Au Pair Affair Murder Trial: Frustrated Au Pair Tells Defense “I am not going to do this” As Prosecution Shows Jurors Bloody Crime Scene Photos

Summary

Podcast Summary

Main Theme

Episode Title: Au Pair Affair Murder Trial: Frustrated Au Pair Tells Defense “I am not going to do this” As Prosecution Shows Jurors Bloody Crime Scene Photos
Podcast: Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes Present
Date: January 15, 2026
Hosts: Amy Robach (A) & T.J. Holmes (B)
Theme:
The episode analyzes dramatic testimony in the “au pair affair” double murder trial, centering on Juliana Perez Mahales (the au pair), whose account is crucial for both the prosecution and the defense. Amy and T.J. break down the fraught cross-examination, evidentiary developments, and credibility issues, particularly regarding Mahales’ motives and memory, while probing the weight of physical and digital forensic evidence as jurors see grisly crime scene images.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Juliana Perez Mahales’ Testimony – Central to the Case

• Her narrative is "key to the prosecution and...key to the defense too because they needed to destroy or at least question her credibility and they made some headway doing just that yesterday." (A, 01:09)
• Mahales initially corroborated Brendan Banfield’s version of events for over a year, only switching sides after a plea deal was offered, raising questions about her motives. (A, 03:19)
• The defense worked to highlight inconsistencies and lapses in her memory, particularly regarding digital evidence and the “FetLife” account alleged to be used in the murder plot.

2. The Defense’s Strategy: Undermining Credibility

• Defense attorney John Carroll employed a warm, gentle approach but pressed hard on specifics Mahales could not recall—critical details about emails, accounts, and actions on the day of the murder. (A, 04:58)
• Mahales’ inability (or refusal) to clarify who did what, where, and when—such as setting up the FetLife account or composing incriminating emails—became a focal point.
• At one point, Mahales' frustration bubbled over:
  • "I am not going to do this." (A, 08:58)
• Carroll challenged her justification of memory loss due to trauma:
  • "I thought the trauma, you forget things after the trauma happened. Wait, you forgot everything leading up to the trauma?" (B, 10:06)

3. Questions About Motive and Deal-Making

• Mahales took a plea deal just before her own trial, securing her release and possible profits from media deals:
  • “Boom, sweet plea deal. Gonna get to go back to Brazil, be free, and might even make a little money along the way.” (B, 04:15)
  • "For me, very problematic in terms of her credibility...Now she's negotiating with television producers and actually getting an entitled attitude about what she's owed or what she deserves. That's problematic." (A, 13:37)
• Revelations that Mahales was pursuing deals with media outlets (including mentions of Netflix) deeply undermined her credibility in the eyes of the hosts and, potentially, the jury.

4. The Power of the Letters

• Carroll forced Mahales to repeatedly read her own words from personal letters aloud, exposing shifting motives and contradictory statements (beginning at 04:41).
• Quotes from these letters, like “we deserve something,” led to a powerful confrontational moment:
  • Carroll: "You murdered somebody, and. And yet you deserve something for the murder." (A, 12:37)

5. Juror Perspective and the Problem of Memory

• Both Amy and T.J. emphasize what it might feel like as a juror, observing Mahales’ demeanor and picking up on her frustration and perceived opportunism.
  • "Her frustration and her demeanor was a huge turnoff. I'm just saying, in terms of being a juror and looking at it from that perspective, I'm supposed to believe you." (A, 10:23)
• The hosts discuss the burden on jurors to weigh whether Mahales’ incentive to "save her own ass" (B, 02:22) motivated her detailed accusation, or if it’s all too elaborate to be a fabrication.

