Jan. 28, 2026
Au Pair Affair Murder Trial: Brendan Banfield Takes The Stand In His Own Defense
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed One of the most riveting days in court so far, as double murder defendant Brendan Banfield took the stand in his own defense. The 40 year old former IRS agent testified about his marriage, his multiple affairs, and said the notion that he would plan to kill his wife after a 6-8 week relationship with the family au pair “absolutely crazy.” Amy and T.J. discuss the major inroads the defense made today and what they think of Banfield’s testimony.”
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:10
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Wednesday, January twenty eighth, and it has been the most explosive day yet in the so called O Pair a fair trial. Brendan Banfil is on the stand in his own defense and with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Robes. This is just rare that you see this, and it's even rare to see it in a homicide. This is a double homicide case. Brendan Banfield is on the stand, yes.
00:00:41
Speaker 2: And he is accused of killing his wife and a stranger that prosecutors say he lured to his home to try and pin the murder on him for killing his wife. But man to see that kind of defendant take the stand and actually testify to the fair with the old pair, and to testify moment by moment about the day of the murders. It has been jaw dropping.
00:01:08
Speaker 1: The old pair did testify. I believe it was on day one or two of this trial. So now he is getting his turn. Let's tell you where we are in this case. They had been out missed a day because or two days, two days because of the storm. So they are back now where we are. Sounds like this thing is going to wrap up and the jury could have this trial by Friday. We'll get into the schedule, but Robes, this was almost I was going to call it the most explosive day before we even knew he was going to testify, because there was another witness on the stand giving explosive testimony that through the whole prosecution's case into doubt. We'll get into that next, but first, Robes, just the moment your reaction when the judge started asking Brendan Banfield questions and we knew he was about to testify, but just to she had to go through this process, and it was just something to know what was coming.
00:02:00
Speaker 2: Yeah, my heart was pounding to have her make sure he knew his rights, that he did not have to testify, that the jury would be directed by her to not hold that against him. And so he just kept saying, yes, I know this, and yes I want to testify. And in my thirty years of covering trials, I have never seen a defendant accused of murder take the stand in his own defense.
00:02:23
Speaker 1: This is a double homicide. So if this has turned into a he said, she said, and so he is getting his story officially on the record. That back and forth goes on, he takes the stand and robes. The prosecution has been really and I wonder how she's going to come across, So we should talk to an expert about it. But she has been interrupting and objecting and objecting, and sometimes objecting in not the kindest of ways. It's her tactic or whatever, but it's I wonder how that has been coming across to this jury.
00:02:57
Speaker 2: Yes, I would use the word relentless. That's kind of how she comes off, and to the point where it's so disruptive that you can't even follow what the testimony is going to be or should be, or and you start to get frustrated because she keeps interrupting. And even though she made and most of her objections were sustained, they were only a few were overruled, so the judge was validating her. But still it's annoying and it's irritating. So I you know, and her voice, there's just something about her tone that is start slightly sarcastic and like uh huh, like I told you so, like I know better than you. So she's got this tone about her on top of it that adds to the annoyance.
00:03:39
Speaker 1: That's no judgment on her. It is an observation and if we put ourselves in that jury box that it's unquestionable what you speak of. And I mentioned her not allowing the differenstorian to get into a flow. So I bring that up because of Even when Brendan Banfil first got on the stand and he's just getting some softball questions from his own lawyer about what was your relationship, like show me this picture, where were you guys at these happy things? The attorney was still kind of interrupting.
00:04:07
Speaker 2: Like objection, foundation, where are we going?
00:04:09
Speaker 1: I don't know the line? And she objected. She got up once and started talking, and the judge said, so you have an objection. Never mind Right, she was interrupting everything. But was it effective hearing him talk about his wife and how much he loved her.
00:04:25
Speaker 2: Yes, So I have to say this. My overall impression of him from the beginning when he started talking was Wow. He seems genuine. And that's either incredible or a little scary. I'm not sure which it is, but listening to him talk, it's like your next door neighbor. He's an IRS agent. He's known this his wife since they were in college. They've spent eighteen years aget together. He's very honest about affairs. Just everything he was saying and talking about his relationship with her and that he loved her very much. It didn't seem put on, It didn't seem like he was acting, and it just seemed genuine. What were your impressions?
00:05:08
Speaker 1: It came off. It just came off well. We talked about if this comes down to it, he said, she said, and if even if you don't know what to do with their stories, you at this point might just pick the one you like better. And he is coming across at this point is just his attorney, But at this point he is coming across awfully authentic, believable. Sure, I'm sure he's practiced and he's rehearsed, but he's not coming off that way.
00:05:34
Speaker 2: He's not. And we were learning things about his relationship with Christine, his wife, and his daughter Valerie, and pretty quickly, even after establishing that, we got started into hearing how the two went from just being a boss and an au pair to having actually a sexual relationship.
