Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Wednesday, January fourteenth, and the
Speaker 1: O Pair at the center of the so called O
Speaker 1: Pair affair murder trial continues. Her testimony cross examination has
Speaker 1: gotten underway. A lawyer had some questions for her, and
Speaker 1: now a lot of us are going to have some
Speaker 1: questions with that. Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Robes.
Speaker 1: Can I start with first of all, of course, the
Speaker 1: good defense attorney is going to do his job. He's
Speaker 1: going to put some holes in the story. She seems
Speaker 1: to be pretty steady and hasn't necessarily seemed to be
Speaker 1: shaken just yet by the lawyer.
Speaker 2: I've been impressed by her composure.
Speaker 3: She started off on the stand first yesterday, a little shaky,
Speaker 3: a little emotional.
Speaker 2: She seems composed.
Speaker 3: She doesn't seem to rattle, which is good in terms
Speaker 3: of her ability to keep her emotional level steady, which
Speaker 3: I think must be a pretty difficult thing to do
Speaker 3: given what she's admitted to and what she's accusing someone
Speaker 3: who she once loved deeply, according to her, and he's
Speaker 3: just a few feet from her.
Speaker 2: That cannot be easy.
Speaker 1: I mean, she seemed annoyed at times, but never combative.
Speaker 1: She never took it that far, and I'll give the
Speaker 1: attorney credit as well. He has been very steady and
Speaker 1: respectful with her.
Speaker 3: You know what it's interesting, it's defense attorneys are known
Speaker 3: oftentimes to be sharks, and you know they are going
Speaker 3: to go to bat for their client no matter what.
Speaker 3: He has a like a fatherly, grandfatherly warmth about him
Speaker 3: that is unusual in a defense attorney. But I find
Speaker 3: it to be very effective because you're almost he's very likable,
Speaker 3: which is an unusual quality.
Speaker 2: And a defense attorney.
Speaker 3: And he's not being a showboat like what you would
Speaker 3: expect for some larger than life defense attorne.
Speaker 2: He actually just seems like a genuine, good human being.
Speaker 3: That's it. That's been my takeaway is his voice, his demeanor,
Speaker 3: how he's even asking tough.
Speaker 1: Questions, a slow talker even so, yes, give everybody credit
Speaker 1: for at least doing their job so far. But yes,
Speaker 1: it's the Brendan Banfield trial on trial with double murder
Speaker 1: killing his wife and also a stranger, someone that, according
Speaker 1: to prosecutors, he lured to the house as a part
Speaker 1: of some the BDSM what do you call it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he basically tried to make it look like his
Speaker 3: wife was into some sort of deviant sex with the
Speaker 3: stranger who was carrying out a rape fantasy that he
Speaker 3: walked in on and read the wrong way and thought
Speaker 3: someone was attacking his wife with a knife shot him,
Speaker 3: but he didn't make it in time before that said
Speaker 3: sex sexual deviance was stabbing his wife to death.
Speaker 2: Is what he wants jurors to believe.
Speaker 1: We are going to have to come up with a
Speaker 1: shorter way to explain this case because we're gonna have
Speaker 1: to cover for the next several weeks. I kind of
Speaker 1: come up with it just a simple way. You could
Speaker 1: just say, yes, it's the old pair affair murder trial,
Speaker 1: and maybe a decent enough A number of people are familiar.
Speaker 1: But to just explain this thing is tricky.
Speaker 3: It is because it's a murder case like we've never
Speaker 3: seen or heard before.
Speaker 2: This is this is a new one.
Speaker 1: So yes, she got on the stand yesterday. Juliana Perez
Speaker 1: Miguelas is the name the old pair. Twenty five years
Speaker 1: old now, but twenty one when this affair started, as
Speaker 1: she was working for the family. But yeah, she dealt
Speaker 1: with direct yesterday. Cross examination started this morning and it
Speaker 1: started grow. She had to explain herself first of all,
Speaker 1: which was about this plea deal, like why are you here?
Speaker 3: It's a big deal because for many, many months, and
Speaker 3: we'll get into the letters that the defense was able
Speaker 3: to produce, she was professing her love for Brent in Banfield,
Speaker 3: to him, to his mother, saying that she did nothing wrong,
Speaker 3: She didn't do anything untoward. She stayed with what Brendan
Speaker 3: has been saying all along. They were a united force
Speaker 3: in terms of their story as to what happened. And
Speaker 3: then suddenly she takes this plea deal and now she
Speaker 3: has a completely different version of what happened. And so
Speaker 3: rightfully so the defense attorney is going to say, Okay,
Speaker 3: so you weren't telling the truth now, but now you're
Speaker 3: telling the truth. That's definitely going to be a huge
Speaker 3: hurdle for prosecutors because she is their case. I mean,
Speaker 3: she pretty much is. The case is built around her
Speaker 3: narrative of what happened.