6. Physical Evidence and Digital Forensics

• The prosecution displayed grisly crime scene photos and the bloodied clothing of Brendan Banfield (A, 16:34).
• The defense’s central hope lies in digital forensics. Some detectives believe Christine Banfield herself may have created the FetLife account, casting doubt on the prosecution’s theory.
  • "We do know that detectives... believed, after doing the digital forensic work... that Christine is the one who set up the account." (A, 18:43)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

| Timestamp | Speaker | Quote/Description | |-----------|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 01:09 | A | “Her testimony key to the prosecution and...key to the defense too because they needed to destroy or at least question her credibility and they made some headway doing just that yesterday.” | | 04:15 | B | "Boom, sweet plea deal. Gonna get to go back to Brazil, be free, and might even make a little money along the way." | | 05:24-05:44 | A/B | Defense pushing on lack of memory: "Would you not remember who did it and when you did it?... That is the when and where and how..." | | 08:58 | A | "She ended up getting, at one point, so annoyed, she said, 'I am not going to do this.'" | | 10:06 | B | "I thought the trauma, you forget things after the trauma happened. Wait, you forgot everything leading up to the trauma?" | | 12:37 | A | "So you murdered somebody, and. And yet you deserve something for the murder." | | 13:37 | A | "For me, very problematic in terms of her credibility... Now she's negotiating with television producers and actually getting an entitled attitude about what she's owed or what she deserves. That's problematic." | | 16:34 | A | "The jury is seeing crime scene photos, they're seeing the blood stains, they're seeing the bloody knife, they're seeing the gun used... I have yet to hear... from an evidence standpoint, prove that the blood he got on him was from murdering her versus from trying to help her." |

---

Key Timestamps for Significant Segments

• [01:08] — The crucial importance of Mahales’ testimony for both sides.
• [03:19] — Timeline of Mahales’ shifting narrative.
• [04:58–07:18] — Defense attacks Mahales’ inability to remember key facts; FetLife account details.
• [08:58] — Pivotal moment of Mahales’ frustration on the stand ("I am not going to do this").
• [10:03–10:23] — Cross-examining her claims about trauma and memory loss.
• [12:19–12:49] — Discovery and confrontation around Mahales wanting compensation.
• [13:35] — Negotiations with media producers and credibility issues.
• [16:34–17:36] — Prosecution’s physical evidence and the challenge of interpretation.
• [18:43–20:04] — Digital forensics and alternative explanations for the FetLife account.

---

Flow & Final Observations

• The episode remains conversational, blending sharp legal analysis with a “juror’s eye view.” Both hosts are skeptical of Mahales’ motives, demeanor, and memory lapses, though they recognize the case’s complexity and the importance of corroborative evidence.
• A key unresolved tension: Can the prosecution overcome credibility issues and prove guilt via forensic or digital evidence? Or does the defense’s attack on Mahales’ motives and memory create reasonable doubt?
• The digital trail (FetLife account) is expected to play a critical role as the trial continues.

---

In Summary

This episode provides a gripping account of the “au pair affair” murder trial’s pivotal witness testimony, delving into the fraught dynamics of cross-examination, memory, motive, and the challenge of interpreting messy physical and digital evidence. Amy Robach and T.J. Holmes, adopting the perspective of potential jurors, question whether the prosecution’s reliance on a complicated and potentially self-serving key witness can sustain their case against Brendan Banfield.

Transcript

[A]

This is an iHeart podcast.

[B]

Guaranteed Human success starts with your drive and American Public University is here to fuel it.

[A]

With affordable tuition and over 200 flexible online programs, APU helps you gain the skills and confidence to move forward.

[B]

Whether you're changing careers, starting fresh or pursuing a lifelong passion, APU's programs are designed for people who never stop.

[A]

You bring the fire. APU will fuel the journey. Learn more at apu. Apus. Edu.

[B]

Hey there folks. It is Thursday, January 15, and the AU pair and the so called au pair affair double murder trial has wrapped her testimony and we got a few problems. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Robes. It got testy, didn't get nasty, but you could tell she got annoyed at times. The defense seems to make the points they want to make, but there are some bigger things at play. But first of all, I was surprised she wasn't up there longer.

[A]

I was surprised that they wrapped at the end of the day yesterday because yes, this is key her testimony. Juliana Perez mahales her testimony key to the prosecution and it's key to the defense too because they needed to destroy or at least question her credibility and they made some headway doing just that yesterday. From this observer, let me ask this.

[B]

If, if the jury doesn't believe this woman is, does that mean they would have to to vote for an acquittal? What I'm saying is can you be sitting on that jury and go, I don't believe that woman at all and still find him guilty?

