a device did something and you can’t put a person behind a device without outside corroboration which now we have.

None of these are exact quotes obviously

SF is the victim services coordinator with FCPD who arranged the hotel room for Brendan, Juliana, and the child that night and Juliana and the child were waiting in their office too. Carroll brought her in because she is apparently a catfish theory truther, having become aware of some info that day/night and testifying that she had serious concerns for the child’s safety from the beginning (very valid, in my opinion. I was extremely concerned for the physical safety of the child every day that Brendan was out between the murders and his arrest). There were some text exchanges between her and others basically showing their belief in the catfish theory. I get what Carroll was trying to do, but imo because he was kind of disorganized and asking extremely open ended questions, it didn’t work out at all.

Anonymous wrote:

And the significance of this is that BB says JM was in the basement when she made the first call, so someone saying (BB) hang up is devastating?

I am sorry guys for not following. He said she left the bedroom and went to the basement to call 911 that someone had broken in? Or did he say she never left the basement until she came up to shoot joe? (I was not able to listen to the trial this week, so appreciate this site).

Yes, it’s very bad for BB because it was made like 15 min before they called 911 again, and the noises heard would establish that Joe was already shot at that point. If he was heard either telling her to hang up or something involved with killing Christine, it would obviously be even worse.

Brendan and Juliana entered the house through the basement, which is where the dog was that morning (I assume out there by Brendan). He is saying she didn’t come up until after the first 911 call. That he then told her to call 911 but she didn’t and he didn’t realize it until before the second call because he was focused on rendering aid to Christine. Juliana says she basically followed Brendan up and called 911 when Christine yelled out for her to do so (so just seconds or minutes before Brendan murdered her). Then Brendan told or motioned for her to hang up and she did.

Who are Miller and SF? Good analysis!

Anonymous wrote:

This is where the CW could have done more. I worry she was too confident about her case. Why not ask JM if she "read all the discovery and saw the evidence" before she flipped. And/or call the detective who worked with JM. I really really doubt she had access to any of this. This is standard protocol and law enforcement 101.

They could anticipated this argument and handled in direct. I know the preference is not to recall a witness after the defense rests, but this was an option too. I would also have considered calling her back to rebut that they had broken up and make the points made here about the daughter calling her mommy, them staying in same hotel room, the fact she didn't leave the house after all this. I assume VA is like everywhere else and cross of JM on rebuttal would be limited to her rebuttal testimony.

I know someone will say the CW wanted to keep the case simple. I think she left loose ends. This was not a complicate case and a few more rebuttals would hve been fine. I still believe he will be convicted but it is still frustrating.

1st part: CW definitely did ask that to my recollection. Juliana obviously said no. By the time Juliana flipped she would have had access to discovery for sure, it was a long time after her arrest and a couple months after Brendan’s arrest. Do I think she read it all in any kind of informed way and then made up an untrue story that fits every part of it (minus Carrol’s grievance about the gun safe fingerprints) nope, not a chance.

I guess they did anticipate that she plead guilty and the co-defendant is not pleading not guilty so obviously the defense attorney is going to want to discredit her. This has been addressed by the CW extensively including in closing. But I think it would be weird and unnecessary to ask on direct before anything is brought up “did you read all the discovery in this case in order to make up this story?” CW only brought the mommy thing in because Carroll decided to call SF to belabor his point about everyone thinking Brendan was guilty. I think the issues with Miller are definitely a defense point but SF was really a blunder, that in no way helped his case. I don’t think they needed Juliana to respond to that, she already pled guilty, she would probably just say she didn’t remember and wasn’t thinking straight anyway.

Juliana may be the CW’s star witness but she isn’t really a star witness. She is obviously guilty and she did plead but imo she obviously wants to protect her “story” and her reputation after this is over. I believe that what she testified is the basic truth of that day, but she is minimizing her role definitely. Especially in the planning and acceleration of the plan and even when the CW was on direct she didn’t want to say which messages she typed, only “that was me or Brendan.” She’s going to play the victim later on dateline or whatever. CW had to manage this. They did well.

