The Damning IMEI Evidence the Prosecution Should Have Hammered
I Finally had a chance to look at the data and extractions in the Brendan Banfield trial.
The T-Mobile records for Brendan Banfield's personal cell account (BB Exhibit 242) have a date range of 11/24/2022 - 2/24/2023.
- From 11/24 - midday 2/20, the only IMEI used is 35918544072354.
- After midday 2/20 and through the end of the report, a different IMEI is logged as 35883596053468.
It's hard to explain this timing as "Maybe Brendan got a new phone for his birthday" when there is web history on Brendan's work phone (CW Exhibit 243) with a visit to a page about deleting activity.
So, yeah. Together, this is incredibly damning IMO.
Key Timeline
- 11/24/2022 - 2/20/2023 midday: IMEI 35918544072354
- 2/20/2023 midday onward: IMEI 35883596053468
- Device change coincides with suspicious web activity
From CW Exhibit 243
Magnet Axiom Report generated on January 28, 2026, by Brendan Miller.
Sands represents this as a Google search.
Highlighting and markings is my own.
Puzzling: The Prosecution's Missed Opportunities
While the previous information is damning, in my opinion, I still want to note my (strong) opinion that the prosecution's aversion to digital forensics in this case leaves a LOT to be desired.
Prosecutor Sands argued in opening statements that Brendan and Juliana got new phones days before the murders. (There's also an April 2024 article about the preliminary hearing that notes the prosecution team mentioned the phone swap then, too) The prosecution rested their case without introducing the digital evidence. Even though the defense brought in some exhibits, I didn't see anything in the available exhibits that would allow me to look at the IMEI numbers for an account associated with Juliana.
It makes no sense to me why a prosecutor wouldn't want to introduce these records and say "Look, 3 days before the murders, the devices on their accounts changed."
Side Note:
Prosecutors mentioned the phone swapping at an April 2024 preliminary hearing for Juliana.
At that point in time, it seems the theory was that Brendan and Juliana swapped their phones at the same time, and that time was just four days before the murders.
The Defense's Missed Opportunity - Reality Behind the Evidence
The only item in CW 243 is a web visit to a page. What Sands is characterizing as a Google search is simply that page's title. The page is a standard help page - the type that, while yes, you can get there by a search, Google also links and directs users to in several places.
Defense's Missed Opportunity
- It would have been interesting to hear a speaking objection from the defense here, like: "Your Honor, the prosecution mischaracterizes a single visit to Google's standard 'Delete your activity' help page.... something routinely accessed by of privacy-conscious Android users directly from their account settings - as if it's a suspicious and intentional search."
- I'm not saying jurors will forget hearing the word "delete." But, when a prosecutor misrepresents something and seems to have no interest in providing the data themselves, they leave the door open for a defense attorney to overcome a bad fact.
And, the Commonwealth's Missed Opportunity
Yes, I think the timing of the two items at the beginning of this are very damning. Quite frankly, it's exactly what I was expecting the prosecution to show me.
I just don't understand why the prosecution didn't present it or highlight it.
I also don't understand why the state didn't present service records for an account associated with Juliana to show any device/IMEI change(s). This would have been a great way to corroborate Juliana's testimony.
Watch Juliana's Testimony about the phone swapping: 6h22m
Remember, Juliana testified she got a new phone because "he told me to get rid of the, the, my older phone or, had her pictures and, or stuff."
The Bigger Picture
You might say "So what if the prosecution didn't show the digital forensics, he's obviously guilty."
But imagine if the defense didn't put on a case in chief.
Or, if Brenan Banfield didn't take the stand.
Or, think of your favorite defense attorney and imagine if they tried this case.
Would 12 jurors readily say the State has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
Just food for thought - and I think it's good snacking for anyone who wants to see a clean conviction here.
Resources and Links
Check out the exhibits here: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/apps/highprofilecase/
Also, for verdict watch on 2/1/2026, I'll be live with the Chatt going through exhibits and rewatching some of Juliana's testimony. Here's the link for that stream:
YouTube
Verdict Watch - Brendan Banfield Trial Evidence + Testimony Review
While we wait for jury questions and/or a verdict, we'll take a look at evidence and also replay the testimony of Juliana Magalhaes, the au pair. Playlist: Au Pair Trial Clips + Testimony Segments: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi4TKozlegSYMG_or08ziud3G1gu95TQ6 Playlist: Full Trial Streams - Au Pair Trial: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi4TKozlegSb096KiEs8qzAHPuUlQktFT Playlist: Creator Friends: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi4TKozlegSa-JL-3Txw_-FTd9iXSL5NC This ca
tiptopjar
Support Katt Not Williams on Tip Top Jar | We're the Online Tip Jar
I like looking at motions, news coverage, and trial footage and share what I see. Tips are never expected, but greatly appreciated. | Tip Top Jar is the highest converting online tip jar powered by patent-pending technology. Anyone can easily turn support into tips.