Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Thursday evening on the East
Speaker 1: coast here on January twenty second. We're just hopping on
Speaker 1: because we got some significant updates in the so called
Speaker 1: Old Pair affair murders trial, including an update about one
Speaker 1: witness who was on the stand three times in this
Speaker 1: trial already, and another major update having to do with
Speaker 1: the timing of this trial. And with that, welcome to
Speaker 1: this episode of Amy and TJ. Roves. I'll start with
Speaker 1: something you just said to me. You said, it looks
Speaker 1: like the defense's case is coming together, but it looks
Speaker 1: like they might not have much of a case.
Speaker 2: Right we see the blueprint, because I will say, yesterday
Speaker 2: when the defense began and even this morning, we were
Speaker 2: kind of scratching our heads, like where is this going?
Speaker 3: What have they accomplished?
Speaker 2: They've called lots of witnesses up, and yet it's unclear
Speaker 2: to me what the strategy is or what they're trying
Speaker 2: to get out of these witnesses, because it wasn't effective.
Speaker 1: Wasn't it several witnesses as well. It seems like we're
Speaker 1: just getting going. And then he told them no more questions.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it would be like you'd think he was just
Speaker 2: winding up his question and he'd say no further questions,
Speaker 2: say what.
Speaker 1: It was confusing, and every witness today felt like for
Speaker 1: the defense that's now putting on their case, felt like
Speaker 1: there was potential for a Perry Mason moment and we
Speaker 1: never actually got one. However, we did get several significant
Speaker 1: updates and we did. This was maybe, I would argue
Speaker 1: Robes Besides the au pair's testimony, this was one of
Speaker 1: the most significant days of testimony we have seen because
Speaker 1: we see what the defense is trying to lay out.
Speaker 1: Can we start though, with the update about the timing.
Speaker 1: This has everything to do with the weather right now.
Speaker 1: The judge is really trying to move the thing.
Speaker 2: Judge is super concerned and keeps talking about this massive
Speaker 2: snowstorm that is blanketing much of the country but certainly
Speaker 2: going to target the mid Atlantic and the Northeast with
Speaker 2: a bunch of snow, and so yes, this is near
Speaker 2: the Washington, DC area, Fairfax, Virginia.
Speaker 3: So she was really pushing.
Speaker 2: When they wrapped today, both sides, the defense saying how
Speaker 2: many more witnesses do you have? And he said three
Speaker 2: at least, and the prosecution said they want to call
Speaker 2: two more back up to the stand and you could
Speaker 2: see the judge or you could hear the judge was frustrated.
Speaker 2: She said, I'd really like to wrap up testimony by
Speaker 2: Friday because we may be out of court for five
Speaker 2: days with this storm, and I'd hate to break up
Speaker 2: the evidence. I'd love to have the evidence done, have
Speaker 2: a potential break based on this storm, and then come
Speaker 2: back and then do closing arguments and give your reinstructions
Speaker 2: and have them start deliberating. So she didn't but basically
Speaker 2: the defense attorney said, I'll do my best, but he
Speaker 2: was like, I can't promise you that I'm going to
Speaker 2: be done tomorrow.
Speaker 1: And you know he would like the extra time, Yes,
Speaker 1: he would like the extra time. He's been a little shaken,
Speaker 1: we should say, by the prosecution with a lot of
Speaker 1: their objections. And you mentioned the judge seems a little frustrated.
Speaker 1: Even in her frustration. I want to give her credit.
Speaker 1: She is like the sweetest lady, even when it's like
Speaker 1: a teacher. Even when she has to get on to
Speaker 1: you about it, She's like, yeah, you know, baby, why
Speaker 1: I have to get on she has I think she's
Speaker 1: been excellent.
Speaker 2: She has She's been very even keeled. She's been very fair,
Speaker 2: and she's had to hear, as you said, a lot
Speaker 2: of objections, and she hasn't just sustained all of them
Speaker 2: or overruled. She is thoughtful about each one and I
Speaker 2: actually think she's done, yes.
Speaker 3: A phenomenal job.
Speaker 1: All right, So let's get to what this day was,
Speaker 1: and yes, the fence is putting on its case. The
Speaker 1: focus of the case today is on what they're at
Speaker 1: least trying to call a botch doory questionable investigation. Again,
Speaker 1: Brendan Miller, this was the one they did allude to
Speaker 1: right in the opening statement, that there was an investigator
Speaker 1: who didn't agree with other and the direction of the
Speaker 1: investigation was going. This was the guy who claims and
Speaker 1: his investigation, his forensic detective work. He felt that maybe
Speaker 1: it was Christine who had that phone in her hand,
Speaker 1: who set up her own fat life account. He's been
Speaker 1: called to the stand three times now, three times. He
Speaker 1: seems like he doesn't want to be there.
