Speaker 1: Hey, that folks.
Speaker 2: It is Tuesday, January the thirteenth, and a man had
Speaker 2: an affair with his Brazilian OD pair and then his
Speaker 2: wife ends up dead in a double murder premeditated sexual
Speaker 2: fantasy plot. And that trial gets underway today And with that,
Speaker 2: welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
Speaker 1: Roade. Did I kind of get close to getting it right?
Speaker 2: Because this has so many cliches wrapped up in it
Speaker 2: And this is absolutely a true crime episode or a
Speaker 2: movie in the making.
Speaker 3: Yes, if you want to look up sensational murder trial
Speaker 3: Exhibit A will be in a Virginia courtroom today starting
Speaker 3: at ten am. That is when opening statements are scheduled
Speaker 3: to begin. Yes, for a Virginia man who is accused
Speaker 3: of conspiring with his Brazilian OH pair to murder his
Speaker 3: wife and a stranger that prosecutors say they lured to
Speaker 3: his home to make it look like some sexual fantasy
Speaker 3: gone bad, and he rushes in as the hero to
Speaker 3: save his wife, and it all unraveled because prosecutors say
Speaker 3: they figured out pretty quickly what happened with the help
Speaker 3: of the old pair.
Speaker 2: So Brendan Banfield is the man's name, but you're The
Speaker 2: plot is that he's having an affair and he tries
Speaker 2: to kill his wife and have someone else take responsibility
Speaker 2: and take the fall for it, so then he could
Speaker 2: be with his Brazilian Oh pair.
Speaker 1: How old was the pair?
Speaker 4: He's forty, right, I don't know how old she was.
Speaker 1: They're usually not mid fifties.
Speaker 3: I'm taking in her twenties at the Yes, that's probably
Speaker 3: a safe bet.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: So we go back to twenty twenty three, I believe
Speaker 2: in February of when this all happened, and we set
Speaker 2: this up in that Brendan Banfield and his wife, Christine Banfield.
Speaker 1: Did they have they had a kid or two?
Speaker 4: Well, he had a four year old daughter who.
Speaker 2: Was in the house at the time. That's all the charges,
Speaker 2: but that's not the big selling point here. But what
Speaker 2: we're talking about is Christine Banfield. They can you say
Speaker 2: the pair's name to me? I couldn't say.
Speaker 3: It's a It's a Juliana Perez Magalhaes is how I
Speaker 3: would best. I'm not great at Portuguese, but Juliana Perez.
Speaker 1: Macalas Magalas is what we're gonna go with for this.
Speaker 3: Episode with Magals and then when we get to the
Speaker 3: trial and we hear her name pronounced differently, will adjust.
Speaker 2: Okay, so the opening statements are actually going to start
Speaker 2: today in this trial. But as prosecutors describe, the setup
Speaker 2: here is that these two were involved in an affair,
Speaker 2: the man and the old pair, and they come up
Speaker 2: with this plan robes to kill the wife, but to
Speaker 2: make it look like some stranger did it.
Speaker 4: Correct. So, according to the prosecutors.
Speaker 3: The pair and Banfield created a fake pro file on
Speaker 3: a website called fetlife dot com and it's described as
Speaker 3: a BDSM and fantasy dating website. And according to prosecutors,
Speaker 3: the a Pair and Banfield pretended to be Christine, his wife,
Speaker 3: so they set up a fake profile pretending to be
Speaker 3: his wife. Then the pairs told prosecutors that she and
Speaker 3: Brendan logged onto Christine's work computer to use this fake account.
Speaker 3: They set up to solicit someone to fulfill a sexual fantasy.
Speaker 3: So they find this guy who responds and they convince
Speaker 3: him to come to the home to carry out a
Speaker 3: rape fantasy involving a knife. This is the setup that
Speaker 3: they've created, so they raise.