[A]

I don't know. That's the answer because we're listening and we're hearing now what they are presenting. The prosecution is presenting some blood evidence. But yeah, based on his version of events, he would have had blood on him. So it would be a very significant amount of evidence that would be needed to forensically tie him to the actual murder. Because without her credible testimony, this case.

[B]

Is very flimsy to reminder Joseph Ryan and Christine Banfield are dead. These two are dead. Christine Banfield, the husband of Brendan, excuse me, the wife of Brendan Banfield who is on trial for killing his wife and Joseph Ryan, a stranger who was lured to the house who they plan to frame according to prosecutors for the death of Christine Banfield and then shoot the man. He's the hero and. But instead he's on trial for double murder. There's what this is where we are now, Rose. We got a lot of detail. This was a very, I mean this was a drawn out. It took them a while to come up with the plan and then to execute this very complicated plan. But she is the one who was giving us all these details about the plan. And right now, Robes, there are questions about her motives. We've known that from the beginning. But they're trying to say this is all set up by a woman who wants to save her own ass.

[A]

That's right. Because for a. For more than a year, she had the same version of events that Brendan did. She claimed that the scene was exactly as they described it, that they don't know what was going on between Christine Banfield and this stranger, but that when he walked in, he was defending his wife by killing the attacker, and the attacker was stabbing his wife. She stood by that story for more than a year. And then right before her trial was about to start, and right as we started hearing, as they were reading it in court yesterday, the letters she was writing to Brendan and his mom, she was getting more desperate, she was getting more depressed. She was becoming suicidal. Suicidal. And then this plea deal lands in her lap. She basically gets out of jail once she testifies against Brendan.

[B]

Boom, sweet plea deal. Gonna get to go back to Brazil, be free, and might even make a little money along the way. We are going to get into why that was also a big deal. We found out about some negotiations she's having to possibly sell her story. So, Robes, I guess if, as we go through here, there were two key issues. One, you just mentioned the letters. Two, I think is what I just mentioned about her making a deal. So let's go with these, these two issues here. Let's start with the letters. First of all, there were a ton of excerpts and I thought this was effective. He forced her to read her own words tons of times.

[A]

Woo. John Carroll is the name of the defense attorney. And we have been describing him as just warm and fatherly, grandfatherly, as he's asking tough questions. So it's interesting, she was getting so annoyed and so frustrated because his point that he was trying to make. How can you be the person who's creating this narrative of what happened and not remember where you were when it happened?

[B]

Can't remember.

[A]

She had not remembered who wrote what email. These are significant moments in your life where you are doing something so secretive and so illegal and you are setting up someone to get murdered. Would you not remember who did it and when you did it?

[B]

So, yeah.

[A]

And where you did it.

[B]

That is the when and where and how and who it has to do with. Someone set up, they say a false thing. Fet Life account, FetLife. If you don't know. I assume you don't is apparently a website where you can go on and find other people who are like minded in that S and M world and want to set up whatever sex scenario, fine. But they set up, according to prosecutors, this account in her name. To do it, they had to retrieve her her laptop without her knowing it. So the lawyer, the defense attorney is saying, hey au pair, where. How did you get the laptop? Where did you go? How did long did you have it and who actually was on the computer doing it? She had no answers to any of that.

[A]

She couldn't remember. And in fact, you know, the other point of this that made it all the more, I would think, memorable in the moment is they had to take the laptop while Christine, the wife, was at home.

[B]

Stressful time. It should.

[A]

That would be. Imagine that you're sneaking and stealing someone's computer. Who is in the home, who, if they catch you, you literally have no reason why you would have their computer. And what you're doing is setting up their death.

[B]

It's key to the crime. And she has no idea who took it, who put it back, who actually physically signed up for it. Where were you in the house? She has no idea who was reading.

[A]

The messages back and forth to these folks that they were conversing with on FetLife. They were trying to find the right person to set up for a murder and that involved not meeting that person ahead of time, which is. It's good to know that some people actually are taking safety in mind and say, yeah, before we do this, you know, violent or like full violent, I guess, sex act, let's meet in person and make sure that we don't have trust issues before we do this fairly non conventional violent sex act together.