Speaker 2: He's so monotone and he's doing his best not to
Speaker 2: give the defense anything. And yet they did get him
Speaker 2: to say today that in terms of why he was
Speaker 2: reassigned against his choice, he did eventually say that there
Speaker 2: were disagreements about the way he wrote the report, and
Speaker 2: so he said basically what he put as his conclusion,
Speaker 2: meaning he couldn't say it wasn't Christine who set up
Speaker 2: that that life account, and that he kept having his
Speaker 2: supervisor come back over and not disagree with his process
Speaker 2: or disagree with any of the findings, but it was
Speaker 2: the conclusion that he came to that his superiors disagreed with.
Speaker 1: So that is a big deal. If there is a
Speaker 1: If I'm sitting in the jury and you're telling me
Speaker 1: that there's a guy out there who said that it
Speaker 1: was possibly Christine who set this up and then he
Speaker 1: got moved off the case, I'm gonna say, well why,
Speaker 1: And that's funny and that's fishy. That was at least
Speaker 1: worth bringing up. I think that point was made. I
Speaker 1: don't know how hard it landed, but at least they
Speaker 1: made that point today. And that's a big deal. We
Speaker 1: talked about the very beginning. If they can prove that
Speaker 1: Christine Banfield was the one who set up that life
Speaker 1: fetish account herself, case is over.
Speaker 2: Yes, And maybe they can't do that, but if they
Speaker 2: can plant enough of a seed of doubt in at
Speaker 2: least one juror's head, and that's what they need, right
Speaker 2: one juror to be like, hmm, but how do I
Speaker 2: know it wasn't Christine?
Speaker 1: Okay? And a reminder of why we're here we saying
Speaker 1: these names. I think at this point, if anybody clicked
Speaker 1: on this episode, they're following the O Pair affair double
Speaker 1: murder trial. But Brandon Banfield charged with killing his wife
Speaker 1: Christine and another man by the name of Joseph Ryant. Now,
Speaker 1: prosecutors say Banfield wanted to get rid of his wife's
Speaker 1: so we can continue in a relationship with the families.
Speaker 1: Then twenty one year old Brazilian Old pair, they say
Speaker 1: Banfil and the Old Pair created a fake profile on
Speaker 1: a fetish website in order to lure a man to
Speaker 1: the house and then frame him for the wife's murder.
Speaker 1: So again, we got one investigator who at least came
Speaker 1: to some forensic conclusion that it might have been Christine
Speaker 1: who set up that account. That was what the back
Speaker 1: and forth was about today, And I get it, there's
Speaker 1: some questions, there's some doubt. Is it enough to overcome
Speaker 1: the old pair's story?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 3: Now, yes, I mean you've got a couple of things.
Speaker 2: Either, So if the jury is questioning the old Pairs story,
Speaker 2: because she did have some credibility issues that the defense
Speaker 2: was able to highlight in terms of her sweetheart deal
Speaker 2: and the fact that she was complaining about trying to
Speaker 2: get more money from Netflix for rights to her story,
Speaker 2: and just the fact that she completely changed what she
Speaker 2: told investigators after almost being in prison for a full year.
Speaker 2: So they just questioned all of that, and those are
Speaker 2: fair questions and it just depends on how the jury
Speaker 2: interprets that and certainly her demeanor during cross examination.
Speaker 1: Okay, So a key point today was about had to
Speaker 1: do with her story. Rogues this idea of catfishing, right,
Speaker 1: this idea of catfishing, that Joseph Ryan was catfished, it
Speaker 1: means he was fooled into coming over. So this theory
Speaker 1: of catfishing and when it came up in the investigation
Speaker 1: was maybe ropes the number one argument in court today
Speaker 1: because the defense is trying to prove that the investigation
Speaker 1: followed a theory and not the evidence.
Speaker 2: Correct and detective work one oh one is you follow
Speaker 2: the evidence, not a theory. If you follow a theory first,
Speaker 2: that you've come up with now the people would say,
Speaker 2: then you've.
Speaker 3: Got blinders on.
Speaker 2: You're now not considerings of other suspects, lots of other possibilities,
Speaker 2: because you've already developed the theory and you start looking
Speaker 2: for evidence to match your theory versus looking at the
Speaker 2: evidence and letting that be the theory.
Speaker 1: Did you think they ever came or answer the question
Speaker 1: of when catfishing became the theory? When catfishing was mentioned
Speaker 1: or came up after her.