00:05:58
Speaker 1: I didn't get this really, it seemed like they went from zero to eighty and didn't really understand why it wasn't a lot of set up to the flirtation or whatever. Was there some back and forth, But the story goes he was just in the kitchen cooking one night. She's upstairs texting him. He said, why don't you come down and talk? And one thing leads to another.
00:06:16
Speaker 2: Yes, so, and what I didn't realize is Christine and Valerie were actually visiting relatives in New York, so it was just the two of them in the house together. So she comes down. They talked for an hour and a half about her how hard it is to be on dating apps and to date and yeah, all of a sudden, it goes from that to them going upstairs, and he said, the master bedroom is in one direction and her bedroom was in the other, and she asked me to come. And what he said was quote, I did not stop her advances.
00:06:47
Speaker 1: Okay, let me stop there. I was about to say something else, did it? I mean he didn't go too hard on this point, but still he made the point that she was the one that made the first movie? Is that right?
00:06:59
Speaker 2: Oh? Absolutely?
00:07:00
Speaker 1: And then it got weird, What was this about the dating app? I thought that was odd? Well, that was that night?
00:07:06
Speaker 2: How was that night when they were in the kitchen talking. That was their conversation. She was complaining about how hard it was to be on dating apps. But then at one point he testified. She was scrolling through the matches she had and she said, isn't it funny? Look, they're all like you. And he said their names were Brandon, Brendan, and Brennan, like versions of his name. That was a weird You looked at me, You're like what. I don't know why that was relevant, but I guess they were just trying to build this notion that maybe she was doing it on purpose to flirt with him in the kitchen.
00:07:38
Speaker 1: Okay, but yeah, that was an odd thing. But to you, again, I didn't understand a setup. What happened. You will just start, you will have nothing but a purely professional relationship, and then one night she decides the text, comes downstairs, tells you about her dating life, and all of a sudden, you're all in a relationship.
00:07:55
Speaker 2: That's what it seemed to be, or at least according to him, that is what happened. Was maybe the first time Christine and Valerie were both out of the house. Maybe it was the first time they were alone, because she started working there in October of twenty twenty one, and he says, this happened in August of twenty twenty two. And that's really really important because then he's able to address very effectively, in my opinion, this notion that, really, are you serious? So I'm in a relationship? He said, And by the way he said, he's set it up from the beginning that this was just an affair, that he loved his wife, he was going to stay with his wife, that he had had multiple affairs, and that Christine had had affairs, and that they were you know, that they had made it through and this was just going to be an affair.
00:08:42
Speaker 1: Well, that I think might have been the one of the most effective lines for me today, at least narratives I should say. To hear that the two of them had worked through affairs set off a question of well, why was this one so special that in six weeks you want to kill your wife?
00:09:05
Speaker 2: Yes, and that is exactly what he said. He said, I think it's an absurd line of questioning for something that is not serious. That a plan was made to get rid of my wife, he said. I was with her for six to eight weeks, and why would that be all of a sudden, the moment in which I say I want to, you know, kill my wife and run off into the sunset with you. That resonated.
00:09:26
Speaker 1: It took off a lot of motive, if you will, because Robes is he worried about his wife finding out. She's gonna say, oh you're at it again, versus oh my god, my whole life is going to blow up. He would think he could survive another. Yes, that was effect.
00:09:42
Speaker 2: It was effective. He said that Christine knew about two of his affairs, and he implied he had more than two, and that he knew about her affairs, and he explained how they worked in jobs where they had to be gone for long periods of time, and it's just what happened. But they went to marriage counseling. So yes, it sounds like him having an affair wouldn't be marriage ending. So that takes away some of that issue, that or motive that you would think, well, yes, she's going to divorce me and then I'll lose my daughter.
00:10:11
Speaker 1: And so you're telling me he is so in love in six weeks with the twenty one year old o pair that he hatches a master plan to kill his wife.
00:10:24
Speaker 2: And he said to that that is quote from him that is absolutely crazy. And when he said that is absolutely crazy the way he set it up, I hadn't thought about it. I didn't know that he had had prior affair, isn't it so? And I didn't know that they had only been in a sexual relationship for less than two months.
00:10:44
Speaker 1: So again the suggestion is that he was talking about marriage, their future with the O pair, how the O pair was going to be the new mommy and everything was going to be great, and six weeks and in order for the planned to happen after six weeks, I'm so sure that I am going to do all of this stuff that if you're talking about reasonable doubt and just a reasonable person, that just sounds like a like far fetched.
00:11:14
Speaker 2: Yes, I was possible. As soon as he said it, I thought, damn, I get that. That makes sense. And I think we have heard from legal minds, people who know more about juries than we do, that when things just make sense juries that that's what they bite on. When things don't make sense, you're like, huh. But when someone says something like he did today that is so impactful.