[B]

Let's go to Starbucks for coffee before I come over and fake raping you with a knife.

[A]

Literally. That is apparently how it works. And so they were running into roadblocks because people were actually going about it in this safe way.

[B]

It's nice to know people out there with these fetishes do it in a.

[A]

Safe, mindful way before I end up. Yes. Cutting your clothes off with a knife and, and gagging you. Let's, let's. Yeah, let's have a drink. Yeah, let me see that. We're both good with this, but I get it.

[B]

Do you see a thing like yourself.

[A]

They had to go through several different folks to find the person. And it ended up being unfortunately for Joseph Ryan. He ended up agreeing to carry out this sex fetish without meeting up in person. But you would think again, conversing with people asking for very violent, specific things. Who wrote the email? Who read the email? She couldn't remember anything he wrote.

[B]

He read a few. He went through a few of the. The notes that had to be written to other people. And he said, well, who wrote this one? Was it you or was it Brendan? Don't know. Who wrote this? Don't know. Said, can you tell by the way you write? Who writes like that? Who types like that? Don't know.

[A]

And she ended up getting, at one point, so annoyed, she said, I am not going to do this. And when she got defiant like that, the defense attorney went to the judge and said, help. She just said, she's not going to do this anymore. What should we do?

[B]

So this was a moment, at least. It would have left an impression on the jury. She couldn't remember anything. Now, I thought, and it might have been, I'm, again, I'm putting myself in the position of the juror. The. The time or the moments that turned me off most is when she tried to explain things that didn't need explaining, where she's almost talking to him like he's stupid. While she was talking to the. Yeah, I don't remember. Yeah. Don't you know what it's like? That's called brain block. When you have trauma, sometimes it tries. The brain is trying to protect you from that terrible memory. So it's da, da. She went on. And I was a little turned off by it. Maybe the jurors were. But this is where your guy, the defense attorney, I thought he had a good response to that, too. So wait a minute. I thought the trauma. You forget things after the trauma happened. Wait, you forgot everything leading up to the trauma?

[A]

Yes. He said, would you not remember anything before the trauma?

[B]

Yes. I thought, like, he. That was on his toes at the moment. Because when he said, I was like, oh, yeah, that's not how trauma works. You don't forget your whole life before the traumatic thing happened. You forget the moment the trauma happened or maybe something immediately after. He made a good point. She didn't have an answer for that either.

[A]

She didn't. And her frustration and her demeanor was a huge turnoff. I'm just saying, in terms of being a juror and looking at it from that perspective, I'm supposed to believe you. I'm supposed to believe that you're telling the truth now, but you've only remembered the things that the prosecution say happened, and you're not remembering the details that would make Me believe that you're actually saying what happened based on your memory, based on actual events. And so that is when the defense attorney suggested that she read through basically the talking points of the prosecution to remember or to create the version that she was now testifying to. And that's a powerful suggestion.

[B]

A powerful suggestion. And the timeline is powerful. They made these points, Robes, that some of her letters, like, you're you. You felt bad for. She. I mean, she sounded desperate in jail. She'd been sitting there for almost a year talking. Oh, it was awful. And then all of a sudden, everything flipped, I guess because she knew she was about to get out of jail. That could change your mood, right?

[A]

Significantly.

[B]

But does that mean she would have had to? Well, again, she made the point and she put it out there. I'm here now because the truth needs to be out there, and I want to tell the truth. And he said, you had a year. So why was it not until this.

[A]

Day, right before your trial, right, when prosecutors offered you a sweetheart deal, then all of a sudden, at that point, suddenly the truth was important?

[B]

And you mentioned as well, we both said, if you're sitting in, again, folks, we're only putting ourselves, not as journalists, but as jurors. Put yourself in that position. And as jurors, you said that moment was kind of a turnoff as she was getting combative. The other moment, that might have been a turn off. Robes, if you want credibility here. And again, give the defense attorney credit for this, because he caught it. He wasn't expecting it. When she said, they deserve something. She wrote in one of her letters about deserve, like, they deserve some money for this.

[A]

Because she said, we deserve something.

