Au Pair Affair Trial: VERDICT WATCH; Who Do Jurors Believe? The Au Pair or the Husband?

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes Present

Episode: Au Pair Affair Trial: VERDICT WATCH; Who Do Jurors Believe? The Au Pair or the Husband?
Date: January 30, 2026
Hosts: Amy Robach and T.J. Holmes

Overview

This episode dives deep into the nail-biting final moments of the infamous "Au Pair Affair" murder trial. As the jury begins deliberations, Amy and T.J. dissect the closing arguments, the strength (or lack) of the evidence, and debate the credibility of the key witnesses: the au pair and the accused husband, Brendan Banfield. With the nation on verdict watch, they provide thoughtful, candid insights and predictions for the outcome.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Scene: Jury Deliberations & Case Recap

• Jury Deliberating as of recording (~2 hours in): The decision hangs between believing the au pair or the husband ([01:44], [02:53]).
• Case Summary: Brendan Banfield is accused of plotting the murder of his wife with his lover, the au pair. The au pair testified to an elaborate scheme; Banfield claimed she's lying for her own benefit ([03:31]).

2. Prosecution’s Closing Argument: “Check, Check, Check, Move Along”

• Brevity Over Substance: Prosecution’s closing lasted <20 minutes, brushing over key evidence and relying on common sense and jury intuition ([04:41]).
  • “She was leaning in on the notion that… 'Come on, jury. You and I, we know this. Let’s just use our common sense.'” – Amy ([04:41])
• Circumstantial Case: No smoking gun; prosecution did not tie up digital evidence or timelines convincingly ([05:32], [06:10]).
  • “All of this is circumstantial… when you have all of this on the line and you decide to take 15 minutes just to say, ‘Yeah, this is jury instruction, do this, y’all gonna convict him, right?’ I mean, come on.” – T.J. ([05:32])
• Admitted Weakness: Prosecutor seemingly acknowledged the case rests on which witness is more believable ([15:19]).
  • “Her last stuff to the jury: Who are you going to believe?” – T.J. ([15:37])

3. The Problematic Star Witness: The Au Pair

• Incentive to Lie: The au pair, facing life in prison, was offered freedom in exchange for testimony against Brendan. She also stands to profit from media deals ([07:53], [09:16]).
  • “Your star witness… has been massively incentivized to say whatever the prosecution tells her to say, period, point blank, that’s kind of undeniable.” – Amy ([12:46])
• Glaring Memory Lapses: On cross, the au pair failed to recall key details (“I don’t know, I don’t remember”) ([13:38], [14:00]).
• Defense Attacks Credibility: Defense: “Her entire story has been bought and paid for.” ([26:53], [28:19])
  • Prosecution’s awkward rebuttal: “They say her story has been bought and paid for. Yes. But would she really do all of this for $10,000?” ([28:19])

4. Digital & Forensic Evidence: Seeds of Reasonable Doubt

• Unresolved Evidence: Digital records (FetLife account, emails) showed activity while accused was verifiably away, yet the prosecution failed to address this.
  • "The only person who was at home with devices was Christine... accessing FetLife, Gmail, another messaging surface that was associated… That’s why the defense had two forensic experts say, we cannot support the catfishing theory.” – Amy ([10:17])
• Timeline Conundrum: Activity on devices posed a challenge to prosecution’s theory:
  • “Do I send the man to prison… based on a coin toss of who I believe, him or her? Both are problematic witnesses.” – T.J. ([12:29])
• Forensic Experts for Defense: Two detectives testified for the defense, contradicting the prosecution’s digital narrative ([31:29], [32:27]).
  • “They were the most overwhelmingly credible people on the stand as far as the detectives go… It tells me the prosecution theory is bullshit.” – T.J. ([32:27])

5. Defense’s Strategy: Storytelling and Filling the Gaps

• Detailed, Logical Narrative: Defense closing lasted 90 minutes, weaving testimony and evidence into a digestible counter-theory ([21:04]).
  • “He was a storyteller and he made things make sense… He gave a version that was digestible.” – Amy ([21:05])
• Addressed Physical Evidence: Defense pointed out lack of Brendan’s DNA on the murder weapon and absence of injuries on his hands, citing these as red flags ([23:59]).
  • “Joe Ryan’s hands were cut up… So how did Brendan Banfield manage to stab his wife, not get any DNA on that knife, and not get any wounds on his hand doing that?” – Amy ([23:59])
• Motive for The Au Pair: Defense underscored the tremendous incentive the au pair had for inventing her story: immediate freedom and financial opportunities ([26:53], [27:42]).

