The jury in the au pair murder trial found Brendan Banfield guilty of murdering his wife and a stranger in his home on February 23, 2023. Throughout the trial, the prosecution argued he lured a man from the internet in an elaborate scheme to get rid of his spouse without getting his hands dirty so he could be with his au pair, with whom he was having an affair. 

Jury Delivers a Guilty Verdict

Brendan Banfield, 40, was accused of stabbing his wife, Christine Banfield, to death and fatally shooting Joseph Ryan, a strange man from the internet who was lured to their home under the guise that he was to play out the wife’s ‘rape fantasy’. Prosecutors alleged Banfield catfished Ryan, claiming to be his wife on a fetish website, to lure him to their home and frame him for the murder.

According to Banfield’s account, the au pair called him home, reporting that a stranger was in the house. He came home and ran up to his bedroom with his government-issued firearm drawn, and found his naked wife yelling that the man had a knife. He fired his gun at the stranger’s head, but he had already stabbed Banfield’s wife, who was found with seven knife wounds to the neck.

The jury deliberated for almost nine hours over two days, beginning on Friday, January 30. They reached a verdict Monday afternoon and found him guilty of two counts of aggravated murder. As the verdict was ready, Banfield showed little emotion, even while knowing he faces a life sentence without the possibility of parole. His sentencing hearing has been scheduled for May 8, 2026.

Arrest and Charges

Banfield, a former IRS agent, was charged and arrested in September 2024 with aggravated murder, while the 25-year-old Brazilian au pair Juliana Peres Magalhães was arrested in October 2023and charged with second-degree murder for the death of Ryan. These arrests came after a months-long investigation into the victims’ deaths, and the evidence began piling up.

Prosecutors alleged Banfield and the au pair were having an affair and plotted the murders together. Before the trial began, Peres Magalhães accepted a plea deal from prosecutors, allowing her to plead guilty to manslaughter in exchange for testifying against her lover. She will receive time served for her testimony during the trial.

Concluding The Trial

During the prosecution’s closing arguments on Friday, lead prosecutor Jenna Sands claimed the murders were premeditated. “He was in love with Juliana. He can pretend that this was a fling and affair — he’d had them before, no big deal. He was in love with Juliana,” she said. “He was afraid of losing her. He needed to get rid of his wife so that they could be together, so that they could marry, so that they could have those babies that he was picking out names for.”

However, when Banfield was put on the stand in his defense, he denied plotting to murder his wife. “I think that it’s an absurd line of questioning for something that is not serious, that a plan was made to get rid of my wife,” he testified. “That is absolutely crazy.” He admitted to having an affair with their au pair, but he and his wife both engaged in affairs, so it was not abnormal for their relationship.

Sands noted the digital and forensic evidence that was presented at trial, pointing out that there was no evidence that Christine Banfield engaged in dating or fetish websites. She argued the crime scene had been “manipulated,” and that a blood spatter expert confirmed the likelihood of that claim. She concluded by reminding the jurors that the au pair testified and “told us how the plan was crafted and how it played out.”

John Carroll, Banfield’s defense attorney, pushed back on the prosecution’s claims and far-fetched theory that his client lured a man under false pretenses to murder his wife and him, and stage the crime scene. He said the au pair was forced to testify against him, claiming she was in a vulnerable position and the state took advantage. She had no other choice but to “secure herself a deal that benefited her.“

Banfield testified that the allegations against him made no sense, and his defense continually argued that they did not.“Is it reasonable, after a six- to eight-week affair, that someone is going to try to get rid of their companion of 19 years, wife of 12 years? Is that reasonable?” Carroll asked the jury. “You heard from my client: He thinks it’s absurd.”