[B]

It was a letter from her, or back and forth with her family. And there on the stand, she kind of was defiant and doubled down and said, yep, I deserve. He was, in this moment, funny, not meaning to be, but he said a very common sense thing.

[A]

Yeah. He said, when you say we, that means you. You deserve something. But aren't you admitting to murder? So you murdered somebody, and. And yet you deserve something for the murder.

[B]

I thought it was good.

[A]

It was brilliant, actually, because he seemed dumbfounded.

[B]

Genuinely, yes, I deserve something. He said, you shot somebody. Why do you deserve. What the hell would you go.

[A]

And she's like, not because of the murder, but because of what I've been through. But she's been through what she's been through, admittedly, because she shot someone.

[B]

So he made that point. So this. These were the parts that were, I guess you could argue, problematic and they went on. I don't know how it sits with you. I mean, you're sitting here listening to somebody who says, just want to tell the truth. And then you hear all these letters she's writing back and forth to producers, talking about, I want to negotiate more. I want more than that. Oh, if I take this deal from Netflix, then I'll lose out. She sounded like a. Didn't sound like somebody sitting in jail.

[A]

She sounded opportunistic.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

And the Netflix information was, for me, very problematic in terms of her credibility. Looking at it again through the lens of a juror, I'm hearing, wait, this girl has completely changed her story a year later because she's gonna get out of jail. Now she's negotiating with television producers and actually getting an entitled attitude about what she's owed or what she deserves. That's problematic.

[B]

And jurors are human beings. I mean, you can't help but sit there. I know they got a job to do, but I'm looking at. I'm looking at something that doesn't sound feel right to me. You try to judge it fairly. But still, some of those were a problem. Well, stay with us here, folks. It wasn't all bad for the prosecution having the au pair up on the stand. Why the digital trail now is going to be such a big deal, and how the au pair could help them make their case. Stay here. Success starts with your drive, and American Public University is here to fuel it.

[A]

With affordable tuition and over 200 flexible online programs, APU helps you gain the skills and confidence to move forward.

[B]

Whether you're changing careers, starting fresh, or pursuing a lifelong passion. APU's programs are designed for people who never stop.

[A]

You bring the fire. APU will fuel the journey. Learn more at apu Apus. Edu. Welcome back, everyone. As we talk about the au pair affair murders trial that has just been captivating this country this week because the details coming out, having the au pair herself take the stand. We don't see cases like this very often. And knowing that the majority of the prosecution's case relies so heavily on what the au pair is now saying happened on that day, that February day in 2023, all eyes are on her. Her demeanor, how she reacted to the cross examination. It's. It was a spectacle to see her testify. And how she handled the cross examination was not great for the prosecution. I think the defense made some significant headway in terms of chipping away at her cred, whether or not she is to be believed, and questioning her motives for testifying. I mean, that's a big part of it.

[B]

We've been watching this whole thing together for. But do you get a sense. Do you have a feeling? I mean, she was such a dominant part of the first week of testimony here. But have you heard anything yet that's building up a evidence case against him? I mean, it's just. It's early, so maybe not, but right now it's he said, she said versus evidence.

[A]

That is the majority of the case. Now, this morning, we should point out, we've been watching some of the testimony and they've had detectives come back up on the stand and the. The impact is pretty much the visual. I mean, they. The jury is seeing crime scene photos, they're seeing the blood stains, they're seeing the bloody knife, they're seeing the gun used. So it. It brings the. The weight of the crime in the forefront. You just see the violence and the blood and just the aftermath. It feels devastating to see that. But I have yet to hear. Now, we've seen the clothing that Brendan was wearing. They showed his bloodied jeans and blood marks on his jacket. But the problem is he was there. He claims to have been trying to help his wife, so he had her blood all over him. So I don't know how they're going to, from an evidence standpoint, prove that the blood he got on him was from murdering her versus from trying to help her.

