Au Pair Love Triangle Murder Trial — VA v. Brendan Banfield: Full Closing Arguments

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Okay. Good morning. Thank you so much, not just for what you're going to do today, but for all of the time that you have spent carefully considering the evidence that we've been able to put before you for the attention that you've paid, for the notes that you've taken for the time that you've given up away from your daily lives, your jobs, and your families. Without your work here, Christine Banfield and Joseph Ryan would not be able to find justice. So thank you. The judge has read the instructions to you. They'll go back to the jury room with you, and you're going to have those as your guide in making your decision. I would draw your attention to the fact that you've been given two counts of aggravated murder, one count of use of a firearm and commission of murder, and one count of child endangerment. Talking first about the aggravated murder instructions. They have three parts. You'll first need to find that Brendan Banfield killed Christine Banfield and Joseph Ryan. You'll need to find that those killings were willful, deliberate, and premeditated. You'll need to find, for one of the counts, that those two murders occurred within a three-year period, and for the other count, that those two murders occurred within the same transaction or occurrence. We know that they were killed during the same event within the Banfield residence, so that should knock that one out for you. Three years, pretty simple as well. We know that they occurred on the same day. It's the first element that we're going to talk about. That Brendan Banfield killed both Christine Banfield and Joseph Ryan. We know that on February 24, 2023, he executed his plan to murder his wife and an innocent stranger. 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. 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. Juliana told us how the plan was crafted and how it played out that morning in the Banfield house. But you've heard directly from our detectives and our experts the uncontradicted evidence of Brendan Banfield's culpability. You needn't rely only on Juliana's story. There has been a plethora of evidence to help you meet your burden in this case. Let's walk through just the highlights. Our digital evidence. While the digital evidence cannot tell us definitively who was behind the screen. We heard that a bunch. We know that to be true. What it can tell us is that Brendan Banfield and Juliana Perez-Magulis are more likely to be the ones to have set up Joe Ryan to come into the house to fake rape Christine on February 24th. There is no digital history, none, of Christine Banfield using dating sites, fetish sites, searching for pornography, talking to other men prior to the January inception of this scheme. Brendan told you that more than 10 years ago there were incidents of affairs involving rough sex. But you have zero evidence to corroborate that self-serving statement. Think about the two days of Mr. Lidsky's testimony for the defense and the three times that Detective Miller was called to this stand. If there was one scintilla of evidence that supported these claims of infidelity, of interest in sexual violence, don't you think you might have heard about it? The FetLife and Telegram contacts all occur on Christine's laptop, frequently while her phone is in use with something completely innocuous. You remember the frozen tickets, the Lululemon shopping, the family vacations the day before the murder? Two devices, two different people. The FetLife and Telegram usage only ever occurred when Brendan Banfield and Juliana Perez-Magalas are in the home. Is it at all plausible that this woman wouldn't take advantage of an empty house to engage in her plans for adultery? That on the two weekends that her husband and the nanny are out of the house, those are the two weekends where we see zero FetLife activity, zero telegram activity. Let's look at the chats themselves. Slide one. How many potential targets were turned down by Juliana and Brendan because they wanted to meet in person first? Because they wanted to talk on the phone? Because they wanted pictures that included Christine's face. Does this make any sense for someone seeking a new relationship in a area of sexual exploration that would be new to them? Why would the real Christine Banfield have been concerned about taking these safety precautions? For that matter, why would the real Christine Banfield have been searching for someone who was willing to engage in knife play when she had a blood clotting disorder? Why would Christine use a photo from a phone taken in a gym bathroom when she has all of these far better pictures available? That one keeps stumping us. There are so many more whys, and I'm sure you have plenty of them in your own heads, but the answer is the same to all of these whys. Because it wasn't Christine, it was Brendan Banfield with the help of Juliana. Let's talk about our physical evidence. You heard from Detective Leach, Dr. Kessler, Ms. McCarthy, Dr. Greenspoon, Ms. Colombo. She was up there forever with all those lab sheets. They gave us a million things to think about. Slide four. Christine Banfield died as a result of