Jan. 29, 2026
Au Pair Affair Trial: Bondage, Breakups and Baby Names, A Wild End To Testimony
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Both the defense and the prosecution have finished calling their final witnesses, and what a day in court! The cross examination of accused double murderer Brendan Banfield, along with the defense rebuttal, exposed some uncomfortable testimony. Banfield alleged his now deceased wife Christine had more than one BDSM affair and an obsession with sexual assault. Meantime the prosecution tried to score points with its rebuttal witnesses, including Banfield’s former manager.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:09
Speaker 1: Hey there everybody. It is Thursday, January twenty ninth, and WHOA what a final day of testimony in the O pair A fair double murder trial. Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Robes. The jury has heard all they are going to hear. No more evidence to be presented. Pretty explosive last day.
00:00:32
Speaker 2: Yes, there were quite a few topics that even we weren't expecting in a case that already is salacious just by what it is in terms of fetish websites, etc. It shouldn't be shocking that then it got even more cringey. And I say cringey because it was tough to hear the man, the husband, the father who was accused of a heinous double murder, rowing his dead wife's reputation. I say that no under the bus because he's describing her deviant sexual fantasies and some relationships affairs that he's testifying to that she had that were hard to hear.
00:01:18
Speaker 1: Well the day, folks, they did stay on schedule like the judge wanted. And yes, testimony has rapped with the day started with the star witness and the defendant, Brendan Banfil on the stand. Something so rare in a murder case to have the defendant take the stand. But he took the stand, started yesterday, wrapped up today, was cross examined, and then we had two rebuttal witnesses from the prosecution. We'll get into that certainly did not land. There cannot be anybody who thinks that landed today ropes.
00:01:46
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm wondering now. Obviously it's easy to second guess yourself. Monday money, Monday morning quarterbacking. But those two rebuttal witnesses not only didn't help the prosecution's case, they may have even the prosecution's case.
00:02:01
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, so we certainly got to get into that. But let's start here, Yes, with the cross examination, right, there was so much anticipation for this, and actually she didn't take as long with him as I thought she might.
00:02:11
Speaker 3: I was surprised how quickly she was done with him.
00:02:14
Speaker 2: Her main thing was to question, and I think this landed in a lot of ways. I was trying to again imagine what it would be like as a juror. But her point being, you're sitting here saying and testifying that it was just an affair with you know, just a random affair, just like any other affair.
00:02:30
Speaker 3: Why would I plan to kill.
00:02:31
Speaker 2: My wife when I've obviously been someone who's had affairs. But then they're producing these fourteen page love letters that he is writing to Juliana the A pair. She's pointing out, you know, all of the other evidence that points to something more than just some casual affair.
00:02:50
Speaker 3: She said baby names.
00:02:51
Speaker 2: She had messages, text messages with Juliana and him talking about their future baby names.
00:02:57
Speaker 3: So she's like, you were or were not planning a future with.
00:03:01
Speaker 2: This woman, and oh, you only fell in love with her after your wife died. So look, you know that's in question because upon rebuttal, he testified with his attorney that they were actually broken up.
00:03:14
Speaker 3: The O pair and him were broken up the day of the.
00:03:16
Speaker 1: Murder, and loo he that's a little does does it make his story less believable? That makes him less believable? Like, come on, to be straight with me, here, you were saying some pretty strong romantic stuff to this woman. And look, maybe he got caught up in the moment, maybe he didn't feel that deep to him, maybe just telling her what she wanted to hear. All those things are possible, but he didn't explain it well enough he was very methodical and matter of fact, and how he was handling all this, Yes, he.
00:03:44
Speaker 3: Was, you know what.
00:03:45
Speaker 2: His lack of emotion and especially especially earlier this morning when he was describing the unthinkable, to imagine holding your dying wife in your hands as blood is pouring out of her and the last few he was his voice was shaky, but there was not the emotion one would have expected. And I know it shouldn't matter technically in evidence, but you can't help as a human and as a juror to look at somebody and say, wow, that was kind of robotic.
00:04:15
Speaker 1: I can tip the balance when you have two stories you're trying to match up. I don't know who to believe. Every little moment counting yeah, robes he was. He was a robot almost up there for much of his testimony.
00:04:25
Speaker 2: And the other thing that the prosecutor was really trying to hit him hard on as in the cross examination, was how did why.
00:04:34
Speaker 3: Would the nanny or the au pair have the code to his gun safe?
00:04:38
Speaker 2: That is that best practices, is that something that you're trained to do to let someone else in your family know your code to your gun safe.
00:04:47
Speaker 3: So that was a big thing for her question.