Speaker 1: You know, in opening did they say? What did they
Speaker 1: say they're going to offer? In terms of physical evidence.
Speaker 3: The only thing I heard in opening arguments from the
Speaker 3: prosecutor beyond getting Juliana's testimony, direct testimony and version of events,
Speaker 3: was blood evidence and she said, there will be blood
Speaker 3: evidence we will be able to show you that will
Speaker 3: prove that Brendan was on top of his wife stabbing
Speaker 3: her with that knife in the neck. So that is
Speaker 3: the other evidence we're expecting to hear beyond Juliana's story.
Speaker 3: But clearly, if you don't believe Juliani Juliana, then you're
Speaker 3: gonna have a hard time with the rest of the case.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna say, we always put ourselves in that jury box,
Speaker 1: and they're giving enough, they are setting up enough that
Speaker 1: you would have doubts about the story and the reason
Speaker 1: there are doubts that are coming because yes, this plea
Speaker 1: deal is here, but they have set up now robes
Speaker 1: the timing of this thing where they're asking her, why
Speaker 1: did you decide to come forward when you did, because
Speaker 1: there is how much time between her making the plea
Speaker 1: deal and her initial arrest. We're talking about a year.
Speaker 2: It was almost a year.
Speaker 3: And yes, and she is in these letters getting more
Speaker 3: and more desperate.
Speaker 1: Yes, So in these letters that they had her read
Speaker 1: a bunch of she was raw, emotional and the letters
Speaker 1: you could hear her decline over time that she started
Speaker 1: getting worse, talking about wanting it to end. She sounded alluicidal, yes,
Speaker 1: and what is it? Not clear? And they made the point,
Speaker 1: but listening to it did not sound like the longer
Speaker 1: she was in there, the worst things were getting.
Speaker 3: So the defense attorney was trying very much to get
Speaker 3: her to admit that as time went on, the longer
Speaker 3: she was in prison, the longer she was denied any
Speaker 3: sort of bond, or her hearings weren't going.
Speaker 2: The way she wanted them to. She was getting more.
Speaker 3: And more depressed, more and more desperate, and she was
Speaker 3: writing exactly where she was mentally to Brendan and his mother,
Speaker 3: and she did sound suicidal, and it was declining. Now
Speaker 3: she wouldn't admit that she was declining. She said she
Speaker 3: thought that she stayed the same. But you could see
Speaker 3: the defenser he's trying to establish. The longer you stayed
Speaker 3: in there, the worse you got, which would make sense.
Speaker 3: And at a certain point, what he's trying to get
Speaker 3: her to admit is that she broke that eventually she
Speaker 3: couldn't take it anymore, and she was just at a
Speaker 3: point where she would sign anything, say anything to get
Speaker 3: out of jail.
Speaker 1: So it was a year. I'm looking at the dates
Speaker 1: here because he hit her on this point. October thirteenth
Speaker 1: of two thousand and three, that's around the time she
Speaker 1: was arrested, twenty twenty three, twenty three, excuse me. And
Speaker 1: then October twenty eighth of twenty twenty four is when
Speaker 1: she signed the deal. Now, he pointed out, as she
Speaker 1: was saying, I'm here because I want to tell the truth.
Speaker 1: I want the truth to get out, he asked, well,
Speaker 1: why didn't you want it to get out until the
Speaker 1: twenty eighth of October when you had a full year
Speaker 1: to get the truth out? And that's a fair question.
Speaker 1: He also pointed out Robes she read excerpts from letters
Speaker 1: in which her depressive state to anger, anger at her attorney,
Speaker 1: anger at the legal process, and this was around the
Speaker 1: time she all of a sudden she gets a deal.
Speaker 1: So he is setting up at least a timeline that
Speaker 1: makes you go, hmm, what change.
Speaker 3: It shows seeds of doubt. And you have a quote
Speaker 3: from her and she said this, I withheld the truth.
Speaker 2: For a long time.
Speaker 3: Anyone who is going to say that on the stand
Speaker 3: will make you, as a juror, question whether or not
Speaker 3: you can believe she's telling the truth. Now, That is
Speaker 3: the problem for the prosecution, and that is the problem
Speaker 3: for any testimony this so pair gives because for a
Speaker 3: full year she was saying something completely different.