seven stab wounds to her neck. She suffered massive blood loss. Next, the knife Brendan used to kill her was a kitchen knife with an approximately four inch blade, the kind you use for chopping up vegetables. This was the knife that Joe Ryan brought because Anastasia asked him to. This was not the killing knife that Brendan Banfield had envisioned for his scheme. Next, Joe Ryan was shot twice. Once in the head by Brendan Banfield, incapacitating him. A second time by Juliana in the chest, tearing a large hole through his heart and lodging in his spine. His wounds were rapidly fatal, according to Dr. Kessler, and we saw that there was little to no blood from the chest wound. Iris Daly-Graph told you that he would have been incapable of movement following that second shot. Next. We saw evidentiary confirmation of the affair. The semen stains on Juliana's bed sheets. We also saw the photos of Juliana's clothing moved into the primary bedroom when the search warrant was executed in October following the murders. We saw the photos of Brendan and Juliana together both before and after the murders. Her photos from her Instagram, their family photos in the bedroom after the murder. We saw the records from the shooting range for the purchase of the gun and the training of Juliana to shoot it. Slide eight. We saw the deactivation of the automatic locking feature on the front door at 5:47 a.m. the morning of the murders done from Christine's phone by the person who knew how the locking system operated. Brendan Manfield. We saw Christine's phone turned off at 6:46 a.m. and hidden in a drawer in a bar table in the kitchen. This is just not where you keep your phone. This is not where we heard that this woman kept her phone. This is not where a person who's about to engage in potentially risky behavior puts her source of help. A floor away, turned off, in a drawer, off to the side of the kitchen. Just doesn't make sense. We saw Brendan Manfield drive to McDonald's and hang out, waiting for the call from Juliana. We see their call records, 10 and 11, between Juliana, Christine's phone, which is turned off. Brendan, Christine's phone, which is turned off. They're creating a record. It's a plan. It is premeditated. We see this false attempt to check in on Christine so that they can tell the story to the police when they arrive that they did everything they possibly could. Next, we see the lock at the top of the basement door that Brendan Banfield did not think to engage to protect his daughter. Even under his own version of this event, he agrees he didn't think about it. He left his four-year-old child in the basement with guns out, stranger in the house, and something happening that caused him to be concerned. We heard the 911 calls. We have a hang-up at 7:47 with Joe moaning in the background, and then a 15-minute gap before anyone calls 911 back. 8:02. 15 minutes between when someone in that house thought the police should be there, and when they finally asked for help. We saw the body-worn camera and the photos from the scene. Blankets piled near the bodies. Brendan Banfield kneeling on this blue towel, the towel that has very little staining, completely inconsistent with having been used to stop the flow of blood coming from Christine's neck. We heard that the carpet was soaked through to the subfloor. We saw Brendan Banfield's handcuffs that he didn't use. Magazines full of bullets he didn't shoot, collected from him after the murders. And finally, the blood evidence. You heard from Lieutenant Giachio and former Deputy Chief Brouche that it was Iris Daly-Graph's report that finally pushed this case over the edge and brought the charges against Mr. Banfield months before Juliana decided to flip. That's how strong this evidence is. That's how reliable this evidence is. Ms. Daly-Graph walked us through so many inconsistencies in this scene, proving that it had been manipulated. And you heard absolutely nothing from the defense about this evidence. Mr. Banfield gave you zero explanation for any of this evidence. Slide 15. They have provided no explanation for Christine's blood smeared on the right hand of Joe Ryan, leaving voids between the fingers. They have no explanation for the blood smeared across the top of the right on to the left, leaving that void on Joe Ryan's hand where they had been overlapping. For that matter, you have no explanation from defense for how his hands came to be in that position, neatly folded on his chest, covering the bullet wound that penetrated his spine, immobilizing him. How could that have happened if you are to believe Mr. Banfield? There's been no explanation for the bloody hand-like smears on Joseph Ryan's jeans containing Christine Banfield's DNA. There's been no explanation from defense for how his jeans ended up bunched under his rear. Next slide. There's been nothing to tell us why a mixture of Joseph Ryan and Christine Banfield's blood could possibly have been on the inside of his waistband, at the buttonhole, on the button, and on the zipper. Nothing from the defense to explain how Joe Ryan could possibly have manipulated his pants after being shot in the head, given that no other bleeding wounds were present. If his blood is on those pants, on that button, on that zipper, he was