Speaker 2: It sounds this is the normal part already, it's crazy
Speaker 2: as it sounds actually nothing wrong has taken place. These
Speaker 2: websites are out there, your thing, knock yourselves out. But
Speaker 2: at this point, this is an unsuspecting guy who was
Speaker 2: signing up for whatever he's into.
Speaker 4: Thirty nine year old Joseph Ryan.
Speaker 3: He's like, all right, I'll come and fulfill your sexual
Speaker 3: fantasy of a rape with a knife.
Speaker 4: They said that they got specific.
Speaker 3: According to the pair, she actually got on the phone
Speaker 3: with him, so he heard a woman's voice. He felt
Speaker 3: confident that he was walking into a consensual situation. She
Speaker 3: said she wanted him to cut her clothes off, hold
Speaker 3: her at knife point, and simulate a rape. Basically, so
Speaker 3: the plan was and what ended up happening is when
Speaker 3: Joseph Ryan shows up to the house and starts to
Speaker 3: carry out the plan. Brendan Banfield and the Old Pair
Speaker 3: then burst into the bedroom to save the day. But
Speaker 3: what actually happened is they claim that Banfield stabbed Christine
Speaker 3: with that knife and then shot Ryan, and then even
Speaker 3: the Old Pair admits she also shot Ryan for a
Speaker 3: final shot to make sure he was dead. That is
Speaker 3: what prosecutors say happen, and they say they have the
Speaker 3: a pair there to verify everything.
Speaker 4: That happened as it happened.
Speaker 2: So they were both charged, Brendan Banfield and the old
Speaker 2: pair initially, but she pleaded to lesser charges. The reason
Speaker 2: we have all the details, rope you just laid out,
Speaker 2: and the reason prosecutors know more about this story is
Speaker 2: because she turned essentially on Brendan Banfield. However, this is
Speaker 2: going to be a complicated case, and that there were
Speaker 2: until she turned.
Speaker 1: They were flapping in the wind.
Speaker 2: They didn't seem to really have a full understanding of
Speaker 2: what actually took place in that house.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because I mean imagine that scene and Brendan is
Speaker 3: telling them, hey, guys, you know, look what happened. I
Speaker 3: walked in and I saw this man with a knife
Speaker 3: over my wife, and so I immediately shot him as
Speaker 3: he was stabbing my wife. So seemed like he thought
Speaker 3: he had the perfect murder plan.
Speaker 2: Is he standing by? I know, obviously not guilty, but
Speaker 2: is he standing by? Is his defense going to be what?
Speaker 3: Yes, the defense is going to be that the pair,
Speaker 3: for whatever reason, who knows what motivation they're going.
Speaker 1: To give the pair trying to save her own.
Speaker 3: Butt exactly, but they're going to claim that she made
Speaker 3: the whole thing up. Now he is facing two counts
Speaker 3: of aggravated murder, one count of use of a firearm
Speaker 3: in the commission of a felony, account of felony child
Speaker 3: abuse and neglect, an account of felony child cruelty because
Speaker 3: his four year old was at the home at the
Speaker 3: time of these murders. And that's all important because that
Speaker 3: creates this situation needed for them to give aggravated murder charges.
Speaker 3: When you have aggravated murder charges, you can seek the
Speaker 3: highest form of punishment possible, which could include the death penalty.
Speaker 3: So that's why these extra charges are important. And a
Speaker 3: murder case like this also, of note, the cameras are
Speaker 3: in the courtroom, and this is really rare in Virginia.
Speaker 3: I was watching a local news reporter who said, the
Speaker 3: last time this happened was in twenty twenty two, and
Speaker 3: we will all remember actually the last time cameras were
Speaker 3: in a courtroom in Virginia, and that was for the
Speaker 3: amber heard Johnny Depp trial, which we.
Speaker 4: Were pretty much all glued to.