6. Jury Prognosis & Personal Verdicts

• Hosts' Leanings: Both Amy and T.J. conclude they would vote “not guilty,” not necessarily because they believe Banfield’s innocence, but due to lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt ([29:44], [29:57]).
  • “I think he very well may have done it, but I don’t think the state proved that he did it… beyond a reasonable doubt.” – Amy ([29:44])
• Likely Jury Outcome: Predict either “not guilty” or hung jury; doubt on guilty verdict ([31:04]).
• Key Point on Jury Perspective: Most jurors are laypeople and can be swayed by credible expert testimony, especially when the star prosecution witness is seen as unreliable ([31:29], [32:56]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Prosecution’s Risky Admission:
  “It’s about whether or not you believe him or believe her… our evidence sucks.” – Amy ([15:15])
• On The Au Pair’s Testimony:
  “If you are really now telling the truth… why can’t you remember the details?” – Amy ([13:42])
• Defense’s Knockout Line:
  “Her entire story has been bought and paid for.” – Defense Attorney ([26:53], quoted by Amy)
• On Forensic Experts:
  “Those two forensic, digital forensic experts were credible enough that… is the reason why I would vote not guilty right now.” – Amy ([31:29])
• Clarity on Reasonable Doubt:
  “There’s reasonable doubt. I think that’s where I am, because I can honestly say I don’t know… and that’s a problem for the prosecution.” – Amy ([11:58])

---

Key Timestamps

| Time | Segment | |-----------|------------------------------------------------------| | 02:53 | Case & closing arguments overview | | 04:41 | Hosts react to prosecution closing strategy | | 06:34 | Analysis: prosecution relies almost solely on au pair | | 10:17 | Detailed discussion of digital evidence/failures | | 11:32 | Host debate: is it game over if wife used FetLife? | | 13:15 | On au pair’s incentives for testimony | | 23:59 | Defense highlights forensic/DNA inconsistencies | | 26:53 | Defense: “buyer and paid for” testimony | | 29:44 | Hosts’ personal jury votes (“not guilty”) | | 31:29 | Key defense expert testimonies | | 32:56 | Final thoughts on credibility and likely outcome |

---

Tone and Energy

• Tone: Informal, passionate, skeptical, analytical. Both Amy and T.J. are candid, frequently voicing frustration with the prosecution and admiration for smart defense moves.
• Energy: Engaged, animated, and unscripted—hosts often interrupt each other to emphasize key points or question trial logic.

---

In Summary

Amy and T.J. deliver an incisive, play-by-play wrap of the “au pair affair” trial’s closing phase. With the case’s fate in the jury’s hands, their assessment is clear: insufficient evidence, unreliable star witness, and credible defense experts tip the scales toward “not guilty” or a hung jury. The hosts’ blend of legal analysis, skepticism, and relatable hypotheticals makes this a compelling listen for both trial devotees and newcomers to this true crime saga.

Transcript

[Amy Robach]

This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human. In the middle of the night, Saskia awoke in a haze. Her husband Mike was on his laptop. What was on his screen would change Saskia's life forever. I said, I need you to tell me exactly what you're doing. And immediately the mask came off.

[TJ Holmes]

You're supposed to be safe.

[Amy Robach]

That's your home. That's your husband. Listen to Betrayal Season 5 on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. What if mind control is real?

[TJ Holmes]

If you could control the behavior of anybody around you, what kind of life would you have?

[Amy Robach]

Can you hypnotically persuade someone to buy a car?

[TJ Holmes]

When you look at your car, you're gonna become overwhelmed with such good feelings.

[Amy Robach]

Can you hypnotize someone into sleeping with you? I gave her some suggestions to be sexually aroused. Can you get someone to join your cult? NLP was used on me to access my subconscious mind games. A new podcast, exploring nlp, AKA neuro linguistic programming. Is it a self help miracle, a shady hypnosis scam?

[TJ Holmes]

Or both?

[Amy Robach]

Listen to mind Games on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. This is Rider Strong and I have a new podcast called the red weather. In 1995, my neighbor Anna Traynor disappeared from a commune.

[TJ Holmes]

It was nature, trees and praying and drugs. So no, I am not your guru.