00:04:49
Speaker 1: I thought this was a waste of time, just in my opinion. Okay, fine, I'm saying there was a simple explanation. We're in and out of the house together all the time, eas me punching my code. She happened to be in the closet and saw me punching the same code. It's not like some clandestine secret thing. Ooh take. I didn't think much of that at all. There were several moments today where I thought the prosecution was reaching. They didn't have much, And I said to you, some of her questions were like, come on, man, it felt like she didn't have anything, Like really, I like a sarcasm.
00:05:22
Speaker 2: Her big problem is she was so sarcastic throughout all of the cross examination.
00:05:28
Speaker 3: And look, I get it.
00:05:29
Speaker 2: It is just by nature a combative situation when you're cross examining someone, So you don't need to add the sarcasm and laying it on because really just obviously your adversaries in this conversation in front of the jury. But it just I thought it was unnecessary, and she definitely.
00:05:47
Speaker 3: Came off as well.
00:05:49
Speaker 2: Just I don't know, she didn't come off good and that did and that does impact the jury when you're watching someone's demeanor and how they treat anybody on the stand, even if that is the defendant.
00:06:02
Speaker 1: No, I didn't think she exposed holes in his story. I guess she exposed a little more of him. I think that makes more of an impact than anything he said. And listening to his story, there are a few points right that doesn't really make sense, but nothing that would overwhelmingly tip the scales compared to the story that the old pair told.
00:06:23
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know what was interesting, she never went where I thought she was going to go, which is and maybe this would have all been objected to and sustained.
00:06:32
Speaker 3: But you know, why would a man, you know.
00:06:36
Speaker 2: Was it surprising to you in your in your you know, I guess you're training as a law enforcement officer that if someone you have a gun, someone's going to, you know, take a night like just questioning the motive or why would did he not think you were going to shoot? Why do you think he stepped like I know, I guess I would have all been speculative, but I guess I wanted her to try to get him into the mindset of explaining, Wow, God's name, if you have a gun on somebody, were they able to stab your wife right in front of you.
00:07:07
Speaker 1: She gave him a lot of scenarios of why didn't you do this? So, why didn't you do that? And why didn't you do this? And why didn't you do that?
00:07:12
Speaker 3: But she didn't do it. When it came to actually having the gun.
00:07:17
Speaker 1: In his hand, well do you remember the locks? Well, why didn't you lock the door that could have kept it everybody safe? And why did you do this? And why did you do that in the moment, In the heat of the moment, I would give a lot of people to pass on that. I just the story that the problems I had with the story are not necessarily because of the question she asked. It's just him having to tell that story. Some of it doesn't make sense.
00:07:36
Speaker 2: Yes, that's the biggest issue the story he is telling. Even when he was testifying to his own defense attorney, it just wasn't landing.
00:07:44
Speaker 3: Now.
00:07:45
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know that she further poked any holes. She was also hung up on how did you not see how many times.
00:07:51
Speaker 3: He stabbed her?
00:07:52
Speaker 2: And so I could give him a pass on that too, because he doesn't know what happened before he walked into the room and if you are scared and looking down a barrel of a gun, or at least you're the one you have tunnel vision, which he said, So I bought all of that.
00:08:06
Speaker 3: So the thing she was trying to prove didn't really work.
00:08:09
Speaker 1: He's not trained in these scenarios. He's an IRS agent. He walks into an office and puts handcuffs on a guy in a suit. Don't get me wrong, It's not that simple. I'm not saying that. But this is a life or death situation. This is not something he does every day, so you could give him a pass. Roes. The thing that did come out of this and that was very uncomfortable. This was during cross examination, which was the sexual I guess interests of his wife, Christine, and I can't remember how it initially came up, but talked about the affair she had had, but also he said she had shown interest in bondage. Yeah, in their relationship plenty of times in the past.
00:08:46
Speaker 2: He said that, and then upon redirect, his attorney then took that to then launch off on this BDSM affair. And that is when Brendan Manfield uncomfortably testified, saying that he saw his wife's bruises on her arm, on her legs, I guess on her breasts or in her chest area, and.
00:09:09
Speaker 1: We said they were significant. Is the word he used.
00:09:11
Speaker 2: Yes, he said I questioned her enjoyment of it. It was a pretty emotional conversation. I think what was even worse is he talked about how his wife was a sexual assault nurse examiner.
00:09:25
Speaker 3: At that time and that she seemed to bring.
00:09:29
Speaker 2: Some cases home with her and had an obsessive interest in sexual violence that was disturbing.
00:09:38
Speaker 1: He described a second bondage relationship that she had that turned into a situation with a guy was a stalker. So the only reason he Brendan knew about it is because she had to tell him about it because she got scared of the guy and he was pretty scary guy. So he's recalling these instances robes that lends itself to the idea that maybe feed life, maybe that was her profile, Maybe this is something she was into.