Anonymous wrote:

Did he object on hearsay grounds or some other reason? I feel like the mere fact that it was a human voice saying anything would be relevant even if not offered for the truth. I will be very curious to see that ruling.

Kind of hard to hear because he didn’t talk in the mic lol I just rewatched and he said “your honor, may we approach” almost immediately, but he might have said something before that. The witness who is a detective seemed to be expecting that almost, he kind of looked like he waited a beat after she asked that. Long sidebar and Carroll went and got his computer at some point and was showing something.

I assume it was previously excluded but then the defense audio testimony opened the door a little and the CW decided to try to slide through. I think if an AI tool had been used for investigative purposes, that could inform someone into a particular investigative direction but I wouldn’t expect it to hold up in court.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So she brought the gun to the room and don’t get it from the safe as in the initial story.

In the proffer and in court she said he gave her the gun that morning before she left and she had it in her pocket (I think it was like a zipper hoodie pocket).

She says she never got it from the safe. Brendan says she knew his code from watching him open the door to the house and the code to the gun safe is the same. There may have been an initial statement maybe from Juliana before she flipped that he told her the code in real time that day? Did we just think that? I don’t know, I feel like that was the running assumption before the proffer details.

But Carroll complained in closing they never got fingerprints off the gun safe. Which is interesting, in light of his previous assertions that Juliana read all the discovery and then made up a story that fit all the evidence. Guess she missed that part about the gun safe.

This is where the CW could have done more. I worry she was too confident about her case. Why not ask JM if she "read all the discovery and saw the evidence" before she flipped. And/or call the detective who worked with JM. I really really doubt she had access to any of this. This is standard protocol and law enforcement 101.

They could anticipated this argument and handled in direct. I know the preference is not to recall a witness after the defense rests, but this was an option too. I would also have considered calling her back to rebut that they had broken up and make the points made here about the daughter calling her mommy, them staying in same hotel room, the fact she didn't leave the house after all this. I assume VA is like everywhere else and cross of JM on rebuttal would be limited to her rebuttal testimony.

I know someone will say the CW wanted to keep the case simple. I think she left loose ends. This was not a complicate case and a few more rebuttals would hve been fine. I still believe he will be convicted but it is still frustrating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the audio, and the CW's rebuttal expert vs. the defense guy who testified about the dog noise: am I understanding correctly that the CW expert listened to the first 911 call, and heard a human voice on there after he isolated some of the noises? So that audio is theoretically available to anyone based on the exhibits released, and who has the correct software?

YES
And someone linked to the audiofile a few pages back

Okay. CW knew that for whatever reason they weren't going to get the testimony in what was said. She only had to ask the question and have the sidebar. There are 2 audio files and I bet that jury is doing what I just did.... play them over and over. And "Hang up" would certainly fit the beat.

And the significance of this is that BB says JM was in the basement when she made the first call, so someone saying (BB) hang up is devastating?

I am sorry guys for not following. He said she left the bedroom and went to the basement to call 911 that someone had broken in? Or did he say she never left the basement until she came up to shoot joe? (I was not able to listen to the trial this week, so appreciate this site).

Anonymous wrote:So she brought the gun to the room and don’t get it from the safe as in the initial story.

In the proffer and in court she said he gave her the gun that morning before she left and she had it in her pocket (I think it was like a zipper hoodie pocket).

She says she never got it from the safe. Brendan says she knew his code from watching him open the door to the house and the code to the gun safe is the same. There may have been an initial statement maybe from Juliana before she flipped that he told her the code in real time that day? Did we just think that? I don’t know, I feel like that was the running assumption before the proffer details.

But Carroll complained in closing they never got fingerprints off the gun safe. Which is interesting, in light of his previous assertions that Juliana read all the discovery and then made up a story that fit all the evidence. Guess she missed that part about the gun safe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the audio, and the CW's rebuttal expert vs. the defense guy who testified about the dog noise: am I understanding correctly that the CW expert listened to the first 911 call, and heard a human voice on there after he isolated some of the noises? So that audio is theoretically available to anyone based on the exhibits released, and who has the correct software?

