VA - Joseph Ryan shot, Christine Banfield stabbed, both deceased, in home - Herndon 24 Feb 2023

[mrjitty]

Agree!

What bothers me, but I can't articulate so well, is proof beyond reasonable doubt is an evidential standard - you don't collect up reasonable doubts in a bucket, nor edge ahead on the scoreboard.

Traditionally, one made analogies about a braided rope, with evidential strands - maybe you could cut one but the rope held. Or a puzzle with missing pieces but you could still see the picture etc etc

So to take the issue of whether or not the defendant was genuinely upset - the defence may have succeeded in undermining an allegation from which guilt could be inferred. Which is like cutting a strand of the rope. What they didn't do is score some points or collect a reasonable doubt.

As a question of logic, we ask juries to first consider all the facts that have been established, then make logical and obvious inferences, and only then ask if the burden of proof is met. Analysing cases in terms of landing heavy blows and collecting up reasonable doubts as you go along invites logical fallacy IMO. Whether or not he was crying doesn't raise any reasonable doubt of itself. You just maybe cannot infer anything from it now.

Apologies if anyone finds this pedantic, but to my old school tradition, this style of analysis seems wrong headed.

IMO

 

[mrjitty]

Its interesting that the overwhelming view of posters here is that the CW have proved the case? I guess it shows the limits of the creators to pretend the defence is making a good case

 

[Megnut]

I don't think the jury has to understand how CB's devices were manipulated to find that they were. The CW hasn't emphasized BB's career, surprisingly. It's his career IMO that accounts for the how he was able to do it, even to the point of confounding the experts.

I liken it to someone who wears protective gear.m during the commission of a crime. Just because there's no transfer of DNA doesn't mean they weren't there. They were there, they just took countermeasures.

BB took countermeasures. Digitally.

IMO if there's juror doubt -- that maybe it was CB on her own devices, setting up the sexual encounter -- it's not because the Defense has been successful in creating reasonable doubt; it's because BB was successful in his countermeasures.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

Current Weather/Operating Status​

The Fairfax County Courthouse and all Courts are OPEN Wednesday, January 28, 2026.

Courts Weather/Operating Status | Circuit Court

Fairfax County, Virginia - Courts Weather Status page for Fairfax Circuit Court, General District Court and Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.

www.fairfaxcounty.gov

Willtherebe or Wontherebe testimony in this trial today? Originally canceled through Wednesday, I thought. Still canceled or now reinstated?

 

[Pyrite]

Its interesting that the overwhelming view of posters here is that the CW have proved the case? I guess it shows the limits of the creators to pretend the defense is making a good case

I enjoy Peter’s videos and the way he sees things. It doesn’t bother me that he calls balls and strikes on both sides. He does bend over a little backwards to be fair to both sides, unlike say Bob Mota, another creator, who is mostly defense side only.

I’m not at all surprised that the overwhelming view here is that the CW has proved its case. As a voracious reader on Webseluths, the overwhelming opinion here is guilty on almost every thread here, even before a trial starts. Karen Read is the only exception to that I can think of. MOO

I’m glad you are posting again. I haven’t seen you much lately on any of the threads I keep up with and I always enjoy reading your posts.

Edited to correct spelling and grammar.

 

[LifeIsAMystery]

I’m just wondering what in the world would have incentivized this poor man to go to their house since this pretend violence wasn’t something he was interested in? What could have been promised that would have caused him to agree to such a date, and without meeting first? Oh gosh, I wish he hadn’t given in. He was totally innocent, as was Christine! OMO.

All

I’m just wondering what in the world would have incentivized this poor man to go to their house since this pretend violence wasn’t something he was interested in? What could have been promised that would have caused him to agree to such a date, and without meeting first? Oh gosh, I wish he hadn’t given in. He was totally innocent, as was Christine! OMO.

The telegram messages lay it out and are available on the court website. It was knife play he said was not an interest.

 

[Kellygirl2013]

Willtherebe or Wontherebe testimony in this trial today? Originally canceled through Wednesday, I thought. Still canceled or now reinstated?

I think the one local station WUSA9 may have prematurely posted that FFX courts would be closed. I cannot find that announcement on their page any longer, so assuming they took it down when they realized the error. The FFX govt. website’s operating status says all offices and courts are open today (1/28).

 

[Izzylizzy]

Does anyone else find Peter's constant spinning of the case into sports style coverage troubling?

Did they score any points
Did they move the needle
Who is pulling ahead
Move the ball down the field
Calling balls and strikes

All in the first 90 seconds. This isn't sports coverage to check in on who is winning. Nor is it entertainment. Why shouldn't the jury be expected to 'slog' through dense testimony? I get that he is trying to make this content accessible, but in my opinion he is creating quite a bizarre expectation of what trials ought to be like.

I do agree with his dad George Tragos (who unlike 99% of creators is actually a venerated criminal defence attorney and has significant experience in USAO etc), that prosecutors and defence attorneys should strive to be engaging with the Jury - but they are also heavily limited by trial rules and the material they have to work with.