Speaker 1: And yeah, I guess you could make an argument that
Speaker 1: she was scared, she was trying to protect him. I
Speaker 1: guess you can. But it is difficult to hear that
Speaker 1: she's here now doing the right thing when there was
Speaker 1: a long time when she had an oportus do the
Speaker 1: right thing. They also Robes didn't expect this to be
Speaker 1: a big deal, and it almost looked like it surprised
Speaker 1: the attorney a little bit. She couldn't remember some details
Speaker 1: about the laptop. A big part of this has been
Speaker 1: that they set up this fetty what's the website?
Speaker 3: Sorry it's now you just said fet life life dot com.
Speaker 2: Yeah, met life, it's yes life again.
Speaker 3: I think it's actually okay that you didn't remember the
Speaker 3: name of the website. It's just further, I didn't need
Speaker 3: to know that you didn't know this, But it's not
Speaker 3: on our radar, so it's not something that we can
Speaker 3: just go, oh, yeah, fet life, you know that website
Speaker 3: that we've never been to, would have.
Speaker 2: Never heard of before.
Speaker 1: So fet life a big part of the story, and
Speaker 1: a big part of the plot, was that they signed
Speaker 1: up for this account in the wife's name without her knowing,
Speaker 1: and they had to use her laptop and robes. He said, well,
Speaker 1: how did you do that with the wife in the
Speaker 1: house and she said, well, she usually leaves her bag
Speaker 1: by the door. He said, okay, so who got it?
Speaker 1: Don't know? Okay, then where did you go and sign
Speaker 1: up in the house? Don't know who did it? Brendan?
Speaker 1: Where to do it? Don't know? She could remember nothing
Speaker 1: of signing up other than that.
Speaker 2: That's glaring.
Speaker 3: That's a big deal because this is again a huge
Speaker 3: part of the prosecution's theory here that yes, Brendan and Juliana,
Speaker 3: according to Juliana had to create this fake account using
Speaker 3: his wife's photos, pretending to be Christina, and that's a
Speaker 3: huge part of the story that has to be true
Speaker 3: for their theory to work, it has to be.
Speaker 1: That's a good way that has It must be.
Speaker 3: For her not to remember something that important in terms
Speaker 3: of how they started this plan and how they put
Speaker 3: the plan in place by creating this fake account to
Speaker 3: lure this person to their home to then pin the
Speaker 3: murder on. How could she not remember, because that is
Speaker 3: a thing to note that for them to get her
Speaker 3: computer while she was in the house and log onto
Speaker 3: her computer and pretend to be her. What is Christina
Speaker 3: doing at this time? How are they sneaking around doing?
Speaker 3: You would remember that because you'd be nervous, because you'd
Speaker 3: be doing something that you wouldn't want to get caught at,
Speaker 3: so you would remember it. Those are the kinds of
Speaker 3: things you remember.
Speaker 1: She only remembered that the wife was upstairs, was all
Speaker 1: she would say. He said, well, where were you? How
Speaker 1: do you know she was up where you were down?
Speaker 1: She had I mean, she could give zero details about
Speaker 1: how they took it physically out of the bag. You
Speaker 1: have had to put it back, and weren't you the
Speaker 1: one that did the deeper dive on it? But the
Speaker 1: groups of folks and digital forensic folks who actually say
Speaker 1: that the wife was the one using it.
Speaker 3: Yes, So, so he is already setting up with Juliana
Speaker 3: the defense attorney here if she can't get specific or
Speaker 3: remember this story that she told to prosecutors.
Speaker 2: And now you have members of.
Speaker 3: The detective team who actually believe and they're going to
Speaker 3: get into this when the defense presents its evidence who
Speaker 3: believe that, yes, Christina is the one who set it up.
Speaker 3: They don't believe digital forensic experts. They had an outsource
Speaker 3: to the University of Alabama. Pere reviewed that that group.
Speaker 3: That team also believes that it was Christina who set
Speaker 3: up the account.
Speaker 2: If that is something the jury believes.
Speaker 1: There's case.
Speaker 2: There is no case.
Speaker 1: Wow, that is a very important detail. But stay with
Speaker 1: us here, folks. We'll get into a little more of
Speaker 1: what happened, including some of her bizarre behavior after the murders,
Speaker 1: also her relationship with a few reporters who have been
Speaker 1: slipping her money and might be trying to get her
Speaker 1: a TV deal. Stay here, all right. We continue here
Speaker 1: on Amy and TEJ with the so called O Pair
Speaker 1: affair murder trial going on. Brendan Banfield accused of killing
Speaker 1: his wife and another man he had lured to the house.
Speaker 1: They went to a lunch break. As we're recording this,
Speaker 1: they are still they're still be coming, just coming back
Speaker 1: from lunch, and we do expect the old pair. Juliana
Speaker 1: say the name for me, It's not easy.
Speaker 2: She is Brazilian, so this is Portuguese.