Speaker 2: Death, they called several detectives to the stand who were
Speaker 2: all trying not to answer that, and they were all saying, no,
Speaker 2: it wasn't my theory, you know, and what me and
Speaker 2: you know it was within a few days of the murderers.
Speaker 2: We kind of got that ambiguous detailed. The thing that
Speaker 2: stood out to me was when one of the detectives
Speaker 2: said they believed the catfishing theory began when one of
Speaker 2: the detectives overheard Brendan Banfield's young daughter, her name is
Speaker 2: Victoria correct four years old at the time, ask the
Speaker 2: au pair, Juliana, can I call you mommy? And that
Speaker 2: is the point in which this detective said, a light
Speaker 2: bulb went off, And I think maybe that's when they
Speaker 2: started to think, Wait a minute, are the O Pair
Speaker 2: and Brendan Banfield in a relationship? Could something be going
Speaker 2: on here? Could they have conspired to create this whole theory?
Speaker 2: And so that was the best indication that I heard
Speaker 2: in court today or explanation as to when and how
Speaker 2: someone first came up with this catfishing theory.
Speaker 1: Okay, we hear when and how they came up with
Speaker 1: this theory, but it was a little I guess, peculiar
Speaker 1: robes the witness who actually revealed the whole story about
Speaker 1: can I call you mommy? Stay here? We'll explain that
Speaker 1: when we come back. Also, why we're so many investigators
Speaker 1: moved off this case without explanation, Well, the prosecutors had
Speaker 1: an explanation. Stare we continue here this update on the
Speaker 1: so called oh Pair, A fair double murder trial going
Speaker 1: on in Fairfax County, Virginia. Brandon Banfield on trial. Ropes
Speaker 1: to his defense is putting on its case, doing the
Speaker 1: best it can. But this case could be wrapped. Their
Speaker 1: case could be wrapped by tomorrow. Testimony could rap tomorrow.
Speaker 1: We don't know, depending on what happens with this storm.
Speaker 1: You were talking about Ropes, how they this catfish theory
Speaker 1: and when it came about, and they thought maybe it
Speaker 1: came up when the child Victoria was overheard saying to
Speaker 1: the old pair after the bomb was killed, can I
Speaker 1: call you mommy now? And or it was are you
Speaker 1: going to.
Speaker 2: Are you going to marry my daddy? And then the
Speaker 2: old pair responded, I wish.
Speaker 1: So someone an employee overheard all this. Now, Why was
Speaker 1: it that the person telling this on the stand was
Speaker 1: the Victim Services witness. She worked with Victim Services. She
Speaker 1: was there not as an investigator, but as someone to
Speaker 1: help the child because of the traumatic situation. Yes, so
Speaker 1: none of the investigators mentioned that no one could tell
Speaker 1: where the theory of catfishing came from. So even the
Speaker 1: victim Services person was up there trying to well, maybe
Speaker 1: it was this, Maybe it was that. I think it
Speaker 1: was talked about after it.
Speaker 3: I was bizarre.
Speaker 1: I thought they had so many people up there and said, hey,
Speaker 1: I don't know where it came from.
Speaker 2: It is interesting because there and then there was a
Speaker 2: discussion about did you celebrate when when the nanny when
Speaker 2: the OA pair finally did say this version of events
Speaker 2: where you all like high fiving each other. There were
Speaker 2: some texts apparently among the detectives kind of saying.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I knew it, I got it.
Speaker 2: But the whole point was, and the defense is trying
Speaker 2: to point out that the detectives fairly early on created
Speaker 2: or came up with this version of events, this narrative,
Speaker 2: this theory, and then try to make the evidence fit
Speaker 2: this theory. And so that is why the defense is
Speaker 2: saying they moved that detective ought because he wasn't fitting
Speaker 2: in their theory. The lead investigator was also moved off
Speaker 2: because he.
Speaker 3: Wasn't agreeing with their theory.
Speaker 2: So that is a disturbing bit of evidence that the
Speaker 2: defense is now starting to establish that is making some headway.
Speaker 1: I I'm listening, they got my attention with that, at
Speaker 1: least if it's going to overcome the other stuff, I
Speaker 1: don't know, But roads it was a lot of investigators.
Speaker 1: Now the prosecution got up and say, yes, this is
Speaker 1: a case that goes on for a year, two years.
Speaker 1: Investigators come and go, they get transferred, they get promoted,
Speaker 1: they get demoted. Okay, but the ones who got off
Speaker 1: this case sure didn't seem to be in line with
Speaker 1: the theory, and that's floating problem.