00:10:03
Speaker 2: And that is absolutely what the defense was trying to establish, and Brendan saying that he never and had no interest in that sort of website.
00:10:13
Speaker 3: It was interesting.
00:10:14
Speaker 2: This is another point where the prosecutor tried to get him like an AHA moment in her cross examination and said.
00:10:19
Speaker 3: You said you aren't into fetishes.
00:10:21
Speaker 2: And then she said, why then, is one of your affairs with And she gave the woman's.
00:10:25
Speaker 3: Name and said that he met her.
00:10:28
Speaker 2: He asked her to call or she asked him to call her sugar baby.
00:10:32
Speaker 1: Well, it was some website focused on sugar baby. And the prosecution was like, gotcha, you're not in the fetish stuff. Huh, but what about this website about sugar babies? And he looked almost confused. I kind of did too ropes of sugar baby, sugar Mama, sugar daddy. Everybody understands what this is. It's not a.
00:10:53
Speaker 2: Fetish, Yes, he said, that's not a fetish. She said, I just knew I was a married man and wanted to have somebody who understood I was married and understood the nature of the relationship.
00:11:04
Speaker 1: He said, it's not a fetish. It's an arrangement.
00:11:07
Speaker 3: That's exactly what he said. And that landed. It's not a fetish, it's an arrangement.
00:11:11
Speaker 1: What land is not just that maybe he's not into fetish stuff. What landed is that she was reaching. It was that type of thing today that come on, I'm not a kid. Why did you even bring that up. I'm not an idiot. It's not the same thing, right, she said several moments today where it seemed like that happened. How the jury always try to put ourselves in the jury box. Yes, this is how we read it today. But stay with us here, folks. The most explosive moments in the courtroom, a couple of them had to do with two pretty big duds in the courtroom today. Also we did learn the fate of the old pair. Stay here all right, folks, Welcome back here to AVI and TJ. As we look at each other trying to decide which one of us is going to talk first after the break, But here's talking about the testimony is over and the od Pair affair trial in Fairfax County, Virginia. The defense prosecution both have rested. They are working on the jury instructions this evening and they are doing closing arguments tomorrow ten am Eastern time. Is the plan, and the jury will have this case robes. I think we just found out yesterday that the prosecution was going to put on rebuttal witnesses to rebuttal witnesses. Yes, so anyway, they came up last minute. One was yesterday, one was found.
00:12:37
Speaker 2: Was yesterday, and then there was a new one in the morning day because they said last night or when they got back from court yesterday. Someone after hearing Brendan Banfield's testimony, asked to testify to basically refute some of what Brendan Banfield had testified too. So we did know who this was going to be, and they did save this person for line.
00:13:00
Speaker 1: That's big brogues. Come on, now, we found out about first thing this morning. The defense didn't know about it. The prosecution said they didn't even know about it. Big surprise, bombshell witness.
00:13:11
Speaker 2: All we knew was that his name was t. Patrick Smith. That's a pretty generic name. So who's that We had to wait and find.
00:13:18
Speaker 1: Out, and we found out their final witness, T Patrick Smith, happened to be an IRS special agent in the same office where Brendan Banfield worked. They were co workers, but on the day that Brendan Banfield his wife died, this man had been elevated temporarily to the agent in charge of the.
00:13:43
Speaker 3: Office, the supervising manager.
00:13:45
Speaker 1: So to say, there you go, he was the guy in that office. Brendan Banfield didn't come to work that day, of course, because he was caught up in other affairs, if you will. Now, the point they were trying to make with this witness.
00:13:56
Speaker 2: Was what well, so Brendan had testified that the day of the murders was a big day for him at work, and that's why he left the home early. That's why he went to McDonald's just to eat off of the parking lot, to get ready, to make sure he got to the office early, to set up the conference room, because he had a big meeting about a big undercover operation where he was up for a promotion, so he wanted to make sure he was ready to go. So the point of bringing his supervisor in and why his supervisor volunteered is that, hey, he was his manager and he wasn't in the office. The actual other manager was overseas and any of the other agents who could even been considered above him in rank were in the state of Georgia. So his point was he couldn't have had a meeting with a manager because no managers were even in the office at the time.
00:14:54
Speaker 1: Wow. Guilty, guilty, guilty.
00:14:57
Speaker 3: The other thing that he tested they'll talk about the clothes.
00:15:00
Speaker 2: Was how he dressed when he had a meeting, he said he dressed elevated. He came in a suit and a tie, and he dressed to impress. And you would he show up in jeans and a sweater. No, Okay, so these are the big aha moments.
00:15:15
Speaker 1: But when we wait, what was the point that Brendan was wearing what that morning?
