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