bleeding when they were touched, how could he have been, he, Joseph Ryan, have been the one to touch his button, his zipper, the waistband of his pants, to pull them down in that fashion? Brenton told you he never touched Joseph Ryan. And yet we have distinctive finger-shaped parallel lines on Joseph Ryan's arm, and small circular stains consistent with blood having been dropped from above, while Joseph Ryan lay on his back. Next. Then there's the blood on Joe's hip. Blood that traveled onto his body and then ran down to the floor with the assistance of gravity while he lay prone. It couldn't have come from his chest. That wound barely bled. He was laying down when blood was shed. Makes it pretty impossible that he stabbed Christine Banfield. On the other hand, Brendan Banfield has cast off on his jeans. He has blood all over his hands. The blood stains on the backpack don't line up with the position of its contents. The blood on Joe's face is not consistent with his final position. And, I'm sorry, I'm back to Joe's hands. This scene was manipulated. And it wasn't by Joe. It wasn't by Christine. And according to him, Juliana didn't do it. You have zero explanation from the defense as to how all of this blood evidence can be as it is. The Commonwealth gave you an explanation. Brendan Banfield and Juliana Perez-Mogulis colluded to kill Joseph Ryan and Christine Banfield. That makes sense. They created accounts. They chatted up potential victims. They got Joe Ryan into the house and then they shot him. Brendan stabbed Christine. Let her bleed out on the floor and then dripped, smeared, and wiped her blood on Joseph Ryan's body to make it look like he had attacked Christine. Then they called the police. Brendan let Juliana take the fall. And it took a little bit of doing. But here we are and it's his turn to be held accountable. All of this evidence can leave you with no doubt that Brendan Banfield killed Joseph Ryan and Christine Banfield. That is the first element of the aggravated homicide statute. The hard work is done. Element two, that the killing was willful, done with a bad purpose, intentional, and deliberate. There can be no question in your minds as to the intentionality of this act, the deliberateness of this act. You must also find that it was premeditated. That at some point before the killing, he decided to kill Christine and Joe. I believe that we presented you with that evidence as well. For one of the offenses, you find that he killed two people within three years. As we've identified, same day, definitely within three years. For the other offense, you find that it was two people killed during the same transaction or occurrence. They were both killed in the room. As part of the same plot. By the same person. Same transaction or occurrence. The second offense is for the use of a firearm in the commission of the murders. We know from our experts that Joe Ryan died of his multiple gunshot wounds. One of which came from Brendan. If you have any question about whether or not Brendan can be held responsible when Juliana also shot Joseph Ryan, you'll have instruction O. That is concert of action. So I'm going to read to you what it says. If there is concert of action with the resulting crime, one of its incidental probable consequences, then whether such crime was originally contemplated or not, all who participate in any way in bringing it about are equally answerable and bound by the acts of every other person connected with the consummation of such resulting crime. Virginia makes it easy. Translate. If you think that Juliana Perez-Margles and Brendan Banfield were working together to kill Christine and Joseph Ryan, then Brendan can be responsible for Joseph Ryan's death, regardless of which bullet did the most damage. It's not a test of either or. They were working together. That makes him equally responsible. The last charge is the endangerment to Valerie. So while in his custody that the defendant willfully or negligently caused or permitted the life of such child to be endangered, he made it out to be Juliana's idea, but he brought Valerie into that home. He left her in the basement knowing that Joe Ryan was upstairs. He left her in the basement while he shot and killed Joe Ryan. He left her in the basement while he stabbed his wife. He could have locked the door. He could have done this on a day she wasn't home. He could have made arrangements for someone else to have her overnight. But that didn't work with his plan. So he's guilty of this offense as well. I appreciate again all of the attention that you've given. I appreciate again all of the hard work you're about to face. Please be thoughtful in your deliberations. But at the end of the day, I don't think that there can be any reasonable doubt that Mr. Banfield has committed each and every one of the offenses that we have put before you today. Thank you. [00:20:48] Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. Cross-examination, Mr. Mayor. [00:20:50] Speaker 1: I'm sorry. [00:20:51] Speaker 2: Closing arguments. Sharon, may I bring a bottle of water up in front of you? You can. Thank you. [00:20:55] Speaker 1: I just need to get the microphone. It's on. [00:21:05] Speaker ?: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. [00:21:17] Speaker 