[Amy Robach]

Back then I lied to everybody. They have had this case for 30 years. I'm going back to my hometown to uncover the truth. Listen to the Red weather on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

[TJ Holmes]

Before we had ATT business wireless coverage, our delivery GPS wasn't the most reliable. Once our driver had to do a 14 point turn to get back on route. A 14 point turn. An influencer even livestream the whole thing. Not good for business. Now with AT&T business wireless routes are updating on the fly and deliveries are on time. And the influencer did get us 53 new followers though. AT&T business Wireless connecting changes everything. Hey there folks. It is Friday, January 30th and the case is in the hands of the jury in the so called au pair affair murder trial. Welcome to this episode of Amy and tj. We have just been listening to the closing arguments this morning. Totally different approaches by the attorneys. We'll get into that. But robes we've been watching. This has been a national fascination in a lot of ways and as of this moment been about two hours. As we record this, the jury has been Deliberating this man's fate. Wow.

[Amy Robach]

I know. We have been watching every moment of testimony for the past three weeks. And to hear the closing arguments this morning, to hear both attorneys sum up their cases, we had some strong reactions based on all the testimony we've heard. And you think about how unbelievable this trial was to hear from the au pair herself and then to hear from. From the husband himself and have their dueling testimony be at the heart of this case. And the jurors, according to the prosecution, literally has to decide who they believe.

[TJ Holmes]

Don't know how effective that strategy was. But we will get into that, because as we are recording this, folks, we just had a lunch in which we sat, and we couldn't come up with where we fall. If we were a juror and we were folks forced to take a vote, we don't really know which way we would go. We'll get into what we think this jury is going to do, but, yes, you're up on it by now. Brendan Banfield, accused of killing his wife and a stranger in a plot in which he arranged for him to come over and then take the fall for his wife's death, but end up murdering them all in a plan he hatched with the au pair that he was in an affair with at the time. The au pair au pair testified in this trial that there was this elaborate plot. Brendan Bamfield testified it wasn't the case at all. She's just trying to get out of jail, so she did anything the prosecution would tell her. Okay, we're all caught up. Good. So here we are, Rose. This is the. This is it. This is the last thing that the jurors get to hear from either side. Closing arguments. The prosecutor went first, defense went next. Then the prosecution got a rebuttal. The prosecution went up twice and still took a quarter of the time, probably that the defense did. And his. What did you think about that strategy? She was very quick.

[Amy Robach]

I was shocked. I. I was shocked that her first. Her closing argument. This is her last chance to convince the jury that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Brendan Banfield is a diabolical double murderer. Right. And she took less than 20 minutes and basically, very quickly, very hurriedly kind of just went, check, check, check, check, check, check, check. And she. She was leaning in on the notion that. Come on, jury. You and I, we know this is. Let's just use our common sense. Like, come on. So she was. That was her attitude. It was kind of like, yeah, we get it. Like, you're not going to fall for this. Right. And I just don't know that. That it. It wasn't effective for me. I was turned off by it.

[TJ Holmes]

Well, we kept saying evidence, what evidence did she lean on? And she didn't. She leaned on a circumstantial case. And I think her closing arguments robe confirmed for me what I was suspicious about during the case, that this is just circumstantial, that they don't have hard evidence, that there is not a smoking gun. And when you have all of this on the line and you decide to take 15 minutes just to say, yeah, this is the jury instruction. Do this and y' all gonna convict him. Right? I mean, come on. We know. Like, that just doesn't. Every answer was, come on. That doesn't make sense. Well, why didn't he do this?

[Amy Robach]

Really?

[TJ Holmes]

Maybe. I know in that situation what I would. It was kind of just. It was all circumstantial. Her closing today, if I was a juror, it hurt because this was an opportunity to. The questions I have bring them home for me. Her last two witnesses, duds, one of them an embarrassment. And then this closing, they did not have a strong last couple days.

[Amy Robach]

She seemed shaky. She seemed like maybe she knew she didn't have the strongest case and was trying to almost posture like, obviously, obviously, we know he's guilty. There was a lie. That was her attitude. And I also think about this. The reason why it took investigators or police more than a year to arrest Brandon, Ben, Brendan Banfield, was because they needed to have the au pair tell the story that they needed her to tell. And that could be the truth. I'm not saying it isn't in order for them to have enough to arrest Brendan Banfield. And what we saw in court today, I'm sorry, these past few weeks, confirms that. And what we heard from her in her closing arguments confirms that. The nanny, if you don't believe the au pair, they don't have a case. And they knew that from the beginning.