00:11:39
Speaker 1: Two other very important points that they have been a part of this case one the trip to McDonald's and to the trip to the shooting range. So do the shooting range first rope That was so much made by the prosecution and the A pair right, He took me to the shooting range because he wants to give me a gun and wants to be to learn how to shoot, and this was part of the case.
00:11:56
Speaker 2: Something goes wrong.
00:11:57
Speaker 1: There, it is okay. He had the best freaking response to that that you can come up with. He is an IRS agent who is required to do a certain amount of practice and training time courses he has to pass on a regular basis, So he said he's a regular that goes. He says the place they went to isn't one he could frequent because it's kind of more of a beginner thing. So that's why she wanted to tag along with him, because that's after their sexual relationship started and she wanted to go anywhere he was. He explained it in a way, that's a holy hell, I could buy that if I have to, the other side hasn't convinced me anymore than you have. So that's kind of a you're gonna call his draw on it.
00:12:41
Speaker 2: Yes, And he also pointed out that that all happened and I guess this is all verifiable way before anyone had gone on and created this fet life account. So he was like, we weren't like creating this account, hatching a plan and then going to a shooting range, which is how the prosecution made it seem. He was like, this happened way before any you know, feed life account was set up, before any Gmail account was set up to access a felt like He's like, so this that's not They were not even in the same timeline as it's been suggested.
00:13:15
Speaker 1: Bro, you're you're what you The point you're making seems to be the end of the prosecution case. I am their whole case. They hatched a plan to do this. As a part of the plan, she needed to know how to operate a gun. So then we'll go to the shooting range after we come up with the plan. The plan, nothing was in place yet when they went So how.
00:13:39
Speaker 2: Does that's verifiable digital forever?
00:13:42
Speaker 1: Yes, So the prosecution has a lot of work to do, at least for me, I would like for them to answer some things. We do this all the time. We listen to one single Wow, he's going to jail we hear the other side. Wow, So we don't know how this one is necessarily gun. What was the second thing I said, eld the McDonald's trip.
00:13:59
Speaker 2: Yes, McDonald's trip. He so, I here's what I learned that I didn't know. The day of the murders was his birthday. This is everything right here and on top of that, and this would be verifiable that at his job at the IRS, he had a very important day at a big meeting with the bosses because he was about to execute this undercover operation and if everything went well, he was up for some big promotion.
00:14:24
Speaker 1: He had a presentation that he had a big.
00:14:25
Speaker 2: Presentation at nine thirty. So he left early that morning, he says, And he said he often went He never made breakfast for himself before he went to work, so he would often go pick up breakfast. He happened to go through McDonald's, and he just wanted to pull off and eat and just be ready to go so he could get to his office in time to set up the conference room. He said, he was fully focused on his day at work, and I just thought, it's his birthday. He's got a big day at work. And the following day he was taking Valerie. He said his friends were all throwing him a big birthday party. I didn't know any of that.
00:14:56
Speaker 1: Why this is a problem. You're telling me you're going to plan to kill your wife on your birthday. In the day you have a huge presentation.
00:15:03
Speaker 2: That's for a big promotion at work.
00:15:06
Speaker 1: He cared about his job. No way, that's a tough one again, which a saying just things that make sense that one doesn't that he planned it. So even some strange behavior, as they say he circled the McDonald's, they made it sound like the prosecution actually made it sound as if he.
00:15:22
Speaker 2: Was flying time.
00:15:23
Speaker 1: Yeah, lurking, just sitting in the waiting for the call, waiting for the.
00:15:26
Speaker 2: Call from the old pair to go pretend to Yes, that walk in on somebody.
00:15:30
Speaker 1: That's their story. Fine, But he even had answers for yeah, that I circled because the app didn't work the first time, and I was trying to get it to load just right, so it wasn't ready to first go around. So he said a few things. Oh yeah, I guess. So he's had the McDonald's app for years. That's verifiable. This was and he's barely gotten started on his testimony.
00:15:52
Speaker 2: And while he's saying all these things, he's not, like I said, he's not overacting. He's not. He doesn't seem first, he doesn't seem plain and a robotic. He's he just seems like a guy trying to say, hey, this is what happened.
00:16:07
Speaker 3: The other big.
00:16:10
Speaker 1: Win should I call a little win? Maybe I shouldn't go that far. But the other major headway I thought they made Robes had to do with Christine laptop. Folks, stay here, another big, big point of this case is that laptop. Who had access to it and where it was? Well, he has testified and the defense has once again Robes made things make sense to me.
00:16:33
Speaker 3: Stay here, all right?
00:16:44
Speaker 1: We continue here on Amy and TJ hopping on because Brendan Bamfield just hopped off the stand for the day. He testified in his own defense in the old Pair affair trial, accused of double murder killing his wife he's accused of and another man that he allured to the house so he could have him take the rap for his wife's death. Robes. The laptop has been key. Folks been following this case at this point. Don't need to go back and get everybody fully caught up. But a big point was that he had to set up a fake fet life, which a fetish website had to set up this fake account. The prosecution the whole time has been saying they took the laptop, they snuck away with it for moments at a time and put it back before Christine ever saw it, and that's how they were able to do it. It's just not possible. According to Brendan Banfak.