00:15:19
Speaker 2: I think he was wearing like a sweater and jeans, just very casual, casual, like a casual outfit. Not something you would think if it was a big meeting with the bosses, you would think maybe he would have elevated his attire.
00:15:29
Speaker 3: That was the implication.
00:15:31
Speaker 2: But when Brendan's defense attorney got his moment with Brendan's supervisor, it was delicious.
00:15:39
Speaker 1: He had a good day. He actually had a good day. He time after time in almost a repetitive tone, spitting names at him that he didn't know. All of these were people and agents who worked in that office that the police interviewed about Brendan Banfield. But they didn't interview this guy that's sitting on the stand. So why is it that the police found all these other agent stories relevant to the investigation of double murder? Not you until the last day of trial, you call up and now here you.
00:16:18
Speaker 2: Are, And he got him to admit that he was kind of annoyed that no one had asked him for an interview, that he had found out that everybody else had he gotten interviewed except for the person who was technically Brendan's supervisor that day, and he didn't get interviewed. So he it worked. It worked what Brendan's attorney was trying to do. And I don't even know that Special Agent Smith knew what was happening.
00:16:48
Speaker 1: How would it? Why make that decision to put him on your case? Is your case? You never thought you had this guy? He calls you the day before the last day, and you scrambled, can you do enough research to make sure this is going to go okay? In a night? And it fell flat on them? But Roe, if that one fell flat, the one before that was an embarrassment. Yeah, the one before that was I'm sorry that strong language, but Robes, this was not a good look.
00:17:13
Speaker 2: Yes, they so the prosecution bought brought a rebuttal witness. Oh my god, to the defense's witness who was testifying that in that nine one one call, that very short nine one one call where there was a hang up.
00:17:26
Speaker 3: You could hear a moaning, and.
00:17:28
Speaker 2: The defense had an audio expert say that that was their dog moaning, that wasn't a human moaning, and so.
00:17:36
Speaker 1: Very technical and how he explained it all. But he landed his plane and we understood what he was trying to say.
00:17:41
Speaker 2: Yes, And so they bring on the state brings on their own rebuttal witness who's saying, you can't say that, And he said, I heard something right before the moaning, and it was a human voice and it said.
00:18:00
Speaker 3: Sidebar, sidebar, sidebar ropes.
00:18:05
Speaker 1: Been too many sidebars in this case. This certainly was one of the longer ones on the longer side. After that huge moment, huge moment, a voice on the call, we haven't heard about. What did it say? They stopped? Sidebar? Come back, no further questions, Gianna. Whatever happened in that sidebar ropes? That was a tough look. It came off as if she was up to something and she got caught doing it. And the judge said, we are not having it. And the defense attorney hasn't had a whole lot of wins.
00:18:43
Speaker 2: No, and then he went on to win further across examination when he started to look into the practices and how he came up with his belief that it.
00:18:55
Speaker 3: Might not be a dog moaning.
00:18:57
Speaker 2: Turns out this witness doesn't use the technology necessary to discern this and was actually using a folded piece of paper to show an audio resonance or some sort of technological term. I can't even relay, but it was basically rudimentary. And the defense attorney just said, so, you just brought a piece of folded paper.
00:19:21
Speaker 3: Is that all you used? And he basically said, yes, that's.
00:19:25
Speaker 1: All They gave him. The other expert literally he testified that he has been an expert in thirty something trials, specifically doing audio work. This guy admitted his thing is visual. He's never even used the technology before, not testified to hasn't even used it on a case.
00:19:47
Speaker 3: It was.
00:19:48
Speaker 2: It was an egg on the face of the prosecutor and we actually don't even understand why they wind it to have a rebuttal witness on that point.
00:19:56
Speaker 3: It just made them look bad.
00:19:58
Speaker 1: It made him look he was. This guy gave daze of technical frickin' testimony. He comes up and literally folds a piece of paper that has a graph on it and says, hey, look at this and you see this.
00:20:12
Speaker 3: And then it was bizarre.
00:20:14
Speaker 1: It was bizarre, and tell I didn't hear it. At the end, what's the deal with the opair? What are they say?
00:20:18
Speaker 2: So yes, at the very end, the prosecution asked the judge to basically release uh. Juliana margallized the O pair because she had been on the recall this. She could have been recalled, interestingly, because I thought maybe they would after Brendan Banfield testified to what he did. I was thinking the prosecution she might be one of their rebuttal witnesses, and they were keeping that as an option. And at the end she said, we are done. We have no further questions for her. Can she be released so she can basically leave jail and head back to her home country of Brazil, And the judge said yes, So as we're recording this, Juliana Marclay is the O pair, maybe literally leaving jail as we record this and getting on a plane.