[TJ Holmes]

I'm just thinking about this now, sweetheart. About the au pair. Go back to that for a second. Did they had done all of this investigative work before they turned her? Correct. Meaning if your case was strong enough and you had enough evidence to arrest this guy, then you would have arrested him based on evidence. And there's a reason.

[Amy Robach]

Yes.

[TJ Holmes]

We're here now, that for me as a juror, listening to that.

[Amy Robach]

And normally you would think, and I know there is no normal. That's a silly word. But typically you would see police arrest both co defendants at the same Time you wouldn't have them arrest the one and keep that person in behind bars for more than a year up until two weeks before the trial and lean on them so heavily and offer them this deal where, hey, you could be facing life in prison. You could be going to prison for the rest of your life. And I know you're only 23 years old, but your life is over now. Or if you testify against your lover, and here's the version events that seems to fit, if you testify to this, you can get out of jail immediately with time served, go back to your home country. Oh, and by the way, you've got plenty of media paying for. And we heard the defense kind of detail this today in their closing arguments. Paying for your commissary, paying for the little things that prisoners need to just get around in prison. So you've got media companies throwing money at you now, you've got Netflix offering you a potential deal, you've got book deals in the works. Yeah. All of a sudden, instead of being in prison for the rest of your life, you're free and you can actually profit off of this.

[TJ Holmes]

Everything we're talking about is circumstantial. Yes, I. All that makes me think, yeah, she has an incentive to lie, but that's just me jumping to a conclusion based on circumstances, not based on any frickin evidence, which is my problem today. And the prosecution, her closing didn't button up things that I had left open. Questions we have about timing and FetLife and who set up this account and why does it appear that the FetLife account is being used while Brendan and au pair are gone? Explain that to me. All she kept saying about the digital evidence is, well, we don't know for sure who was behind that device unless you were sitting right there next to the person. But Ro, she's treating the jurors like they're stupid. We understand that, ma', am, but there are other circumstances that lead us to believe that we could say pretty surely, who was on the laptop, Rose? She never landed that. She never even tried to.

[Amy Robach]

Yes. And the defense did actually in their closing arguments, talking specifically and actually went through, and I appreciated this, dates and timestamps of where Brendan and his devices were were outside of the home. Juliana and her devices were outside of the home. And the only person who was at home with devices was Christine. And in those moments, there were several instances where those were the times where Christine's devices went on to FetLife access that suspect Gmail account, accessed another messaging surface that was associated with the FetLife account that has not been accounted for. And that is the reason why the defense had two forensic experts say, we cannot support the catfishing theory.

[TJ Holmes]

Do it for me, then. Account for that for me as a juror. You're trying to reconcile that the prosecution is saying this account was set up by Brendan Banfield and the au pair as a part of a catfishing scheme. I have digital evidence that shows Christine Banfield was the one using FetLife. Help me reconcile them, babe. If Christine knew about it and was operating it, how can I vote him guilty?

[Amy Robach]

Because now how could he have planned this elaborate catfishing scheme and murder if Christine is the one who was accessing her FetLife account?

[TJ Holmes]

I'm simplifying. I think we said this. Maybe day one or two, if she was in control of that FetLife account, is this game over? If you believe that she knew about it or was operating it, does this mean he's not guilty and you have to vote that way, babe.

[Amy Robach]

It means there's reasonable doubt. I think that's where I am, because I can honestly say I don't know. And that's a problem for the prosecution.

[TJ Holmes]

But you don't know if she knew about the account or not.

[Amy Robach]

I am so confused, and I cannot come up with. I can't come up with a scenario that makes me feel confident, yes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was only Brendan and Juliana, the au pair, who had access to The Gmail, the FetLife, and the messenger service.

[TJ Holmes]

I have no confidence that they were in control. I don't have confidence that Christine was in control. So do I send the man to prison for the rest of his life based on a coin toss of who I believe, him or her? Because both of them are problematic witnesses.

[Amy Robach]

And, yes, the truth is probably somewhere in between. But the problem, the big problem for the prosecution. Well, they've got a lot of problems. But your star witness, who you need the jurors to believe to make this version of events, to make this narrative work, is problematic because she's been massively incentivized to. To say whatever the prosecution tells her to say, period, point blank, that's kind of undeniable.

[TJ Holmes]

She shot a guy. She shot a guy. The fatal shot, and he died. She's convicted of murder as we speak. Right.

[Amy Robach]

Manslaughter. Yeah.

[TJ Holmes]

Convicted.

[Amy Robach]

Yep.