00:17:34
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh. When Brendan said this, I looked at you and I said, this makes sense because Juliana the O pair testified that Christine would leave her backpack with her computer at the front door, and so when she would go to bed, they would then go and get the backpack and go and get the computer. Brendan said, when Christine came home, she brought her backpack with her up to the master bedroom. We had a full sitting area, an office area, and she brought her laptop up and would put it at the desk. He's like, but honestly, more often than not, she had it on her lap as she was leaning as she'd sit up in bed, so she'd you know, get for the day, and she'd have her laptop on her lap in bed, and I just said, duh, that's what everybody does. They charge their laptop and they have it with them in bed or at their desk. They don't leave an uncharged computer by the door, and you don't. You don't walk in and leave. You bring your computer with you.
00:18:31
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess it's possible.
00:18:33
Speaker 2: As soon as he said that, I said, oh wow, that makes a lot of sense. He also said there's not a password of hers that I know.
00:18:42
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was huge. I don't even know how to get into it.
00:18:45
Speaker 2: That was believable to me. I don't know how to get into your computer, you know?
00:18:49
Speaker 1: I Oh, wow, do you know you don't know how to get in you?
00:18:53
Speaker 2: Oh? You do?
00:18:54
Speaker 1: You look concerned?
00:18:56
Speaker 2: I'm not, no, but I actually don't know because I'm just like, hey, can I have your finger? And then I just, you know, put it in that So I haven't even thought about it. But if, yeah, I needed to get into your computer, I could not do it.
00:19:07
Speaker 1: He I think most couples. Does that make sense that you wouldn't have it and you don't need it, and especially if it's a work computer.
00:19:17
Speaker 2: No, yeah, And he was saying, it's like I have two devices. I have my device. He's like, we just have everything separate.
00:19:22
Speaker 1: So, like I said, so he's on the stand now, I say, he's on the stand now. In that he got to understand what time was it today. I was a little after three, maybe three thirty Eastern time. And then they ended the session today around one excuse me, an hour and a half later. So he was on the stand until about five. He's going to be back on the stand tomorrow, continuing with the defense. I can't really tell how much they've really gotten going. They only had an hour and a half. I don't know if they've gotten to all the meat and the nitty gritty yet, but that was a lot.
00:19:54
Speaker 2: There's a lot more to get to because, my goodness, now we are just at We left off with him talking about being at McDonald's getting the phone call from Juliana saying there's someone you know, what should I do? She was supposed to be going to the zoo, and he, by the way, testified that Christine set up this zoo trip. He and Juliana didn't concoct it, like Juliana said. So anyway, she's waiting and calling him, and he tries to call Christine she doesn't pick up, so he's talking about and that's where it ends. We don't know what happens when he arrives at the house. Now, and that we know what Juliana says happened. She already testified to it. So this is going to be fascinating to hear what he says happens and how he got up to that bedroom and what happened in that bedroom. I cannot wait to hear.
00:20:47
Speaker 1: I don't know what the prosecution has planned tomorrow. What it sounds like they want to give the jury instructions. Well, was it late tomorrow? Oh? Yeah, the prosecution said she thought they could do the jury instructions tomorrow at the end of the day. So Brendan Banfield maybe back on the stand half day tomorrow, a little more after lunch maybe, and that's going to be it.
00:21:07
Speaker 2: But that means that are you do you believe then that the prosecution isn't going to have their way with him they have to go to cross examination.
00:21:16
Speaker 1: Or do they? I don't know, dear, I don't know now they certainly, I mean the prosecutors chomping at the bit. You get to cross examine a murder suspect people go to the whole lives and don't get this opportunity as prosecutors. But even before he got on, I thought, and we have to mention the other I thought was the most critical witness of the trial outside of the ou pair. This forensics guy has been up there, digital forensics guy and robes. He made point after point after point. See Christine's device is at the house. Their devices aren't there. Somebody at the house is using the fat life account or this fake Google account or this other account. He is flat out saying that it is impossible that Christine did not know about those accounts.
00:22:10
Speaker 2: Yes, he said there, it is impossible for this to be a cat fishing skin. Absolutely when he said that, I was blown away. And of course, yes, the prosecution went through cross examination, but I don't know that she made much headway in her cross with him. No, I didn't think so, and he wanted nothing to do with her either. So, but it was fascinating to have someone, a respected digital forensics guy who worked for the Fairfax County Police trying to catch the bags reassigned because of his synopsis. It was it was wild.