YES
And someone linked to the audiofile a few pages back

Okay. CW knew that for whatever reason they weren't going to get the testimony in what was said. She only had to ask the question and have the sidebar. There are 2 audio files and I bet that jury is doing what I just did.... play them over and over. And "Hang up" would certainly fit the beat.

That was my guess!!!!!! That it would have BB saying “hang up” or “disconnect” or something like that. But can you really hear something without running it through software? I’m not so sure CW expected to lose on that one, but the defense reaction definitely let the jury know whatever was on the tape was damaging.

I don't think you can make it out, but that doesn't mean they won't try. The confidence with which she asked the question was everything. I assume there is some reason the CW couldn't bring in the rebuttal expert's actual sound analysis to play for the jury.

Did he object on hearsay grounds or some other reason? I feel like the mere fact that it was a human voice saying anything would be relevant even if not offered for the truth. I will be very curious to see that ruling.

Sorry if this has been brought up (big thread)..but I do wonder about Juliana’s sentencing being moved up from 2/20 to 2/13 (per court case info)? Maybe just because the trial didn’t take as long as expected?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the audio, and the CW's rebuttal expert vs. the defense guy who testified about the dog noise: am I understanding correctly that the CW expert listened to the first 911 call, and heard a human voice on there after he isolated some of the noises? So that audio is theoretically available to anyone based on the exhibits released, and who has the correct software?

YES
And someone linked to the audiofile a few pages back

Okay. CW knew that for whatever reason they weren't going to get the testimony in what was said. She only had to ask the question and have the sidebar. There are 2 audio files and I bet that jury is doing what I just did.... play them over and over. And "Hang up" would certainly fit the beat.

That was my guess!!!!!! That it would have BB saying “hang up” or “disconnect” or something like that. But can you really hear something without running it through software? I’m not so sure CW expected to lose on that one, but the defense reaction definitely let the jury know whatever was on the tape was damaging.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the audio, and the CW's rebuttal expert vs. the defense guy who testified about the dog noise: am I understanding correctly that the CW expert listened to the first 911 call, and heard a human voice on there after he isolated some of the noises? So that audio is theoretically available to anyone based on the exhibits released, and who has the correct software?

YES
And someone linked to the audiofile a few pages back

Okay. CW knew that for whatever reason they weren't going to get the testimony in what was said. She only had to ask the question and have the sidebar. There are 2 audio files and I bet that jury is doing what I just did.... play them over and over. And "Hang up" would certainly fit the beat.

So she brought the gun to the room and don’t get it from the safe as in the initial story.

Anonymous wrote:Did you guys read the Discord messages ?

I was thinking, maybe BB was telling Juliana what his plan was but she didn’t believe he was actually gonna do it until it all happened ? Maybe she started talking about leaving him and that’s what made him hurry up and do it ?

It makes no sense for him to invite her to a trip to NY on the 24th, and her saying ‘no’ if they were planning to kill CB on that day.

These are the things that can raise reasonable doubt, I think.

The messages from Feb 14th would have been before the exact date was set with Joe. They zero in on Joe in the days after that, so it seems like maybe some kind of pressure was applied. They set the date/time only a few days before the 24th. I assume Brendan had to convince Christine to take off work.

Obviously the scheme was somewhat in play then, accounts had been created for a month or so, but there was no exact date set for someone to come yet.

So even 10 days before he may have actually intended to go to NY. It got overwritten by the plan with Joe. It all accelerates in that timeline.

Juliana did say that she didn’t believe he would really do it until right before. But as far as we can tell she definitely knew what was going to occur prior to leaving the house on the 24th. She had a gun, she had been in the telegram messages when the time was set, etc. She waited in the cul de sac.

Anonymous wrote:On his letter he mentions having relationships with men too? On the first page of the 14 page lettter.

I think he meant any kind of relationship, not just sexual. (I also think he’s guilty of murder)