Speaker 3: And the reason why those two things might be connected
Speaker 3: here is the same judge who oversaw that case is
Speaker 3: overseeing this case case. And she said, hey, didn't see
Speaker 3: any problem with the transparency. The cameras worked well in
Speaker 3: that court case, so I'm going to allow them in
Speaker 3: this court case. And so that's why there's even more
Speaker 3: attention on this particular murder trial. It's already salatious enough,
Speaker 3: but to know that there are cameras in the courtroom
Speaker 3: is a big deal.
Speaker 2: It's a big deal, and it gives everybody a chance
Speaker 2: to follow this case. And again it's we always have
Speaker 2: to be careful. I mean, is it's it's a tragedy.
Speaker 2: It's we say selatious. And already the headline you see
Speaker 2: with some are writing and being funny about the old
Speaker 2: pair and things like that. It's I know, it's become like,
Speaker 2: let's just be honest about it. Crime has become a
Speaker 2: part of our entertainment unfortunately. But you have to remember
Speaker 2: the victims here in not just the dead, but including
Speaker 2: the child who was in that home, who was going
Speaker 2: to be without at least one parent for an extending right.
Speaker 1: It was his child. It wasn't their child together all of.
Speaker 3: The way they have phrased. It was his child, his
Speaker 3: four year old. So yes, and that you make a
Speaker 3: really good point. Christine Manfield, the wife thirty seven years old.
Speaker 3: She was a pediatric intensive care nurse. Think about pediatric
Speaker 3: intensive care nurses. You know, we don't know this woman,
Speaker 3: but just by knowing what she did for a living
Speaker 3: says a lot about who she was and the profession
Speaker 3: she chose. And I just think that's important to remember.
Speaker 3: And yes, thirty nine year old Joseph Bryant, you know
Speaker 3: people I'm sure just are very dismissive.
Speaker 2: Oh that's funny. We were talking about this the other
Speaker 2: day in a totally different context about just name some
Speaker 2: professions that as soon as you hear the profession you
Speaker 2: immediately jumped to a conclusion about that person. And we
Speaker 2: were actually talking about fighter violences and some different stuff.
Speaker 2: You were and when you say pediatric intensive care nurse, like,
Speaker 2: we know what an ICU is just in general, and
Speaker 2: you're in bad shape to think that someone is caring
Speaker 2: for or the most vulnerable in their most vulnerable state. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I didn't know this about the woman that immediately to
Speaker 2: tell you something.
Speaker 4: All of a sudden, your heart just in a different
Speaker 4: way out.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it feels something different because you start to get
Speaker 3: an idea of who this woman was and the callousness
Speaker 3: if this is all true what prosecutors say that because
Speaker 3: he didn't want to be married to her and he
Speaker 3: wanted to go right off into the sunset with so parent,
Speaker 3: that's fine, divorce her. I never understand Is it then
Speaker 3: about money? Is it then about pride? Is it then
Speaker 3: about something else? Why go to that next level with
Speaker 3: this woman who clearly chose a life of service. It's
Speaker 3: just it's a sad story altogether.
Speaker 2: But in terms of somebody she was a part of
Speaker 2: inviting into their home, yes.
Speaker 3: Yes to take and yes this is this a parent
Speaker 3: by the way, this and this will likely play into
Speaker 3: the defense, and we'll get into this in just a moment,
Speaker 3: but as a part of the all pairs plea agreement,
Speaker 3: I think it's really important to note.
Speaker 4: So this happened in twenty twenty three.
Speaker 3: They are going to reckon Fairfax County prosecutors that she
Speaker 3: just gets a sentence of time already served, meaning she
Speaker 3: will not spend any time in jail other than what
Speaker 3: she's spent already.
Speaker 4: So what is that two years at the most two
Speaker 4: years plus.
Speaker 3: So she's from Brazil, as we mentioned, and her sentencing
Speaker 3: notably has been delayed until after this trial. So she
Speaker 3: will be cooperating with prosecutors taking the witness stand, and
Speaker 3: then once the trial is over, she will be deported
Speaker 3: to Brazil a free woman. That is some compelling information
Speaker 3: to know. And surely the defense will capitalize on that
Speaker 3: that she had every reason to turn on him.