00:22:48
Speaker 1: To hear that example after example after example, But folks we will certainly have our eyes on this tomorrow. By all means, keep an eye on our feet. Top right corner of your Apple podcast app where you see our show page a little button that says follow click that you make sure our updates always come to you. But this is certainly when we have our eyes and ears on closely tomorrow. Always appreciate you listening to us for now. I'm TJ. Holmes On behalf of my dear Ammy Robot. We'll talk to y'all soon
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Wednesday, January twenty eighth, and it has been the most explosive day yet in the so called O Pair a fair trial. Brendan Banfil is on the stand in his own defense and with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Robes. This is just rare that you see this, and it's even rare to see it in a homicide. This is a double homicide case. Brendan Banfield is on the stand, yes.
00:00:41
Speaker 2: And he is accused of killing his wife and a stranger that prosecutors say he lured to his home to try and pin the murder on him for killing his wife. But man to see that kind of defendant take the stand and actually testify to the fair with the old pair, and to testify moment by moment about the day of the murders. It has been jaw dropping.
00:01:08
Speaker 1: The old pair did testify. I believe it was on day one or two of this trial. So now he is getting his turn. Let's tell you where we are in this case. They had been out missed a day because or two days, two days because of the storm. So they are back now where we are. Sounds like this thing is going to wrap up and the jury could have this trial by Friday. We'll get into the schedule, but Robes, this was almost I was going to call it the most explosive day before we even knew he was going to testify, because there was another witness on the stand giving explosive testimony that through the whole prosecution's case into doubt. We'll get into that next, but first, Robes, just the moment your reaction when the judge started asking Brendan Banfield questions and we knew he was about to testify, but just to she had to go through this process, and it was just something to know what was coming.
00:02:00
Speaker 2: Yeah, my heart was pounding to have her make sure he knew his rights, that he did not have to testify, that the jury would be directed by her to not hold that against him. And so he just kept saying, yes, I know this, and yes I want to testify. And in my thirty years of covering trials, I have never seen a defendant accused of murder take the stand in his own defense.
00:02:23
Speaker 1: This is a double homicide. So if this has turned into a he said, she said, and so he is getting his story officially on the record. That back and forth goes on, he takes the stand and robes. The prosecution has been really and I wonder how she's going to come across, So we should talk to an expert about it. But she has been interrupting and objecting and objecting, and sometimes objecting in not the kindest of ways. It's her tactic or whatever, but it's I wonder how that has been coming across to this jury.
00:02:57
Speaker 2: Yes, I would use the word relentless. That's kind of how she comes off, and to the point where it's so disruptive that you can't even follow what the testimony is going to be or should be, or and you start to get frustrated because she keeps interrupting. And even though she made and most of her objections were sustained, they were only a few were overruled, so the judge was validating her. But still it's annoying and it's irritating. So I you know, and her voice, there's just something about her tone that is start slightly sarcastic and like uh huh, like I told you so, like I know better than you. So she's got this tone about her on top of it that adds to the annoyance.
00:03:39
Speaker 1: That's no judgment on her. It is an observation and if we put ourselves in that jury box that it's unquestionable what you speak of. And I mentioned her not allowing the differenstorian to get into a flow. So I bring that up because of Even when Brendan Banfil first got on the stand and he's just getting some softball questions from his own lawyer about what was your relationship, like show me this picture, where were you guys at these happy things? The attorney was still kind of interrupting.
00:04:07
Speaker 2: Like objection, foundation, where are we going?
00:04:09
Speaker 1: I don't know the line? And she objected. She got up once and started talking, and the judge said, so you have an objection. Never mind Right, she was interrupting everything. But was it effective hearing him talk about his wife and how much he loved her.
00:04:25
Speaker 2: Yes, So I have to say this. My overall impression of him from the beginning when he started talking was Wow. He seems genuine. And that's either incredible or a little scary. I'm not sure which it is, but listening to him talk, it's like your next door neighbor. He's an IRS agent. He's known this his wife since they were in college. They've spent eighteen years aget together. He's very honest about affairs. Just everything he was saying and talking about his relationship with her and that he loved her very much. It didn't seem put on, It didn't seem like he was acting, and it just seemed genuine. What were your impressions?
00:05:08
Speaker 1: It came off. It just came off well. We talked about if this comes down to it, he said, she said, and if even if you don't know what to do with their stories, you at this point might just pick the one you like better. And he is coming across at this point is just his attorney, But at this point he is coming across awfully authentic, believable. Sure, I'm sure he's practiced and he's rehearsed, but he's not coming off that way.
00:05:34
Speaker 2: He's not. And we were learning things about his relationship with Christine, his wife, and his daughter Valerie, and pretty quickly, even after establishing that, we got started into hearing how the two went from just being a boss and an au pair to having actually a sexual relationship.
00:05:58
Speaker 1: I didn't get this really, it seemed like they went from zero to eighty and didn't really understand why it wasn't a lot of set up to the flirtation or whatever. Was there some back and forth, But the story goes he was just in the kitchen cooking one night. She's upstairs texting him. He said, why don't you come down and talk? And one thing leads to another.