00:21:05
Speaker 1: The woman who has admitted she delivered what is believed to be the fatal shot to Joe Ryan, made her deal, told her story. She's out of here scot free. What a case this has been, Folks, Closing arguments tomorrow morning ten am. We will be listening. We'll keep you updated. Thank you as always for going along with us on these trials. But for now I am TJ. Holmes alongside Amy Robock. We will talk to you also
Speaker 1: Hey there everybody. It is Thursday, January twenty ninth, and WHOA what a final day of testimony in the O pair A fair double murder trial. Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Robes. The jury has heard all they are going to hear. No more evidence to be presented. Pretty explosive last day.
00:00:32
Speaker 2: Yes, there were quite a few topics that even we weren't expecting in a case that already is salacious just by what it is in terms of fetish websites, etc. It shouldn't be shocking that then it got even more cringey. And I say cringey because it was tough to hear the man, the husband, the father who was accused of a heinous double murder, rowing his dead wife's reputation. I say that no under the bus because he's describing her deviant sexual fantasies and some relationships affairs that he's testifying to that she had that were hard to hear.
00:01:18
Speaker 1: Well the day, folks, they did stay on schedule like the judge wanted. And yes, testimony has rapped with the day started with the star witness and the defendant, Brendan Banfil on the stand. Something so rare in a murder case to have the defendant take the stand. But he took the stand, started yesterday, wrapped up today, was cross examined, and then we had two rebuttal witnesses from the prosecution. We'll get into that certainly did not land. There cannot be anybody who thinks that landed today ropes.
00:01:46
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm wondering now. Obviously it's easy to second guess yourself. Monday money, Monday morning quarterbacking. But those two rebuttal witnesses not only didn't help the prosecution's case, they may have even the prosecution's case.
00:02:01
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, so we certainly got to get into that. But let's start here, Yes, with the cross examination, right, there was so much anticipation for this, and actually she didn't take as long with him as I thought she might.
00:02:11
Speaker 3: I was surprised how quickly she was done with him.
00:02:14
Speaker 2: Her main thing was to question, and I think this landed in a lot of ways. I was trying to again imagine what it would be like as a juror. But her point being, you're sitting here saying and testifying that it was just an affair with you know, just a random affair, just like any other affair.
00:02:30
Speaker 3: Why would I plan to kill.
00:02:31
Speaker 2: My wife when I've obviously been someone who's had affairs. But then they're producing these fourteen page love letters that he is writing to Juliana the A pair. She's pointing out, you know, all of the other evidence that points to something more than just some casual affair.
00:02:50
Speaker 3: She said baby names.
00:02:51
Speaker 2: She had messages, text messages with Juliana and him talking about their future baby names.
00:02:57
Speaker 3: So she's like, you were or were not planning a future with.
00:03:01
Speaker 2: This woman, and oh, you only fell in love with her after your wife died. So look, you know that's in question because upon rebuttal, he testified with his attorney that they were actually broken up.
00:03:14
Speaker 3: The O pair and him were broken up the day of the.
00:03:16
Speaker 1: Murder, and loo he that's a little does does it make his story less believable? That makes him less believable? Like, come on, to be straight with me, here, you were saying some pretty strong romantic stuff to this woman. And look, maybe he got caught up in the moment, maybe he didn't feel that deep to him, maybe just telling her what she wanted to hear. All those things are possible, but he didn't explain it well enough he was very methodical and matter of fact, and how he was handling all this, Yes, he.
00:03:44
Speaker 3: Was, you know what.
00:03:45
Speaker 2: His lack of emotion and especially especially earlier this morning when he was describing the unthinkable, to imagine holding your dying wife in your hands as blood is pouring out of her and the last few he was his voice was shaky, but there was not the emotion one would have expected. And I know it shouldn't matter technically in evidence, but you can't help as a human and as a juror to look at somebody and say, wow, that was kind of robotic.
00:04:15
Speaker 1: I can tip the balance when you have two stories you're trying to match up. I don't know who to believe. Every little moment counting yeah, robes he was. He was a robot almost up there for much of his testimony.
00:04:25
Speaker 2: And the other thing that the prosecutor was really trying to hit him hard on as in the cross examination, was how did why.
00:04:34
Speaker 3: Would the nanny or the au pair have the code to his gun safe?
00:04:38
Speaker 2: That is that best practices, is that something that you're trained to do to let someone else in your family know your code to your gun safe.
00:04:47
Speaker 3: So that was a big thing for her question.
00:04:49
Speaker 1: I thought this was a waste of time, just in my opinion. Okay, fine, I'm saying there was a simple explanation. We're in and out of the house together all the time, eas me punching my code. She happened to be in the closet and saw me punching the same code. It's not like some clandestine secret thing. Ooh take. I didn't think much of that at all. There were several moments today where I thought the prosecution was reaching. They didn't have much, And I said to you, some of her questions were like, come on, man, it felt like she didn't have anything, Like really, I like a sarcasm.