[TJ Holmes]

And she's going home free. Done. That is a hell of an incentive. Life in prison or I get to go home today, and I need to get on the stand and say what do you need me to say? Not sure I can say that. No problem.

[Amy Robach]

And then when she was cross examined, she didn't remember anything?

[TJ Holmes]

Not a goddamn.

[Amy Robach]

I don't know. I don't know. I don't. That was problematic for me because I'm thinking to myself, if you are really now telling the truth and now actually coming clean, why can't you remember the details that you would need to know? If the scenario in which you want us to believe happened, you would have remembered.

[TJ Holmes]

When. When did you set it up? Don't know. Where were you in the house? Don't know. Who grabbed Christine's laptop? Can't remember. When did you put it back? Don't know. How long did you have it? Can't remember. Were you in the basement? Not sure. Were you in the kitchen now? No. Where was Christine? Think she was upstairs.

[Amy Robach]

Who wrote this email? Who wrote that email every time? I don't know. I don't remember every time. That's a problem.

[TJ Holmes]

That was a problem.

[Amy Robach]

That is a problem. And look for the prosecution to say that it was up to the jury who they believed more, that's also a problem. Like that was how she was. Like that was her big thing.

[TJ Holmes]

I can't remember the other one.

[Amy Robach]

That was her big moment.

[TJ Holmes]

Dammit. What was that moment? When she said. And then she said, yes, she said the price. What was that line? Oh my God. Please, please, please. Because we said if, if you were a politician, you would clip it right there and run that against her time and again on television. She said something we could not believe. They said, the defense is accusing us of da da, da da da. And then she said, yes, it was.

[Amy Robach]

Unreal, but she made some missteps.

[TJ Holmes]

But your point? She was saying to the jury, you gotta pick a side. Juliana or Brendan. She really laid it out to them like, this case is not about evidence. It's about whether or not you believe him or believe her.

[Amy Robach]

Shit. And look, that might be true, but she's basically at that point shooting herself in the foot saying, yeah, our evidence sucks.

[TJ Holmes]

We got nothing.

[Amy Robach]

Our evidence sucks. So really it's kind of who you believe. Why are you acknowledging that your evidence is like. She didn't mean to say that because the breath before she was talking about how great her evidence was. And then in the next breath she was saying, well, basically you just have to decide who you believe, Juliana or Brendan.

[TJ Holmes]

By the way, she said that in some of her last breaths. This was some of the last stuff she said to the jury. Who are you going to believe? Who you got sweetheart, she almost 25.

[Amy Robach]

Year old who wants to go back home and doesn't want to be in prison anymore. You know, she or the guy who's.

[TJ Holmes]

Been married for 19 years to a woman, has had no history of violence, no history of domestic violence, no history of anything violent in his background, and.

[Amy Robach]

Lots of history of affairs.

[TJ Holmes]

And this was the one with a 21 year old for six weeks that all of a sudden he wants to plot this murder. Oh, what? Stay with us here, folks. We will now get into. We come back after the break. The brilliance that we thought from the defense. The guy who everybody has been kind of hard on because he's had some difficulties.

[Amy Robach]

He's a little befuddled. He's a little unorganized, incredibly.

[TJ Holmes]

But he might be a damn good defense attorney. Stay here.

[Amy Robach]

In the middle of the night, Saskia awoke in a haze. Her husband Mike was on his laptop. What was on his screen would change Saskia's life forever. I said, I need you to tell me exactly what you're doing. And immediately the mask came off.

[TJ Holmes]

You're supposed to be safe. That's your home.

[Amy Robach]

That's your husband. To keep this secret for so many years. He's like a seasoned pro. This is a story about the end of a marriage, but it's also the story of one woman who was done living in the dark. You're a dangerous person who preys on.

[TJ Holmes]

Vulnerable and trusting people.

[Amy Robach]

You're a predator. Michael Levengood. Listen to Betrayal Season 5 on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. What if mind control is real?

[TJ Holmes]

If you could control the behavior of anybody around you, what kind of life would you have?

[Amy Robach]

Can you hypnotically persuade someone to buy a car?

[TJ Holmes]

When you look at your car, you're going to become overwhelmed with such good feelings.

[Amy Robach]

Can you hypnotize someone into sleeping with you? I gave her some suggestions to be sexually aroused. Can you get someone to join your cult? NLP was used on me to access my subconscious. Nlp, AKA neuro linguistic programming, is a blend of hypnosis, linguistics, and psychology. Fans say it's like finally getting a user manual for your brain.

[TJ Holmes]

It's about engineering consciousness.