Speaker 2: And then so this also falls right in line with
Speaker 2: what the defense was trying to do across examining with
Speaker 2: Juliana the O pair, because he was saying to her,
Speaker 2: read this that you wrote before your sweetheart deal, and
Speaker 2: it was a very different tone. Now read this after
Speaker 2: you get your sweetheart deal. And when you testified what
Speaker 2: you claim happened. Did you read what the prosecution told
Speaker 2: you to say first? Did they fill in the details
Speaker 2: and say here's what happened. Read this, So if they'd
Speaker 2: already created this theory, the presentation to the jury by
Speaker 2: the defense is yeah, that's exactly what happened. And then
Speaker 2: they finally broke the O pair after imprisoning her and
Speaker 2: throwing the book at her and you know, murder charges,
Speaker 2: and then dangled this, Hey, you want to get out
Speaker 2: of jail free card, even though you admitted that you
Speaker 2: pulled a trigger and killed someone. Just read this version
Speaker 2: of events in court and you'll get your get out
Speaker 2: of jail free card.
Speaker 1: You should forward that to the defense. That's not a
Speaker 1: bad closing. It was sarcastic, it was demonstrative, but that is.
Speaker 2: What they're establishing now, and they're starting now. It's starting
Speaker 2: to make sense. Finally, the third time, they've called this detective.
Speaker 1: Ye, what they're going on?
Speaker 3: I feel like you're getting to the point now.
Speaker 1: No, with that another effective part of Brendon Miller, this detective,
Speaker 1: he said, he admitted, if I'm not sitting there with
Speaker 1: the phone, then I can't tell you who was on
Speaker 1: the phone. Fine, he said, but I followed digital evidence,
Speaker 1: and all we had was digital evidence, and that digital
Speaker 1: evidence led me to this conclusion. Okay, cool, So another
Speaker 1: detective was up there and they're trying to get them
Speaker 1: to admit when did you all stop following digital evidence?
Speaker 1: And the best story is well, when the old pair
Speaker 1: changed her story. So the argument of the theory there rose.
Speaker 1: Then why does the word of a woman who has
Speaker 1: an incentive to lie count more than digital evidence counts?
Speaker 3: You should tell that to him? Closes as well.
Speaker 1: I thought that was a good point. It is because
Speaker 1: the detectives didn't necessarily answer that question for me. You
Speaker 1: can't prove Christine was on the phone because of the
Speaker 1: digital evidence. You can't prove she was off the phone
Speaker 1: because of the digital evidence. So why should we give
Speaker 1: more weight to the old pair story. She's the one
Speaker 1: telling us it's in Christine's hand.
Speaker 2: This entire the prosecution's entire case is resting on that
Speaker 2: pair and whether or not the jurors believe her.
Speaker 1: Okay, she's probably believable, believable enough, Alison Treesel said.
Speaker 2: I like what Alison Treesel said. So she's a criminal
Speaker 2: defense attorney. We've been talking to her a lot on
Speaker 2: our other feet, Amy and TJ Presents in case anybody
Speaker 2: wants to jump over.
Speaker 3: To that, uh, that podcast.
Speaker 2: But she recently told us that I like the way
Speaker 2: she put it. The old pair isn't likable, but she's believable.
Speaker 3: That's and she said.
Speaker 2: Maybe not everything she's saying, but I generally believe her,
Speaker 2: even though I don't like her because of her attitude
Speaker 2: and some of the stuff she's done and said, and
Speaker 2: certainly the fact that she did a full abad face.
Speaker 3: But I thought that was a good way to put it.
Speaker 1: I think that's that's probably it. Man. This is a
Speaker 1: fascinating one. Just wanted to hop on and give the
Speaker 1: update because they wrapped. They rapped a little later tonight.
Speaker 1: They wrapped up at five thirty. They usually they weren't
Speaker 1: supposed to be having trial on Fridays, but the judge
Speaker 1: again got him in on Friday, trying to get it in.
Speaker 1: She said, they'll stay late tomorrow. She really wants to
Speaker 1: end testimony tomorrow. The defense attorney, I don't put a
Speaker 1: lot of faith.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he didn't.
Speaker 2: He was not giving her a lot of comfort there.
Speaker 2: He was like, i'll try, is what he said.
Speaker 3: She didn't really like that.
Speaker 1: It was as uncertain as some of his questions.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yes, that's a good way to put it.
Speaker 1: Folks, will keep you updated. We always appreciate you hoving
Speaker 1: on here with us. For now. I am T. J.
Speaker 1: Holmes On behalf of my dear Emmy Robot will talk
Speaker 1: to you also.
Speaker 3: M