00:05:22
Speaker 2: Her big problem is she was so sarcastic throughout all of the cross examination.
00:05:28
Speaker 3: And look, I get it.
00:05:29
Speaker 2: It is just by nature a combative situation when you're cross examining someone, So you don't need to add the sarcasm and laying it on because really just obviously your adversaries in this conversation in front of the jury. But it just I thought it was unnecessary, and she definitely.
00:05:47
Speaker 3: Came off as well.
00:05:49
Speaker 2: Just I don't know, she didn't come off good and that did and that does impact the jury when you're watching someone's demeanor and how they treat anybody on the stand, even if that is the defendant.
00:06:02
Speaker 1: No, I didn't think she exposed holes in his story. I guess she exposed a little more of him. I think that makes more of an impact than anything he said. And listening to his story, there are a few points right that doesn't really make sense, but nothing that would overwhelmingly tip the scales compared to the story that the old pair told.
00:06:23
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know what was interesting, she never went where I thought she was going to go, which is and maybe this would have all been objected to and sustained.
00:06:32
Speaker 3: But you know, why would a man, you know.
00:06:36
Speaker 2: Was it surprising to you in your in your you know, I guess you're training as a law enforcement officer that if someone you have a gun, someone's going to, you know, take a night like just questioning the motive or why would did he not think you were going to shoot? Why do you think he stepped like I know, I guess I would have all been speculative, but I guess I wanted her to try to get him into the mindset of explaining, Wow, God's name, if you have a gun on somebody, were they able to stab your wife right in front of you.
00:07:07
Speaker 1: She gave him a lot of scenarios of why didn't you do this? So, why didn't you do that? And why didn't you do this? And why didn't you do that?
00:07:12
Speaker 3: But she didn't do it. When it came to actually having the gun.
00:07:17
Speaker 1: In his hand, well do you remember the locks? Well, why didn't you lock the door that could have kept it everybody safe? And why did you do this? And why did you do that in the moment, In the heat of the moment, I would give a lot of people to pass on that. I just the story that the problems I had with the story are not necessarily because of the question she asked. It's just him having to tell that story. Some of it doesn't make sense.
00:07:36
Speaker 2: Yes, that's the biggest issue the story he is telling. Even when he was testifying to his own defense attorney, it just wasn't landing.
00:07:44
Speaker 3: Now.
00:07:45
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know that she further poked any holes. She was also hung up on how did you not see how many times.
00:07:51
Speaker 3: He stabbed her?
00:07:52
Speaker 2: And so I could give him a pass on that too, because he doesn't know what happened before he walked into the room and if you are scared and looking down a barrel of a gun, or at least you're the one you have tunnel vision, which he said, So I bought all of that.
00:08:06
Speaker 3: So the thing she was trying to prove didn't really work.
00:08:09
Speaker 1: He's not trained in these scenarios. He's an IRS agent. He walks into an office and puts handcuffs on a guy in a suit. Don't get me wrong, It's not that simple. I'm not saying that. But this is a life or death situation. This is not something he does every day, so you could give him a pass. Roes. The thing that did come out of this and that was very uncomfortable. This was during cross examination, which was the sexual I guess interests of his wife, Christine, and I can't remember how it initially came up, but talked about the affair she had had, but also he said she had shown interest in bondage. Yeah, in their relationship plenty of times in the past.
00:08:46
Speaker 2: He said that, and then upon redirect, his attorney then took that to then launch off on this BDSM affair. And that is when Brendan Manfield uncomfortably testified, saying that he saw his wife's bruises on her arm, on her legs, I guess on her breasts or in her chest area, and.
00:09:09
Speaker 1: We said they were significant. Is the word he used.
00:09:11
Speaker 2: Yes, he said I questioned her enjoyment of it. It was a pretty emotional conversation. I think what was even worse is he talked about how his wife was a sexual assault nurse examiner.
00:09:25
Speaker 3: At that time and that she seemed to bring.
00:09:29
Speaker 2: Some cases home with her and had an obsessive interest in sexual violence that was disturbing.
00:09:38
Speaker 1: He described a second bondage relationship that she had that turned into a situation with a guy was a stalker. So the only reason he Brendan knew about it is because she had to tell him about it because she got scared of the guy and he was pretty scary guy. So he's recalling these instances robes that lends itself to the idea that maybe feed life, maybe that was her profile, Maybe this is something she was into.
00:10:03
Speaker 2: And that is absolutely what the defense was trying to establish, and Brendan saying that he never and had no interest in that sort of website.
00:10:13
Speaker 3: It was interesting.
00:10:14
Speaker 2: This is another point where the prosecutor tried to get him like an AHA moment in her cross examination and said.