[Amy Robach]

Mind Games is the story of nlp, its crazy cast of disciples, and the fake doctor who invented it at a new age commune and sold it to guys in suits. He stood trial for murder and got acquitted. The biggest mind game of all, nlp, might actually work. This is wild. Listen to mind Games on the iHeartRadio app. Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. This is Ryder Strong and I have a new podcast called the Red Weather. It was many and many a year ago in a kingdom by the sea. In 1995, my neighbor Anna Trainor disappeared from a commune.

[TJ Holmes]

It was hard to wrap your head around.

[Amy Robach]

It was nature and trees and praying and drugs.

[TJ Holmes]

So, no, I am not your guru.

[Amy Robach]

And back then I lied to my parents, I lied to police, I lied to everybody. There were years, Ryder, where I could not say your name.

[TJ Holmes]

I've decided to go back to my.

[Amy Robach]

Hometown in Northern California, interview my friends, family, talk to police, journalists, whomever I can to try to find out what actually happened.

[TJ Holmes]

Isn't it a little bit weird that they obsess over hippies in the woods and not the obvious boyfriend?

[Amy Robach]

They have had this case for 30 years.

[TJ Holmes]

I'll teach you sons of come around here with my wife. Boom, boom. This is the red weather.

[Amy Robach]

Listen to the red weather on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

[TJ Holmes]

High interest debt is one of the toughest opponents you'll face unless you power up with a Sofi personal loan. A Sofi personal loan could repackage your bad debt into one low fixed rate monthly payment. It's even got super speed since you could get the funds as soon as the same day you sign. Visit sofi.compower to learn more. That's sofi.com p o w e R Loans originated by SOFI bank and a member FDIC. Terms and conditions apply and MLS 696891. All right, continuing here on Amy and tj, the jury has been deliberating as of this record recording, about two hours in the au pair affair murder trial happening in Fairfax County, Virginia. Brendan Banfield on trial. Closing arguments weren't today. Who knows how long this jury is going to deliberate? I always say, and they always say it, if it's coming up on a vacation or a weekend, don't be surprised if you get a quick verdict because they are trying to get out of there.

[Amy Robach]

Yeah, but this one's tough. We all, this one is tough. And you know, we talked before the break. We teased at least that we were going to talk about how impressed we were with the defense attorney and his closing arguments. So you had the prosecution go less than 20 minutes in her closing arguments in a very different approach. The defense attorney was up for an hour and a half.

[TJ Holmes]

Yes.

[Amy Robach]

So he had to take a break in between, or at least the judge asked for a break in between, which I Thought was unusual. I've never seen a closing argument broken up like that. But, yes, he went for an hour and a half and where the prosecution just kind of was like, he wove this story. He was a storyteller and he made things make sense. And he tried to explain some of the question marks that a lot of us had after the testimony, after Brendan Banfield's testimony. And he wove it together and he gave a version to the jury that was digestible.

[TJ Holmes]

Yes. When. When points came up that I wondered about, I didn't have to ask the question out loud. He explained there was blood evidence. He said, well, yeah, it happened that way because of this, this, this and it could have been this. He gave another option. The prosecution left me hanging, just said what the evidence was, but didn't have an explanation for it. It could be this or it could be that. He filled in a blank where she left the blank for me to figure out on my own. That works.

[Amy Robach]

I appreciate. Yes, I agree, and I appreciated the fact because one of my big questions is I'm one of the things I've had a hard time getting over from a common sense or just, why would it happen that way? Standpoint, and I think jurors do imagine that. Why would Joe Ryan stab Christine when a gun is trained on him? And the defense attorney clearly, he actually said, so why would Joe Ryan stab Christine Banfield? And he said, maybe he was scared, he was angry. He had a gun pointed on him, at him. He freaked, he panicked. He was pissed. He thought this woman set me up, you know, or this police. Maybe he thought he was going to kill everybody, you know, maybe he was going to get out of there by. Yeah, now he's caught. He's got a man saying, police with a gun on him. He's desperate.

[TJ Holmes]

Desperation works for me in that situation. I don't. I don't ever had a scenario. He gave a scenario in a very. A room that small and close proximity. This was a scary, terrifying situation. And he clearly was surprised. I think everybody there understands. If anybody didn't have any idea what was going on in that room, it was Joe Ryan. He gave us scenario robes and it made sense. But in that whole scenario, the defense attorney explained something about the knife that you and I went, what the actual hell? There were no. There was no evidence, no DNA, nothing on that knife from Brendan Banfield. And there were also no wounds on Brendan Banfield's hand. So he is accused of violently stabbing his wife seven times with this knife. No, it. Look, if you Watch Any True Crime. You've seen enough of these stories. The person who does the stabbing oftentimes has their hand all cut up in a lot of ways. Okay, maybe it didn't happen this time. But how does he get his DNA off the knife but still have Joe Ryan's and blood and everything else on it?

