The prosecution rested its case yesterday in the Au Pair murder trial against Brendan Banfield, who has been accused of orchestrating and carrying out the murder of his wife, Christine Banfield, and a random man, Joseph Ryan. 

The trial is wrapping up quickly as prosecutors called their final witness to the stand on January 20, 2026. Now the defense has the opportunity to plead their client’s innocence, and they are vocally confident in their case. They claim that the prosecution “missed their target.”

Final State Witnesses

Prosecutors allege Banfield took such extreme measures because he was having an affair with his Au Pair, Juliana Magalhães, who was the first witness the prosecution called to the stand. Their final witnesses before they rested their case were Christine Banfield’s father, a blood stain pattern, and a forensic analyst

Christine’s father, Gary Benson, talked about his daughter’s lifelong blood disorder that caused excessive bleeding and made her bruise easily. He countered the defense’s argument that Christine created the online account and invited Joseph Ryan over for violent sex play. He said her condition would have prevented her from engaging in knife play that her so-called persona, ‘Anastasia 9’, had requested.

The blood spatter expert and forensic analyst, Iris Dalley Graff, testified to her analysis of the blood stains at the scene of the crime and on Ryan’s body. She reinforced the prosecutor’s argument that Banfield may have manipulated the scene to make it seem like Ryan killed Christine. She explained that the blood flow on Ryan’s face went in different directions, suggesting his head was moving while it was still wet. 

More examples were discussed to prove the prosecution’s point, such as the blood from Ryan’s hands were tranferred from an object to his hands. Blood also flowed down his hands towards his elbow, and not his wrist, indicating they were held up and not rested down at his sides. The droplets on Banfield’s pants compared with the ones on Ryan’s body were indicative that an object with blood was in motion, sending it airborne before landing on a surface. 

Defense Counters Discredits Au Pair

The defense countered the prosecution’s witnesses, suggesting that the bruise and blood on Ryan’s hands showed signs of using the knife to stab Christine. They also said the blood flow on Ryan’s face might have been from the blood he coughed up out of his mouth. 

After they countered, the prosecution rested its case. The defense requested a motion to dismiss the charges, claiming that the au pair was not credible, and there was no DNA evidence to implicate Banfield. The judge ultimately denied their motion.

Defense Witnesses

Banfield’s defense went headstrong into day 5 of the au pair affair murder trial by calling five witnesses to the stand, and releasing the 71 letters that Magalhães wrote to the defendant in prison, insinuating she changed her story. They argued that prosecutors developed “tunnel vision” when they charged Banfield and pressured the codefendant to lie in their favor. They talked to Detective Brendan Miller and asked about his reassignment after he analyzed devices that belonged to Christine and the suspects.

In Miller’s analysis, he determined that Christine was in control of her devices and paid attention to new accounts created. Defense attorney John Carroll said he believes Miller was transferred because his determinations did not align with the state’s theory that Banfield orchestrated the entire thing.

Miller reviewed his findings, and even after the au pair gave her statement to the prosecutors, he remained consistent. The forensic data and his conclusions did not change, even when Au Pair Magalhães claimed she and Banfield made the account.

The defense also played bodycam video footage taken by patrol officers who informed Banfield of his wife being brutally stabbed to death. Banfield was emotional as he and the jury watched the video of him reacting to the tragic news.

Another bloodstain expert was brought in to challenge the other analyst’s statement. LeeAnn Singley explained that you could not classify the droplets on Ryan due to the possible distortion caused by the target surface. She said the knife injuries on Ryan’s finger, such as the bruise and the puncture wound, were common. Neither Banfield nor the au pair showed signs of injury to their hands.