00:06:16
Speaker 2: Yes, so, and what I didn't realize is Christine and Valerie were actually visiting relatives in New York, so it was just the two of them in the house together. So she comes down. They talked for an hour and a half about her how hard it is to be on dating apps and to date and yeah, all of a sudden, it goes from that to them going upstairs, and he said, the master bedroom is in one direction and her bedroom was in the other, and she asked me to come. And what he said was quote, I did not stop her advances.
00:06:47
Speaker 1: Okay, let me stop there. I was about to say something else, did it? I mean he didn't go too hard on this point, but still he made the point that she was the one that made the first movie? Is that right?
00:06:59
Speaker 2: Oh? Absolutely?
00:07:00
Speaker 1: And then it got weird, What was this about the dating app? I thought that was odd? Well, that was that night?
00:07:06
Speaker 2: How was that night when they were in the kitchen talking. That was their conversation. She was complaining about how hard it was to be on dating apps. But then at one point he testified. She was scrolling through the matches she had and she said, isn't it funny? Look, they're all like you. And he said their names were Brandon, Brendan, and Brennan, like versions of his name. That was a weird You looked at me, You're like what. I don't know why that was relevant, but I guess they were just trying to build this notion that maybe she was doing it on purpose to flirt with him in the kitchen.
00:07:38
Speaker 1: Okay, but yeah, that was an odd thing. But to you, again, I didn't understand a setup. What happened. You will just start, you will have nothing but a purely professional relationship, and then one night she decides the text, comes downstairs, tells you about her dating life, and all of a sudden, you're all in a relationship.
00:07:55
Speaker 2: That's what it seemed to be, or at least according to him, that is what happened. Was maybe the first time Christine and Valerie were both out of the house. Maybe it was the first time they were alone, because she started working there in October of twenty twenty one, and he says, this happened in August of twenty twenty two. And that's really really important because then he's able to address very effectively, in my opinion, this notion that, really, are you serious? So I'm in a relationship? He said, And by the way he said, he's set it up from the beginning that this was just an affair, that he loved his wife, he was going to stay with his wife, that he had had multiple affairs, and that Christine had had affairs, and that they were you know, that they had made it through and this was just going to be an affair.
00:08:42
Speaker 1: Well, that I think might have been the one of the most effective lines for me today, at least narratives I should say. To hear that the two of them had worked through affairs set off a question of well, why was this one so special that in six weeks you want to kill your wife?
00:09:05
Speaker 2: Yes, and that is exactly what he said. He said, I think it's an absurd line of questioning for something that is not serious. That a plan was made to get rid of my wife, he said. I was with her for six to eight weeks, and why would that be all of a sudden, the moment in which I say I want to, you know, kill my wife and run off into the sunset with you. That resonated.
00:09:26
Speaker 1: It took off a lot of motive, if you will, because Robes is he worried about his wife finding out. She's gonna say, oh you're at it again, versus oh my god, my whole life is going to blow up. He would think he could survive another. Yes, that was effect.
00:09:42
Speaker 2: It was effective. He said that Christine knew about two of his affairs, and he implied he had more than two, and that he knew about her affairs, and he explained how they worked in jobs where they had to be gone for long periods of time, and it's just what happened. But they went to marriage counseling. So yes, it sounds like him having an affair wouldn't be marriage ending. So that takes away some of that issue, that or motive that you would think, well, yes, she's going to divorce me and then I'll lose my daughter.
00:10:11
Speaker 1: And so you're telling me he is so in love in six weeks with the twenty one year old o pair that he hatches a master plan to kill his wife.
00:10:24
Speaker 2: And he said to that that is quote from him that is absolutely crazy. And when he said that is absolutely crazy the way he set it up, I hadn't thought about it. I didn't know that he had had prior affair, isn't it so? And I didn't know that they had only been in a sexual relationship for less than two months.
00:10:44
Speaker 1: So again the suggestion is that he was talking about marriage, their future with the O pair, how the O pair was going to be the new mommy and everything was going to be great, and six weeks and in order for the planned to happen after six weeks, I'm so sure that I am going to do all of this stuff that if you're talking about reasonable doubt and just a reasonable person, that just sounds like a like far fetched.
00:11:14
Speaker 2: Yes, I was possible. As soon as he said it, I thought, damn, I get that. That makes sense. And I think we have heard from legal minds, people who know more about juries than we do, that when things just make sense juries that that's what they bite on. When things don't make sense, you're like, huh. But when someone says something like he did today that is so impactful.
00:11:39
Speaker 1: Two other very important points that they have been a part of this case one the trip to McDonald's and to the trip to the shooting range. So do the shooting range first rope That was so much made by the prosecution and the A pair right, He took me to the shooting range because he wants to give me a gun and wants to be to learn how to shoot, and this was part of the case.
00:11:56
Speaker 2: Something goes wrong.