[Amy Robach]

I'm telling you, that was jaw dropping to me in this closing argument by the defense to imagine that Joe Ryan's hands were cut up. They had knife injuries that would be consistent with someone stabbing another person. And he had all of the different blood on him. So how did Brendan Banfield manage to stab his wife, not get any DNA on that knife, and not get any wounds on his hand doing that? Seven times, and they were deep. And we heard about just what types of wounds she was contending with in her neck. Seven of them. That's hard to imagine. When I heard the defense attorney say that, you know, you start to go into this logical part of your brain and you just think, wait, that doesn't make sense. How could he have pulled that off in that little amount of time? I don't know what the time was between when they called 911 and when police and paramedics arrived.

[TJ Holmes]

That's when the moaning was important. That's why that moaning 911 call, whether.

[Amy Robach]

It was the dog or whether it was Joe Ryan. But I. And, like, it's just confusing to me how. And by the way, Christine didn't die right away. She died in the hospital. So I'm wondering if Brendan really did stab her and kill her. Is he panicked now that she's gonna survive? That she's gonna survive and tell the real story? I was thinking about all of that, too.

[TJ Holmes]

What?

[Amy Robach]

Why not make sure she's dead first before you call 911?

[TJ Holmes]

There's another good point. Wow. I didn't think about that scenario. The other one. And this was the one that finally, for me, the timing of the steps 1224 to 1241. Excuse me. 724 to 741. They're able to track Juliana's movement. They know he's at McDonald's the morning of the killing. They know their surveillance video. No, that's not in question. They are tracking her based on her. Whatever technology or something. Her Steps stop at 7:24 because she's outside in the car with the child. She doesn't move again until 7:41. Brendan Banfield is not at the house between 7:24 and 7:41. Somebody in the house is using the laptop for the FetLife account. Please tell me what's up. So does that either mean she just happened to discover it on her laptop the very morning that the man was coming to for this fetish? Or was it her account? Babe?

[Amy Robach]

Was she communicating with him? Babe, I know that's incredibly difficult to try and explain to fit the prosecution's.

[TJ Holmes]

Theory, so tell me how they explained it. Did you ever hear them account for that? Or did they just keep saying, well, since nobody was right there, we don't know exactly who was using it? Or do they say, well, Juliana probably got back in the house?

[Amy Robach]

They didn't specifically address that. They did not specifically address that. And to know that Juliana didn't have any steps would also imply that she wasn't back in the house, so. And they could also see where her devices were. So that's a tough one to get around. I just also thought one of the most effective lines from the defense attorney was when he talked about Juliana and her testimony, he said, her entire story has been bought and paid for. And when he said that, that landed for me. I just thought, there's really no other way to put it. And it was so interesting to hear in the rebuttal. The prosecution getting the final world word. She kept saying, why would she do this for $10,000? Meaning that's how much Netflix was offering to pay her for her story. She wouldn't do all of this for $10,000. No, lady, she did this for her freedom. So she didn't acknowledge. And I thought that was really not smart on her end, because anyone.

[TJ Holmes]

You treat us like we were stupid.

[Amy Robach]

Obviously, the jurors is. Are thinking, no, she's. She's testifying against Brendan. Yeah, okay, maybe she might make money down the line. But that wasn't her motivation. Her motivation was freedom. Her motivation was freedom, period.

[TJ Holmes]

You. You just helped. Thank you. I thought you were piecing it together, so. Oh, she remembered. That was it, Babe. His line about the story being bought and paid for the rebuttal. She got up there, said, you know what? The defense accuses us. They say her story has been bought and paid for.

[Amy Robach]

Yes, you're right. That was it.

[TJ Holmes]

That was it.

[Amy Robach]

And then she went on to say, but would she really. But would she really do all of this for $10,000? And that's what I was.

[TJ Holmes]

Was hilarious. They say she's been bought and paid for. Yes. And then she continued. But that was. It was enough of a beat that it landed for me that, oh, she's acknowledging. Does she mean to do that.