Speaker 2: And this makes her testimony now when this trial must
Speaker 2: see you have to see she is key because now
Speaker 2: she is being given.
Speaker 1: A hell of a deal.
Speaker 4: A golden parish.
Speaker 1: Is she is? It appears Robes their only hope of
Speaker 1: convicting this guy.
Speaker 3: Yes and so so in addition to her testimony and
Speaker 3: what his defense will be, well, there is another twist
Speaker 3: in this case, guys. A hearing over this summer revealed
Speaker 3: that a Virginia detective, so someone who was with the
Speaker 3: Fairfax County Police Department, could also be a key part
Speaker 3: of the defense in dismantling a big part of the
Speaker 3: prosecution's allegations.
Speaker 2: All right, folks, we continue here on Amy and TJ.
Speaker 2: Brendan Banfield opening statements set for this morning in the
Speaker 2: case of what is being dubbed the O Pair affair.
Speaker 1: Is that what?
Speaker 4: That's what they're saying?
Speaker 2: Yes, but yes, Brendan Banfield involved in an affair with
Speaker 2: the old pair Brazilian o pair. His wife ends up
Speaker 2: dead along with another man who they had lured to
Speaker 2: the home, unsuspecting guy who thought he was coming for
Speaker 2: a sexual fetish fantasy role playing thing with thee but
Speaker 2: instead the wife was stabbed and then they shot, according
Speaker 2: to prosecutors, this other man, to make it look like
Speaker 2: they shot and killed the intruder, expecting to be heroes
Speaker 2: right off into the sunset and then can be together.
Speaker 2: But that's not the case. They are being or he
Speaker 2: is on trial today. She, however, robes very important point,
Speaker 2: is not on trial. She has, for lack of a
Speaker 2: lack of a better term, she turned.
Speaker 4: On him, yes, exactly.
Speaker 3: And after opening statements this morning, which again begin at
Speaker 3: ten am. There are many legal experts who believe the
Speaker 3: prosecution may start out with a bang, and they may
Speaker 3: call the OU pair to the stand first. So a
Speaker 3: lot of electricity in that courtroom this morning as people
Speaker 3: wait to see who takes the stand first. Someone put
Speaker 3: it like this, only four people know exactly what happened
Speaker 3: in that bedroom. Two of them are dead, one of
Speaker 3: them is on trial for his life, and the other
Speaker 3: is expected to testify. That's how important this testimony is today.
Speaker 2: So the last two, the two that are alive, we
Speaker 2: have no reason to believe them. Like, as a juror,
Speaker 2: am I gonna believe Hi'm me trying to save his ass?
Speaker 2: I'm gonna believe her he's trying to save hers. So
Speaker 2: what is the actual evidence show? We always do this
Speaker 2: in these trials, Rod, would you put yourself in the
Speaker 2: position of the juror and looking at this, My question
Speaker 2: is that what is the evidence? Because I don't believe anybody.
Speaker 3: Right, because you can say whatever you want to say
Speaker 3: to conveniently fit your theory. That saves your butt the most. Now,
Speaker 3: there is another twist in this case that we teased
Speaker 3: before we went to break. So in a hearing over
Speaker 3: the summer, a Fairfax County detective who is.
Speaker 4: Trained in digital forensics.
Speaker 3: He testified that is he analyzed all of the digital
Speaker 3: data in this in terms of that fetish site website
Speaker 3: that the prosecution claims, and that the O pair says
Speaker 3: they went on and created in Christine's name on her
Speaker 3: computer and solicited this man to come over to the home. Well,
Speaker 3: this detective said that it is his professional conclusion that
Speaker 3: it was Christine on the computer, not Brendan and the
Speaker 3: AU pair. Now it's not just this one detective who
Speaker 3: says this. He actually had his team who prepared this
Speaker 3: analyzed by the University of Alabama, so they had it
Speaker 3: peer reviewed and the University of Alabama evidence analysis team
Speaker 3: affirmed the detective's finding. So you have a group of
Speaker 3: people now who say, after looking at the digital footprint
Speaker 3: left behind on Christine's computer, they believe it was Christine
Speaker 3: who solicited this fetish worker. I don't know how to
Speaker 3: describe what that profession is.