2: Can you hear me? That's been a little bit of a problem, but I have it right on me at this point. I join in the Commonwealth's thanks for your attention for the time that you've put into this. I intend to present to you with highlights of many of the things that we went through, but I can assure you I'm not going to be going through the evidence that's already been moved in. And it took a long time, and you were very patient, and everyone was very patient. Can everyone hear that? Okay. I'll try to speak a little louder. Ladies and gentlemen, I join in thanking you for your time, for your attention. You could see over the nearly three weeks that everybody was attentive, and that's something that is something that's crucial to this process, and so I thank you. When my children were younger, I used to walk out of the house and tell them, "I'm going to defend the Constitution." They didn't have any idea what that was, and oftentimes that became, "Okay, whatever, Dad." It was -- I was a prosecutor then. I was a prosecutor in Fairfax County. And what that meant to me was, you presented a case, no matter who it was, you presented a case where you looked at all possibilities, and you looked at all evidence to determine and to make sure that you were pursuing someone that the evidence would support. In this case, this was quite unusual. When we first met for the initial opening, I talked to you about some things that I thought you should look into. I thought that you should have an ear towards what is it that they're going to present as evidence. And even I was surprised that the evidence that ultimately was presented by the Commonwealth was actually from my case. The only people that were called to testify from the Commonwealth's case-in-chief were for body cam video, police officers, a couple of those, and Detective Terry Leach. And he was the one who identified all of the scene photos. He identified many of the pieces of evidence that were brought in. And he was able to talk a little bit about things such as the blood stains on the gun, the blood stains next to the bed. And what he told you, ladies and gentlemen, this was the extent of, I think, their testimony in their case, was that there are numerous things within this scene that we can see in pictures, but they were never tested. There are numerous things that became the centerpiece of the fantastic story that the Commonwealth tells, yet they were never tested. For example, if I were to have the opportunity to cross-examine, say, the chief detective of this case, I might ask, why wasn't their fingerprints done or even DNA of this gun safe that we hear about? We hear Juliana goes into the back bathroom and talks about getting a gun. It changes a little bit over time. But if someone had said they went to the gun safe, because we're talking about guns, we're talking about shooting, why wouldn't there be some sort of evidence to either corroborate or preclude that possibility? I asked Detective Leach. He says, well, it's really up to the forensic examiners. They make the decision. In looking at the scene, you'll notice in the body cam video that you're going to be reviewing, there's a point when first responders come in and you see Brendan kneeling down next to his wife, rendering aid. He just shot Joe Ryan. He testified yesterday he puts the gun down to his right, which is where his holster is. And he also indicates to you in his testimony yesterday that he moves the knife away from Joe Ryan. So, the staining on the bed where my client put the gun for the first responders, because whenever there's any sort of a shooting, you have to make sure that you are nowhere near the gun, in the event that you're perceived as someone who's hostile. He puts it to the corner of the bed. And the questions that remain were, did anybody ever test the blood on that gun? And you hear from Detective Leach, you can't do that. It was already test fired and now would be potential for contaminant. Now, we didn't test the stains down on the floor where the gun was lying in before it went up on the bed. And we didn't test the gun, which appeared to be something that a serologist could just take a swab of. Yet, there's some significance placed on the fact that there was a blood stain where the gun was when it had been sitting in a puddle. And so, that actually was tested. So, in terms of the blood stain pattern analysis, which appears to be the common most main focus of the case now, there are questions about many of the things that Ms. Sands says were never tested. And so, the conclusions that are being reached in terms of, "Brendan Banfield did this, he did this, he did this," based upon whatever blood analysis, is oftentimes not considering the fact that it was never tested. We don't even know who's blood it was. Those kind of things are important. And so, let's go back to defending the Constitution. When you are charged with presenting a case, I chuckle a little bit when Ms. Sands says, "We haven't proved anything. We haven't shown any evidence." All we've done is show evidence. All we've done is try to get the truth out there. My client doesn't have to testify, yet he gets up there and he tells a story. He's a philanderer. We can conclude that. That's horrible. It's a horrible