00:10:19
Speaker 3: You said you aren't into fetishes.
00:10:21
Speaker 2: And then she said, why then, is one of your affairs with And she gave the woman's.
00:10:25
Speaker 3: Name and said that he met her.
00:10:28
Speaker 2: He asked her to call or she asked him to call her sugar baby.
00:10:32
Speaker 1: Well, it was some website focused on sugar baby. And the prosecution was like, gotcha, you're not in the fetish stuff. Huh, but what about this website about sugar babies? And he looked almost confused. I kind of did too ropes of sugar baby, sugar Mama, sugar daddy. Everybody understands what this is. It's not a.
00:10:53
Speaker 2: Fetish, Yes, he said, that's not a fetish. She said, I just knew I was a married man and wanted to have somebody who understood I was married and understood the nature of the relationship.
00:11:04
Speaker 1: He said, it's not a fetish. It's an arrangement.
00:11:07
Speaker 3: That's exactly what he said. And that landed. It's not a fetish, it's an arrangement.
00:11:11
Speaker 1: What land is not just that maybe he's not into fetish stuff. What landed is that she was reaching. It was that type of thing today that come on, I'm not a kid. Why did you even bring that up. I'm not an idiot. It's not the same thing, right, she said several moments today where it seemed like that happened. How the jury always try to put ourselves in the jury box. Yes, this is how we read it today. But stay with us here, folks. The most explosive moments in the courtroom, a couple of them had to do with two pretty big duds in the courtroom today. Also we did learn the fate of the old pair. Stay here all right, folks, Welcome back here to AVI and TJ. As we look at each other trying to decide which one of us is going to talk first after the break, But here's talking about the testimony is over and the od Pair affair trial in Fairfax County, Virginia. The defense prosecution both have rested. They are working on the jury instructions this evening and they are doing closing arguments tomorrow ten am Eastern time. Is the plan, and the jury will have this case robes. I think we just found out yesterday that the prosecution was going to put on rebuttal witnesses to rebuttal witnesses. Yes, so anyway, they came up last minute. One was yesterday, one was found.
00:12:37
Speaker 2: Was yesterday, and then there was a new one in the morning day because they said last night or when they got back from court yesterday. Someone after hearing Brendan Banfield's testimony, asked to testify to basically refute some of what Brendan Banfield had testified too. So we did know who this was going to be, and they did save this person for line.
00:13:00
Speaker 1: That's big brogues. Come on, now, we found out about first thing this morning. The defense didn't know about it. The prosecution said they didn't even know about it. Big surprise, bombshell witness.
00:13:11
Speaker 2: All we knew was that his name was t. Patrick Smith. That's a pretty generic name. So who's that We had to wait and find.
00:13:18
Speaker 1: Out, and we found out their final witness, T Patrick Smith, happened to be an IRS special agent in the same office where Brendan Banfield worked. They were co workers, but on the day that Brendan Banfield his wife died, this man had been elevated temporarily to the agent in charge of the.
00:13:43
Speaker 3: Office, the supervising manager.
00:13:45
Speaker 1: So to say, there you go, he was the guy in that office. Brendan Banfield didn't come to work that day, of course, because he was caught up in other affairs, if you will. Now, the point they were trying to make with this witness.
00:13:56
Speaker 2: Was what well, so Brendan had testified that the day of the murders was a big day for him at work, and that's why he left the home early. That's why he went to McDonald's just to eat off of the parking lot, to get ready, to make sure he got to the office early, to set up the conference room, because he had a big meeting about a big undercover operation where he was up for a promotion, so he wanted to make sure he was ready to go. So the point of bringing his supervisor in and why his supervisor volunteered is that, hey, he was his manager and he wasn't in the office. The actual other manager was overseas and any of the other agents who could even been considered above him in rank were in the state of Georgia. So his point was he couldn't have had a meeting with a manager because no managers were even in the office at the time.
00:14:54
Speaker 1: Wow. Guilty, guilty, guilty.
00:14:57
Speaker 3: The other thing that he tested they'll talk about the clothes.
00:15:00
Speaker 2: Was how he dressed when he had a meeting, he said he dressed elevated. He came in a suit and a tie, and he dressed to impress. And you would he show up in jeans and a sweater. No, Okay, so these are the big aha moments.
00:15:15
Speaker 1: But when we wait, what was the point that Brendan was wearing what that morning?
00:15:19
Speaker 2: I think he was wearing like a sweater and jeans, just very casual, casual, like a casual outfit. Not something you would think if it was a big meeting with the bosses, you would think maybe he would have elevated his attire.
00:15:29
Speaker 3: That was the implication.
00:15:31
Speaker 2: But when Brendan's defense attorney got his moment with Brendan's supervisor, it was delicious.