For instance why should anyone expect J to be a 'star witness'. She's a young killer who committed a horrific crime, no doubt at rock bottom, speaking in a second language. As George rightly (IMO) discussed previously, one can debate the ethics of this, but end of the day he's also correct that the CW can't prove the conspiracy without her direct testimony. Harping on about the CW's failings is bizarre to me, when they are in a tough place precisely because the defendant was so successful in his staging.

IMO

I went back and listened again because none of Peter's equating the day's testimony results to a sporting event stuck out at me.
I gather it was due to after each of his "did they score any points" etc references he went on to explain how so.
Had he opened his video by stringing all his sporting references together w/o explanations after each one I still wouldn't find that "troubling", a bit dramatic but far from troubling.

As far as " Why shouldn't the jury be expected to 'slog' through dense testimony?" goes that is the easiest way to lose a juror's attention, something we have heard from jurors in other trials especially when it came to the expert's testimonies on both sides.

Jurors listening to long dense testimonies often leads to cognitive overload, causing them to lose focus, rely on biases or fail to retain critical evidence.
imo

 

[Megnut]

I went back and listened again because none of Peter's equating the day's testimony results to a sporting event stuck out at me.
I gather it was due to after each of his "did they score any points" etc references he went on to explain how so.
Had he opened his video by stringing all his sporting references together w/o explanations after each one I still wouldn't find that "troubling", a bit dramatic but far from troubling.

As far as " Why shouldn't the jury be expected to 'slog' through dense testimony?" goes that is the easiest way to lose a juror's attention, something we have heard from jurors in other trials especially when it came to the expert's testimonies on both sides.

Jurors listening to long dense testimonies often leads to cognitive overload, causing them to lose focus, rely on biases or fail to retain critical evidence.
imo

To your last point, I can't help but to think that is the Defense's strategy.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

Will today see a tidier performance from the Defense?

It seems they're trying to or a much distance as they can between deliberation and Juliana's testimony.

Will BB take the stand today?

Or will they surprise everyone and suddenly rest?

I won't be surprised.

JMO

 

[LifeIsAMystery]

To your last point, I can't help but to think that is the Defense's strategy.

JMO

Sure seemed like it esp on the last day of testimony! Jmooo.

 

[LifeIsAMystery]

Will today see a tidier performance from the Defense?

It seems they're trying to or a much distance as they can between deliberation and Juliana's testimony.

Will BB take the stand today?

Or will they surprise everyone and suddenly rest?

I won't be surprised.

JMO

I think he may testify. He may believe he can talk his way out of it.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Its interesting that the overwhelming view of posters here is that the CW have proved the case? I guess it shows the limits of the creators to pretend the defence is making a good case

I don't think the CW has proved their case nor has the defense.
I question the CW's decision to use JM as their witness against BB (not touching on their plea deal and recommendations to the judge.."time served").

From the get-go would the CW have had a stronger and less convoluted case had they charged and tried both BB & JM for the murders of CB & JR together or separately?

Something makes me think so and that something may be from having watched other murder trials which I admit may be a moot point.
imo

 

[Megnut]

Seal is up --

CouttTV feed is live.

 

[Megnut]

I don't think the CW has proved their case nor has the defense.
I question the CW's decision to use JM as their witness against BB (not touching on their plea deal and recommendations to the judge.."time served").

From the get-go would the CW have had a stronger and less convoluted case had they charged and tried both BB & JM for the murders of CB & JR together or separately?

Something makes me think so and that something may be from having watched other murder trials which I admit may be a moot point.
imo

I think the CW has proven their case.

If BB shot JR in self-defense or to stop his supposed attack, his immediate response should have been getting 911 on site and stemming her blood loss. Not hanging up on 911.

I think the jury will get there.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

Court is live!

 

[Megnut]

Defense has "matters".

Of course it does.

Side bar.

JMO

 

[Izzylizzy]

I think the CW has proven their case.

If BB shot JR in self-defense or to stop his supposed attack, his immediate response should have been getting 911 on site and stemming her blood loss. Not hanging up on 911.

I think the jury will get there.

JMO

I definitely agree with the 911 call and why didn't BB call 911 from McDonalds too.
I always worry about the 1 or 2 jurors who hold out.
They may dislike the au-pair so much that they are biased.
imo

 

[Angelo]

I think the CW has proven their case.

If BB shot JR in self-defense or to stop his supposed attack, his immediate response should have been getting 911 on site and stemming her blood loss. Not hanging up on 911.

I think the jury will get there.

JMO

I agree. The 911 hang-up call with Joseph moaning in the background, not answering the phone when 911 called back and Christine's phone being found in a drawer downstairs in the kitchen.
Christine would not have left her phone downstairs in a drawer. BB did it to prevent Christine from be able to call for help.

 

[turaj]

Defense has "matters".

Of course it does.

Side bar.

JMO

judge was not having any of what defense was saying or so it looked.