situation to be in. He had affairs. He accepted that. He told you, ladies and gentlemen, exactly what was going on and exactly how it went. On cross-examination, he admitted to communications that were provided. Uh, which were letters between he and Juliana when she was in jail. This is about the truth. In the beginning, you heard our duty is about fairness. Our duty is about, uh, being just, all those sorts of things. Yet, you don't put on any of your detectives. She's referring to the expert that they have that I called. I called three times. And, and you saw his demeanor. He was very uncomfortable. Why would he be uncomfortable? Why would he have been uncomfortable talking about his work? And we, we dug for it. We dug for it. And he ultimately said, the executive summary and the data remain the same. The only thing that changed is Juliana Perez-Magali's statement. Excuse me one second. So there, number one. That's the first time that anyone in this case, which was when I called him, conclusively said the entire catfishing theory changed upon her plea deal. So let's talk a little bit about confirmation bias. Or I think we referred to it when we were talking in closing or when we were, when I was talking in closing about a rush to judgment. You've heard from detectives from Fairfax County. Detective Smith came up and she told you. The catfish theory started within weeks of the event. She says, that's not how we do it. We look to the evidence and we follow the evidence. Seems like a pretty reasonable way to go. And that was something that I asked of pretty much everyone that was in some sort of investigatory capacity. That is the way cases go, is the evidence leads you where you're going to go. But lo and behold, what we find out is that that theory is being peddled by the two people in command staff, actually the three people in command staff that you also heard from. You heard from detective, from Mr. Bruch, formerly Deputy Chief Bruch, that when Brendan Miller presented his findings, well, first of all, he said, I didn't agree with his report. And I said, well, what if any analysis of the raw data did you do in order to make that statement? I don't agree with this report. He said, well, it wasn't that. I don't know about the data. Though he said he was a computer forensic PhD. He didn't take the time to do that. So I said, okay, well, did you ever have Detective Miller come in and walk you through it? Like, show your work. Well, we talked about, we talked about it quite often. But did you, in fact, have him go through everything that he did to arrive at his work? No, we didn't do that. He speaks to Lieutenant Giaccio at the time, who appears to have a direct line to him obviating anybody else within the command staff. And what you'll see, and you'll see it in the evidence, there are emails, where soon after Juliana Perez-Magalais changes her story, there are emails to Sergeant Ames. And you remember Sergeant Ames, he came to the stand based upon my subpoena and my calling him. And Sergeant Ames was not comfortable. And you can see any of these police witnesses are just not comfortable coming to the stand on my subpoenas and answering my questions. But he did answer them. And what you saw were emails. Those emails were essentially, uh, some, they were just kind of forwarding it up the chain so that his supervisors knew. And he was very candid about it. I was new. I wasn't sure how to deal with a situation like this. I'd never dealt with a situation like this. But what the situation was, was, was Detective Miller's executive summary being sent up the chain to Sergeant Ames, who was in a different division than Lieutenant Giaccio, saying, there's a couple, there's different ways, there's three different, uh, emails that you'll see. They've got, Brendan Miller has got to look over this and he's got to go line by line and explain how we got it wrong. Things such as that. The final one is two Sergeant Ames. I can tell you that every single conclusion in his report was wrong. He's going to have to do something in order to, and, and it's kind of essentially, he's going to have to change this report because it needs to conform with the proffer of Juliana Perez-McElheis. That's twice now. Two different people that I called to the stand that essentially confirmed that everything changes when she comes in and testifies. So let's get back to confirmation bias, rush to judgment. When you have people of, uh, in a supervisory nature, you have a command staff chain of command, and the highest people are pushing you on your work product. That's why you look like the people that are up here testifying, because they're sitting on the fence, they're sitting on a razor, and neither side is good for them. But they came before, came before us, and they testified, and they testified as to the truth. Detective Miller spoke the truth, and you could see it. Detective Miller, his work was concurred by Mr. Litsky, who you heard for quite often during this period of time, and it was peer reviewed, and it was concurred by someone, a third party. You heard Detective Miller say, that's never been done in Fairfax County. You heard him say, I didn't ask for that peer review. He didn't know who asked for that peer review. Why would you