00:11:57
Speaker 1: There, it is okay. He had the best freaking response to that that you can come up with. He is an IRS agent who is required to do a certain amount of practice and training time courses he has to pass on a regular basis, So he said he's a regular that goes. He says the place they went to isn't one he could frequent because it's kind of more of a beginner thing. So that's why she wanted to tag along with him, because that's after their sexual relationship started and she wanted to go anywhere he was. He explained it in a way, that's a holy hell, I could buy that if I have to, the other side hasn't convinced me anymore than you have. So that's kind of a you're gonna call his draw on it.
00:12:41
Speaker 2: Yes, And he also pointed out that that all happened and I guess this is all verifiable way before anyone had gone on and created this fet life account. So he was like, we weren't like creating this account, hatching a plan and then going to a shooting range, which is how the prosecution made it seem. He was like, this happened way before any you know, feed life account was set up, before any Gmail account was set up to access a felt like He's like, so this that's not They were not even in the same timeline as it's been suggested.
00:13:15
Speaker 1: Bro, you're you're what you The point you're making seems to be the end of the prosecution case. I am their whole case. They hatched a plan to do this. As a part of the plan, she needed to know how to operate a gun. So then we'll go to the shooting range after we come up with the plan. The plan, nothing was in place yet when they went So how.
00:13:39
Speaker 2: Does that's verifiable digital forever?
00:13:42
Speaker 1: Yes, So the prosecution has a lot of work to do, at least for me, I would like for them to answer some things. We do this all the time. We listen to one single Wow, he's going to jail we hear the other side. Wow, So we don't know how this one is necessarily gun. What was the second thing I said, eld the McDonald's trip.
00:13:59
Speaker 2: Yes, McDonald's trip. He so, I here's what I learned that I didn't know. The day of the murders was his birthday. This is everything right here and on top of that, and this would be verifiable that at his job at the IRS, he had a very important day at a big meeting with the bosses because he was about to execute this undercover operation and if everything went well, he was up for some big promotion.
00:14:24
Speaker 1: He had a presentation that he had a big.
00:14:25
Speaker 2: Presentation at nine thirty. So he left early that morning, he says, And he said he often went He never made breakfast for himself before he went to work, so he would often go pick up breakfast. He happened to go through McDonald's, and he just wanted to pull off and eat and just be ready to go so he could get to his office in time to set up the conference room. He said, he was fully focused on his day at work, and I just thought, it's his birthday. He's got a big day at work. And the following day he was taking Valerie. He said his friends were all throwing him a big birthday party. I didn't know any of that.
00:14:56
Speaker 1: Why this is a problem. You're telling me you're going to plan to kill your wife on your birthday. In the day you have a huge presentation.
00:15:03
Speaker 2: That's for a big promotion at work.
00:15:06
Speaker 1: He cared about his job. No way, that's a tough one again, which a saying just things that make sense that one doesn't that he planned it. So even some strange behavior, as they say he circled the McDonald's, they made it sound like the prosecution actually made it sound as if he.
00:15:22
Speaker 2: Was flying time.
00:15:23
Speaker 1: Yeah, lurking, just sitting in the waiting for the call, waiting for the.
00:15:26
Speaker 2: Call from the old pair to go pretend to Yes, that walk in on somebody.
00:15:30
Speaker 1: That's their story. Fine, But he even had answers for yeah, that I circled because the app didn't work the first time, and I was trying to get it to load just right, so it wasn't ready to first go around. So he said a few things. Oh yeah, I guess. So he's had the McDonald's app for years. That's verifiable. This was and he's barely gotten started on his testimony.
00:15:52
Speaker 2: And while he's saying all these things, he's not, like I said, he's not overacting. He's not. He doesn't seem first, he doesn't seem plain and a robotic. He's he just seems like a guy trying to say, hey, this is what happened.
00:16:07
Speaker 3: The other big.
00:16:10
Speaker 1: Win should I call a little win? Maybe I shouldn't go that far. But the other major headway I thought they made Robes had to do with Christine laptop. Folks, stay here, another big, big point of this case is that laptop. Who had access to it and where it was? Well, he has testified and the defense has once again Robes made things make sense to me.
00:16:33
Speaker 3: Stay here, all right?
00:16:44
Speaker 1: We continue here on Amy and TJ hopping on because Brendan Bamfield just hopped off the stand for the day. He testified in his own defense in the old Pair affair trial, accused of double murder killing his wife he's accused of and another man that he allured to the house so he could have him take the rap for his wife's death. Robes. The laptop has been key. Folks been following this case at this point. Don't need to go back and get everybody fully caught up. But a big point was that he had to set up a fake fet life, which a fetish website had to set up this fake account. The prosecution the whole time has been saying they took the laptop, they snuck away with it for moments at a time and put it back before Christine ever saw it, and that's how they were able to do it. It's just not possible. According to Brendan Banfak.