[B]

Yeah, there's a different version. We were all in here. I fired a gun at this guy who was doing this thing. Yes. Everything on him he can explain away. Well, there's blood on. Yeah, I told you, I was in the room and I shot a guy and then I tried to help my wife. I don't know how you get around that. The way they get around it. Two things, right? One, you got the au pair. So if you believe her, all right, he's done. And two, Robes fet life. I'm curious. I'm going to have to check out this website at some point. I haven't yet, just out of research purposes, but robes. The whole foundation of their case is that he set up a murder plot. Key to the murder plot was luring Joseph Ryan to the house. There is a question of whether or not Brendan Banfield actually had anything to do with setting up that account. And there's even questions if Christine Banfield herself was the one doing it. Now, where are we after the au pair in? Because we haven't gotten to digital stuff yet.

[A]

Right. And that's going to be a boon for the Defense we're expecting, just because we do know that detectives that were once working on this case, that were moved off, believed, after doing the digital forensic work that they do for a living, they determined they believe that Christine is the one who set up the account.

[B]

And if a juror believes that this is a done deal, it's a done deal. That is the case.

[A]

Yes. Because if you have that in combination with the au pair not being able to give me detailed memories of who set up the account, when the account was set up, who wrote what emails. Because for me to believe her version, I would need to believe that she was sure about who did what, when, and she clearly was not. So that gave me a lot of doubt about her ability to convince me, the juror, that she and Brendan set up that FetLife account. Because, yes, as you point out, that is key to believing these murder charges or to convicting Brendan Banfield of these murder charges. You have to believe that he and the au pair set the FET life up, that life account up, to frame Joseph Ryan and murder his wife.

[B]

Because if you answer the question of, no, I don't believe he set it up, then that means then he's no crime.

[A]

He didn't premeditate anything then. I was trying to think of another version. Like, could he. But, no, they're not saying this. Could he say that he found out about the FetLife account and then he stormed in, he got upset. I mean, I don't know if there could be another. But, like, they're not even giving that as an. As an option.

[B]

All right, this is the. The last question I have for you. In putting yourself in the position of the juror, do you struggle with, why would this woman go through all this to make up a pretty elaborate story like, this is a lot to pin on Brendan Banfield for the sake of getting yourself out of jail. This is an elaborate, detailed story. And so as a juror, even if I don't really believe everything she's saying, even if I'm not convinced of the digital evidence, am I convinced, like, that she would make all of this complicated, detailed story up? That also seems improbable.

[A]

You make a good point. And so I don't know, as a juror, how you weigh both of those questions that are reasonable to have. I think you can reasonably question her motives, but also, at the same time, question her ability to be, in a sense, the mastermind of this new plot. Unless, like the defense is saying, the prosecution came up with this and fed it to her and now she's just regurgitating because I don't think anyone will believe that she, at the age of 21 or 22, when this was going on, would be able to. To come up with this while sitting in jail ruminating.

[B]

And that makes sense. There you go. She just essentially, give me the form, I'll sign it. Whatever the details are, I'll study them and repeat them in court for you if you want me to. Okay. I would buy that as a juror. Boy, if. I swear, I swear, if we ever get called for a jury, we're going to send them back to this episode. Listen to this one. Who's going to want us on a jury?

[A]

Nobody is going to.

[B]

Those two. We would mess up a jury room. You.

[A]

You would hang a jury. I know that.

[B]

Oh, yeah, we. No, guys, you can't.

[A]

I might. I might be able to be convinced. I'm like, I just want to go home. But, no, I know you would hang a jury. I know you would.

[B]

All right, folks. Well, we wanted to hop on the trial as we record this. They're about to go into our maybe at lunch right now, but we're keeping an eye on it. Anything else jumps out, we will jump back on and give you any significant updates. As always, top right corner of your Apple podcast app where you see our show page. You see that button that says follow? Hit that and you can get our updates coming right to you. But for now, on behalf of Amy Robach, I'm T.J. holmes. Talk to y' all soon. Success starts with your drive, and American Public University is here to fuel it.

[A]

With affordable tuition and over 200 flexible online programs, APU helps you gain the skills and confidence to move forward.

[B]

Whether you're changing careers, starting fresh, or pursuing a lifelong passion, APU's programs are designed for people who never stop.

[A]

You bring the fire. Apu will fuel the journey. Learn more at Apu Apus. Edu. This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.