[Amy Robach]

You looked at me and you said, did she just say yes to that? And I was like, yep, she really just did that. And we thought, man, can you imagine if you were running for office and you made a speech, you would literally just take that clip and just air it over and over again and in your paid commercial to convince everybody, like, yeah, here's the truth. She said it herself.

[TJ Holmes]

She accidentally let it out. This has been a doozy. And we both said, look, if you all have been following along with us as we've been following on this trial, we have essentially, robes, listened to 90 plus percent of the testimony in this trial. We have seen just about all of it. And as we sit here today, we never really can predict what a jury is going to do. So we will predict what we would do. Robes, if you were on that jury, walk in. Soon as we walk in after. After we get the case and we take that straw vote right now, everybody, before we go over the evidence, let's just show a hands who thinks he's guilty, who thinks he's not guilty. Your hand is going where?

[Amy Robach]

So I think right now I would be in the not guilty camp, but not because I don't think he didn't do it. I think he very well may have done it, but I don't think the state proved that he did it the way they said he did it. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

[TJ Holmes]

Same thing. First vote, not guilty. All right. Going through the evidence, I don't know where we'll land, but I am open. It is just too much of a question, and I have too many questions about credibility of one of your witnesses, which you're admitting. I have to send this man to jail for the rest of his life based on testimony that was bought and paid for from a witness who has every incentive to lie, who actually can't remember a damn thing and actually wasn't that convincing or apologetic or sympathetic or remorseful on the stand.

[Amy Robach]

Her testimony was not credible enough for me to send a man to prison for the rest of his life. I just don't think there was enough actual evidence to back up her version against his version for me to feel comfortable as a juror.

[TJ Holmes]

I'm willing to listen to my fellow jurors. I want to listen to another argument, by all means. But right now, this is a tough one. What do you think that was what we would do? What do you think this jury is going to do? Right now, official prediction is.

[Amy Robach]

Either. I think it's either hung jury or not guilty. I don't Think they're going to come back with a guilty verdict?

[TJ Holmes]

I'm. I'm going with Hong. How did we do on the predictions on Walsh and Diddy? I think I was wrong on Walsh.

[Amy Robach]

I think I was wrong on both. So don't listen to what we're saying. But I just look, because, you know, the interesting thing is the folks who are making these decisions also don't have legal backgrounds. They're like you and me.

[TJ Holmes]

They listen like we did.

[Amy Robach]

Perhaps, maybe we've seen more trials than most and have watched outcomes more often than not. And I will say, having watched them for the last three decades, usually mostly jurors come back with guilty verdicts. I mean, that has been my experience at least. It does take a lot. A very good defense attorney a lot of times to. To put enough doubt in jurors minds for them to question what a prosecutor, what a police officer is telling them. But in this case, you have two detectives who work with the Fairfax County Police Department. Flat out huge, babe. Flat out testify for the defense and throw the prosecution's theory in the mud. And for me, those two guys were so credible. I don't think Juliana was that credible. And I don't even know if Brendan was that credible. But those two forensic, digital forensic experts were credible enough that that, for me, sweetheart, is the reason why I would vote not guilty right now.

[TJ Holmes]

You say credible enough. They were the most overwhelmingly credible people on the stand as far as the detectives go, because so many of them were up there trying to defend their work, trying to justify why they did this or that. They had a dog in the fight. They did have a side that they have picked. I got two guys up here saying, I'm just going where the evidence goes. And it tells me that the prosecution theory is bullshit. Those were two very credible witnesses. We didn't even mention them until here at the end. That might have. That might tip the scales.

[Amy Robach]

I think it does. Because also it's not good for their careers. It's not good for them to. To not agree with what their supervisors wanted them to come to. Their supervisors clearly wanted them to reach a conclusion that they didn't reach. And I thought that was admirable that they stuck to their guns based on their experience and their expertise and did not let a supervisor or someone higher up within the police department kind of twist their arm into saying something different. That gave them so much more credibility because there's no incentive for them, career wise, to take the stance they've taken.

[TJ Holmes]

Folks, we'll keep an eye Verdict Watch is officially underway. We will hop back on if anything happens tonight. But if they don't get a verdict tonight, they will be going home for the weekend and coming back on Monday and trying again. We shall see if they try to get out of there before the weekend. Rhodes but folks, we always appreciate you going along with us. I'm TJ Holmes. On behalf of my dear Amy Robach, thank you for listening and again, keep an eye on our feed. We will let you know if something else happens today. Foreign.

[Amy Robach]

This is an I heart podcast. Guaranteed human.