00:17:34
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh. When Brendan said this, I looked at you and I said, this makes sense because Juliana the O pair testified that Christine would leave her backpack with her computer at the front door, and so when she would go to bed, they would then go and get the backpack and go and get the computer. Brendan said, when Christine came home, she brought her backpack with her up to the master bedroom. We had a full sitting area, an office area, and she brought her laptop up and would put it at the desk. He's like, but honestly, more often than not, she had it on her lap as she was leaning as she'd sit up in bed, so she'd you know, get for the day, and she'd have her laptop on her lap in bed, and I just said, duh, that's what everybody does. They charge their laptop and they have it with them in bed or at their desk. They don't leave an uncharged computer by the door, and you don't. You don't walk in and leave. You bring your computer with you.
00:18:31
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess it's possible.
00:18:33
Speaker 2: As soon as he said that, I said, oh wow, that makes a lot of sense. He also said there's not a password of hers that I know.
00:18:42
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was huge. I don't even know how to get into it.
00:18:45
Speaker 2: That was believable to me. I don't know how to get into your computer, you know?
00:18:49
Speaker 1: I Oh, wow, do you know you don't know how to get in you?
00:18:53
Speaker 2: Oh? You do?
00:18:54
Speaker 1: You look concerned?
00:18:56
Speaker 2: I'm not, no, but I actually don't know because I'm just like, hey, can I have your finger? And then I just, you know, put it in that So I haven't even thought about it. But if, yeah, I needed to get into your computer, I could not do it.
00:19:07
Speaker 1: He I think most couples. Does that make sense that you wouldn't have it and you don't need it, and especially if it's a work computer.
00:19:17
Speaker 2: No, yeah, And he was saying, it's like I have two devices. I have my device. He's like, we just have everything separate.
00:19:22
Speaker 1: So, like I said, so he's on the stand now, I say, he's on the stand now. In that he got to understand what time was it today. I was a little after three, maybe three thirty Eastern time. And then they ended the session today around one excuse me, an hour and a half later. So he was on the stand until about five. He's going to be back on the stand tomorrow, continuing with the defense. I can't really tell how much they've really gotten going. They only had an hour and a half. I don't know if they've gotten to all the meat and the nitty gritty yet, but that was a lot.
00:19:54
Speaker 2: There's a lot more to get to because, my goodness, now we are just at We left off with him talking about being at McDonald's getting the phone call from Juliana saying there's someone you know, what should I do? She was supposed to be going to the zoo, and he, by the way, testified that Christine set up this zoo trip. He and Juliana didn't concoct it, like Juliana said. So anyway, she's waiting and calling him, and he tries to call Christine she doesn't pick up, so he's talking about and that's where it ends. We don't know what happens when he arrives at the house. Now, and that we know what Juliana says happened. She already testified to it. So this is going to be fascinating to hear what he says happens and how he got up to that bedroom and what happened in that bedroom. I cannot wait to hear.
00:20:47
Speaker 1: I don't know what the prosecution has planned tomorrow. What it sounds like they want to give the jury instructions. Well, was it late tomorrow? Oh? Yeah, the prosecution said she thought they could do the jury instructions tomorrow at the end of the day. So Brendan Banfield maybe back on the stand half day tomorrow, a little more after lunch maybe, and that's going to be it.
00:21:07
Speaker 2: But that means that are you do you believe then that the prosecution isn't going to have their way with him they have to go to cross examination.
00:21:16
Speaker 1: Or do they? I don't know, dear, I don't know now they certainly, I mean the prosecutors chomping at the bit. You get to cross examine a murder suspect people go to the whole lives and don't get this opportunity as prosecutors. But even before he got on, I thought, and we have to mention the other I thought was the most critical witness of the trial outside of the ou pair. This forensics guy has been up there, digital forensics guy and robes. He made point after point after point. See Christine's device is at the house. Their devices aren't there. Somebody at the house is using the fat life account or this fake Google account or this other account. He is flat out saying that it is impossible that Christine did not know about those accounts.
00:22:10
Speaker 2: Yes, he said there, it is impossible for this to be a cat fishing skin. Absolutely when he said that, I was blown away. And of course, yes, the prosecution went through cross examination, but I don't know that she made much headway in her cross with him. No, I didn't think so, and he wanted nothing to do with her either. So, but it was fascinating to have someone, a respected digital forensics guy who worked for the Fairfax County Police trying to catch the bags reassigned because of his synopsis. It was it was wild.
00:22:48
Speaker 1: To hear that example after example after example, But folks we will certainly have our eyes on this tomorrow. By all means, keep an eye on our feet. Top right corner of your Apple podcast app where you see our show page a little button that says follow click that you make sure our updates always come to you. But this is certainly when we have our eyes and ears on closely tomorrow. Always appreciate you listening to us for now. I'm TJ. Holmes On behalf of my dear Ammy Robot. We'll talk to y'all soon