00:15:39
Speaker 1: He had a good day. He actually had a good day. He time after time in almost a repetitive tone, spitting names at him that he didn't know. All of these were people and agents who worked in that office that the police interviewed about Brendan Banfield. But they didn't interview this guy that's sitting on the stand. So why is it that the police found all these other agent stories relevant to the investigation of double murder? Not you until the last day of trial, you call up and now here you.
00:16:18
Speaker 2: Are, And he got him to admit that he was kind of annoyed that no one had asked him for an interview, that he had found out that everybody else had he gotten interviewed except for the person who was technically Brendan's supervisor that day, and he didn't get interviewed. So he it worked. It worked what Brendan's attorney was trying to do. And I don't even know that Special Agent Smith knew what was happening.
00:16:48
Speaker 1: How would it? Why make that decision to put him on your case? Is your case? You never thought you had this guy? He calls you the day before the last day, and you scrambled, can you do enough research to make sure this is going to go okay? In a night? And it fell flat on them? But Roe, if that one fell flat, the one before that was an embarrassment. Yeah, the one before that was I'm sorry that strong language, but Robes, this was not a good look.
00:17:13
Speaker 2: Yes, they so the prosecution bought brought a rebuttal witness. Oh my god, to the defense's witness who was testifying that in that nine one one call, that very short nine one one call where there was a hang up.
00:17:26
Speaker 3: You could hear a moaning, and.
00:17:28
Speaker 2: The defense had an audio expert say that that was their dog moaning, that wasn't a human moaning, and so.
00:17:36
Speaker 1: Very technical and how he explained it all. But he landed his plane and we understood what he was trying to say.
00:17:41
Speaker 2: Yes, And so they bring on the state brings on their own rebuttal witness who's saying, you can't say that, And he said, I heard something right before the moaning, and it was a human voice and it said.
00:18:00
Speaker 3: Sidebar, sidebar, sidebar ropes.
00:18:05
Speaker 1: Been too many sidebars in this case. This certainly was one of the longer ones on the longer side. After that huge moment, huge moment, a voice on the call, we haven't heard about. What did it say? They stopped? Sidebar? Come back, no further questions, Gianna. Whatever happened in that sidebar ropes? That was a tough look. It came off as if she was up to something and she got caught doing it. And the judge said, we are not having it. And the defense attorney hasn't had a whole lot of wins.
00:18:43
Speaker 2: No, and then he went on to win further across examination when he started to look into the practices and how he came up with his belief that it.
00:18:55
Speaker 3: Might not be a dog moaning.
00:18:57
Speaker 2: Turns out this witness doesn't use the technology necessary to discern this and was actually using a folded piece of paper to show an audio resonance or some sort of technological term. I can't even relay, but it was basically rudimentary. And the defense attorney just said, so, you just brought a piece of folded paper.
00:19:21
Speaker 3: Is that all you used? And he basically said, yes, that's.
00:19:25
Speaker 1: All They gave him. The other expert literally he testified that he has been an expert in thirty something trials, specifically doing audio work. This guy admitted his thing is visual. He's never even used the technology before, not testified to hasn't even used it on a case.
00:19:47
Speaker 3: It was.
00:19:48
Speaker 2: It was an egg on the face of the prosecutor and we actually don't even understand why they wind it to have a rebuttal witness on that point.
00:19:56
Speaker 3: It just made them look bad.
00:19:58
Speaker 1: It made him look he was. This guy gave daze of technical frickin' testimony. He comes up and literally folds a piece of paper that has a graph on it and says, hey, look at this and you see this.
00:20:12
Speaker 3: And then it was bizarre.
00:20:14
Speaker 1: It was bizarre, and tell I didn't hear it. At the end, what's the deal with the opair? What are they say?
00:20:18
Speaker 2: So yes, at the very end, the prosecution asked the judge to basically release uh. Juliana margallized the O pair because she had been on the recall this. She could have been recalled, interestingly, because I thought maybe they would after Brendan Banfield testified to what he did. I was thinking the prosecution she might be one of their rebuttal witnesses, and they were keeping that as an option. And at the end she said, we are done. We have no further questions for her. Can she be released so she can basically leave jail and head back to her home country of Brazil, And the judge said yes, So as we're recording this, Juliana Marclay is the O pair, maybe literally leaving jail as we record this and getting on a plane.
00:21:05
Speaker 1: The woman who has admitted she delivered what is believed to be the fatal shot to Joe Ryan, made her deal, told her story. She's out of here scot free. What a case this has been, Folks, Closing arguments tomorrow morning ten am. We will be listening. We'll keep you updated. Thank you as always for going along with us on these trials. But for now I am TJ. Holmes alongside Amy Robock. We will talk to you also