want a peer review of something if it wasn't for it to change? So once again, not happy with that, not happy with the work product. There's nothing to indicate in Detective Miller's background anything but stellar expertise, but he, wasn't introduced as an expert for the Commonwealth. Now, this is where this whole theory went wrong. The discredited him, they disregarded him, and they didn't listen to him. And that's a problem. That's a problem for their case. Because there are things in digital forensics that had he been involved with the group that was talking to Juliana Perez Magalhaiz, he would have been able to guide them in terms of, this is where the digital forensics is in conflict with you. And you heard me testify, or I'm sorry, you heard me ask questions of many of these detectives who might have been involved. Did anybody ever challenge her? Were you present when she recanted for the first time? Well, we couldn't ask that of anyone because the detectives that were in the room have not been called. The detectives that were in the room, I didn't call. And so we don't know anything, but we heard detective Miller and he had viewed it and he said, when I asked him, were there challenges to what was said? He said, no, it was pretty free flowing. To me, that tells you, whatever the story you're telling us is great, because we're getting bread and banfield based upon that. Once again, confirmation bias. The first few weeks after the death of Christine Banfield becomes this theory of catfishing, which is what Juliana Perez Magalhaiz provides to this. Now let's talk a little bit about digital forensics. digital forensics. And I'm not going to try to use the computer to show these to you because that's, that was excruciating at times. But I think we've gone through it with significant enough detail that when you go back to look at the exhibits and I'll tell you which exhibits, if you wish to write them down. You're going to be able to see exactly what Mr. Lidsky was saying. It's complicated. It's been complicated for me since the beginning. But it's not necessarily an easy grasp. But I would ask that you take the opportunity. You're going to have all this evidence. To review this particular area. So some of you may have been asking about January or may wonder about January 9th. That's a significant date in this investigation. Because that's the day when the Gmail account, um, called the suspect Gmail account, was, was started. Let's just look at how Juliana Perez Magalhaiz Managed this. Regarding the Gmail setup on January 9th, 2023 Juliana told the Commonwealth that she was at the house with Brendan when she witnessed him create the Gmail account that was used to kick off the entire catfishing scheme. The Commonwealth took her at her word. The police didn't make any effort to corroborate her story. The one detective who stood up and said the evidence contradicted her story was transferred off the case. I think the words were from then Deputy Chief Bruch. That guy will never work on another digital forensics case in major crimes as long as I'm here. He admitted it. He admitted it. There was no dancing around. He admitted it. So you have something that's in opposition to whatever the theory is that you're trying to peddle and you're in the command staff, you're high up in the police department, you can just transfer them. And so it was from that point on Detective Miller was of no benefit to the police because no one would utilize him once the stamp of disapproval had hit him. He was moved over to child sex. Juliana told the same story to you here in court and it's a lie. The account wasn't created with Christine's phone. I'm sorry. The account was created with Christine's phone, not her laptop, which was the story that Juliana had told. Juliana wasn't even home. She hadn't witnessed anything and you saw the presentation and that would be, the evidence would be exhibit 297, exhibit 294, and exhibit 295. They're all in relation. You'd be looking at the Google records, the T-Mobile records, and the subsequent map of where the location was. You heard from Mr. Litsky that the Gmail account is crucial. They all interact. The Gmail account is necessary to get the messages relating to the FetLife. And then the telegram was created as part of this, whatever we want to call it at this point. Juliana made it up. She told the Commonwealth what they wanted to hear. And without question, they just took it as their story. She told this lie to secure herself a deal that benefited her. This one event relating to digital forensics is reasonable doubt. Because every other event going forward requires Brendan, based upon her statement that she didn't have anything to do with it. She didn't know how to do the Gmail account. She didn't know anything about the setup requires Brendan to be involved or Christine. So let's look at this. There was a period of time and you heard evidence of it. Brendan wasn't at home. January 23rd, there was a Gmail login at 11:22. That's Defense Exhibit 245. FetLife was accessed. In the communications, that catfishing is not a scheme where one talks about their husband or talks about how's your experience on this site. Catfishing in the truest form of the government's theory is we just want to get someone on the hook and then that's going to, person's going to come and then we're going to do what we did in there in the house. It's not consistent with catfishing. You'll see, based upon the records relating to January 23rd, there was only one adult in the home at that time. And that adult was Christine Banfield. January 30th, there are two Gmail logins. 