Speaker 2: Oh, was it a professional guy who just I thought
Speaker 2: it was just a site for random not anybody.
Speaker 4: Oh, you're right.
Speaker 3: I guess maybe it was just a meet up hook
Speaker 3: up thing. I guess maybe there was no money.
Speaker 1: Experience, right, you're right, of course you're thinking, I'm right.
Speaker 4: I'm thinking.
Speaker 3: Okay, So, yes, this was just a consensual, mutual thing
Speaker 3: where two people agree to meet and play out sexual fantasy.
Speaker 3: So they're claiming it was Christine, not Brendan and the
Speaker 3: old pair. So how does that change?
Speaker 1: It changes everything.
Speaker 3: Everything, because now you can't believe anything the O pair
Speaker 3: has said on the jury.
Speaker 2: If you prove to me, if you tell me that
Speaker 2: she was the one sending and recruiting and having that
Speaker 2: guy come over.
Speaker 3: I mean right, And could you make the jury believe
Speaker 3: or at least plant a seed of reasonable doubt in
Speaker 3: their heads that the O pair was upset that he
Speaker 3: ended an affair with her, or that she was about
Speaker 3: to get fired, or that he was about to maybe
Speaker 3: and so this was her way to get back at him,
Speaker 3: to make the whole plot look.
Speaker 4: Like he did it. But see, she's still.
Speaker 3: Been behind bars and still admitted to shooting Ryan. So
Speaker 3: that's the only thing. Why would she do that.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of wise with a lot of folks
Speaker 1: in this thing.
Speaker 2: But ro would you you brought up what I think
Speaker 2: is key If you want to tell you're going to
Speaker 2: tell me somebody out there whose job it is. This
Speaker 2: is a we know about forensic examination now even know
Speaker 2: about digital forensics these days. You're telling me there's a
Speaker 2: guy who swear and this guy was moved from his position.
Speaker 2: The timing is weird. They say it had nothing to
Speaker 2: do with a disciplinary action or because he wasn't going
Speaker 2: along with the program. But he just happened to get moved,
Speaker 2: not fired. He was moved through a different divisions yeah,
Speaker 2: there it is so that for me, at least as
Speaker 2: a juror, if they allowed, I would raise my hand
Speaker 2: and ask questions, and this would be one of the first.
Speaker 2: But if somebody in a whole group backed him up, that's.
Speaker 4: What you said, Yes, the University of Alabama.
Speaker 2: Now, as SEC folks whould say, ah, it's Alabama trying.
Speaker 4: To weigh in my feelings about Alabama.
Speaker 1: Alabama, Georgia, we love you. That's just that's just an
Speaker 1: SEC joke. As rivals, you can't believe anything in al No. No,
Speaker 1: but they have backed it up.
Speaker 2: Yes, then you're gonna have to approve to me that
Speaker 2: these two are responsible for getting that guy to the house,
Speaker 2: because if they're not, that means they did not premeditate
Speaker 2: and plan to murder him and her.
Speaker 4: This is a fascinating case.
Speaker 3: It'll be fascinating to watch the ou pair take the
Speaker 3: stand and yes, how the prosecution overcomes that big problem
Speaker 3: they have in terms of their timeline and their premeditation.
Speaker 3: You make such a good point, so we will be watching.
Speaker 3: We will keep you updated. Again. The trial begins at
Speaker 3: ten a m. Eastern time in Virginia. But in the meantime,
Speaker 3: thank you everyone, for listening to us. I'm Amy Robot
Speaker 3: alongside TJ.
Speaker 4: Holmes. We will talk to you soon.