Speaker 3: Juliana Perez Mahales is my best effort at saying her
Speaker 3: name correctly.
Speaker 1: Yes, we will see her back on the stand today
Speaker 1: with ropes they did hit on. I mean, just looks
Speaker 1: weird or looks bad about her behavior after the murders,
Speaker 1: including moving back into the house where the murders had
Speaker 1: taken place. But her sleeping arrangements kind of changed while
Speaker 1: she was there. She was she said, well, she went back.
Speaker 1: She was staying in her own room when she went back.
Speaker 1: Where then someone asked, were you staying in there by yourself? No,
Speaker 1: so the husband, Brendan was staying in there, But that
Speaker 1: arrangement didn't last long.
Speaker 3: Yes, so they were originally staying in her room, which
Speaker 3: I understand because yeah, people were shot and killed in
Speaker 3: that bed and in that bedroom. But eventually Juliana moved
Speaker 3: into the master bedroom and she put up photos of
Speaker 3: her and Brendan in the nightstand.
Speaker 2: She put her clothing in what was.
Speaker 3: Once Christina's closet. She put a Brazilian flag up in
Speaker 3: the bedroom. I mean she she moved in and basically
Speaker 3: assumed wifely a wifely position in the house.
Speaker 1: And yes, they were there living with the child who
Speaker 1: ended up.
Speaker 3: Being four just before the time of the murders. So
Speaker 3: the and this isn't that long ago. We're talking what
Speaker 3: two years ago, a year and a half ago, So
Speaker 3: the little girl four five, six, yeah, little.
Speaker 1: So these are some of the things that defense has
Speaker 1: been hitting on, but also Robes that it came out
Speaker 1: talking about her relationship with reporters. Some local reporters who
Speaker 1: were in touch with her while she was in jail
Speaker 1: used to well, she said, give her money for her
Speaker 1: phone calls, and give her money for the commissary for prison.
Speaker 1: Those things just came out. But from that it came
Speaker 1: out Robes that she has talked to someone and named
Speaker 1: a production company and negotiations are currently ongoing about possibly
Speaker 1: getting her some money to tell her story and possibly
Speaker 1: a TV show.
Speaker 3: Look, the problem is when you have the key witness
Speaker 3: in this case, where your entire case pretty much is
Speaker 3: hinging on her version of events, if you can make
Speaker 3: her look transactional, if you can see as a juror, wow,
Speaker 3: she got out of jail for free, basically, even though
Speaker 3: she's saying she pulled the trigger at least in one
Speaker 3: of the deaths. But because she's testifying and turning against
Speaker 3: her once lover, she's literally going to walk away and
Speaker 3: head to Brazil. And on top of that, she was
Speaker 3: somebody who was giving information to reporters in exchange for money.
Speaker 3: She's somebody who might be profiting off of this story
Speaker 3: she is now telling and selling as the.
Speaker 2: Truth for a movie deal.
Speaker 3: Her credibility at that point now is shaken.
Speaker 2: At the very least.
Speaker 1: Everything you said you can't help, but that has to
Speaker 1: be a part of it, everything she has gone through.
Speaker 1: She might be telling one hundred percent the truth on everything,
Speaker 1: but if you're sitting there as a juror, you cannot
Speaker 1: help but think something is up, because we now we
Speaker 1: have several scenarios in which it looks like she has
Speaker 1: done something a little untoward or maybe even criminal for
Speaker 1: the sake of covern Own ass and she will throw
Speaker 1: anybody under the bus to do.
Speaker 3: And look, hearing those letters and how and what she
Speaker 3: was saying not just a brenda but to his mom,
Speaker 3: you know you hear a completely different version, a completely
Speaker 3: different set of experiences emotions than what you're seeing here
Speaker 3: in court. That's hard. Which version of her do you
Speaker 3: believe her written word? What she said right after the murders,
Speaker 3: what she said six months after the murders what she
Speaker 3: said when she got a really big sweetheart deal. Which
Speaker 3: one is the truth?
Speaker 2: How are you supposed to know who? Which version are
Speaker 2: you supposed to believe?
Speaker 1: Well, she continues, folks, she'll continue to testify this afternoon.
Speaker 1: As always, top right corner your podcast Apple podcast app,
Speaker 1: we see our show page button says follow click that
Speaker 1: you can subscribe and get all the updates coming to
Speaker 1: you so you don't have to go hunting for them.
Speaker 1: We'll keep an eye on this this afternoon. We'll hop
Speaker 1: back on if anything comes to the surface. But as always,
Speaker 1: we appreciate you spending some time here on t J
Speaker 1: holmes On behalf of Amy Robot. We'll talk to you
Speaker 1: all soon.