10:36 and 11:03. Exhibits Brendan Banfield 251 and Brendan Banfield 252. Brendan wasn't home. That can be shown. So there were two adults in the house. Christine Banfield and Juliana Perez Magalheis. Juliana testified to all of you. She doesn't know anything about the Gmail. She doesn't know how to activate it. Will somebody activate it that day? Somebody logged in twice. And there are two adults in the house. Either Juliana is lying again and she did figure out how to do Gmail or this was Christine Banfield. Digital forensics, oftentimes for people who don't understand it, will say things like, "Well, isn't it possible this?" Well, you see what happens when an investigator is looking into trying to get attribution. They're looking at all sorts of different data facts in order to make a determination, make an opinion. It's not as easy as saying, "Well, isn't it possible this?" There's more to it. And once again, digital forensics is not being given the strength that it is due. February 7th, 2023, Gmail login at 10:02 PM. There's only two adults in the house. Brendan Banfield can be identified as being out of the house. And one of whom says she never did anything with Gmail. That's BB 257. It's been presented to you. You can recollect what it was that was said. But what we know is that Brendan was out of the house. What we know is that Julianna was there, and we know that Christine was there. February 13th, 2023. There are logins in the morning in the 7:00 AM hour. Well, what we know from digital forensics is that Brendan left at 6:05. And at 6:12, he was at Tyson's Corner, based upon his EasyPass records. At 6:17, he was already to Alexandria. And soon thereafter, he was in Sheltonham, which is the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. They call it FLETSI. Well, while he's on the road, actually, while he's at the FLETSI Training Center doing his training, there are two logins. And there are two possible adults there. Julianna Perez Magalais, who has said she doesn't know how to do that. And Christine Banfield. 2:17. You'll see Gmail logins at 11:19. 11:23. Exhibit 262, 263. Same thing. Two possible adults. Brendan Banfield was out of the house. One said she never did anything with Gmail. A fact that I think is very important. In the discovery that was provided, both to Julianna Perez Magalais, as well as my client, in preparation for her trial, FetLife was in the discovery. But Gmail was never in focus. Never in focus. So her testimony, there's a comfort level with FetLife because she saw it in discovery. She didn't see the Gmail. And isn't that a coincidence that when asked any details, she says, "I don't know." When she says, "I don't know," for five or six questions, I hope you recall it. I recall it vividly. She said, "If you keep asking these questions, I'm just going to say I don't know." And she continued to do that. Were my questions challenging like the kind of questions that a detective might do? No. We were just looking for details. We were looking for details because we wanted to try to iron out what are these situations here. She was unwilling. She didn't know, but she knew I was digging for something. But if you look at the way she testified to all of you in direct, she was led to a certain statement or a certain fact, and she stated it. In cross-examination, I asked anything about that. Do you know who was in the house? Do you know where you were? Were you on the phone on WhatsApp with Christine prior to that? Where were you located at the time that this call took place? I don't know. I don't know. If that's what it says, I don't know. You know, there were a series of similar answers. Once again, her role has grown in importance for this case. It's along with Deputy Chief Bruch and Lieutenant Giaccio, she's pushing it on through her deal. Now, one of the things that I talked to you all about and one of the lengthy cross-examinations was relating to a group of exhibits which were number one through number 69. And you'll see it. It was highlighted. I think you've seen it for a brief period of time, but we were moving along. Look at that. You'll see these are the personal letters that she would write to my client. And those personal letters, I believe, is the closest to the truth that you will have heard from Juliana Perez Magalhaes. She was in a situation which really was affecting her. And it would affect anyone. And she was telling you how she was feeling. She was telling you what she thought. There were things that were relevant to this case. They're trying to make me turn on you. I'm not going to do it. I don't have anything to say. There's nothing that I can do to help them with. And then you'd see letters as the time went on. I don't know if I can live like this anymore. I think it's better for me to end. And then as she gets closer to a preliminary hearing in April of 2024, you start to see real angst and real worry. And they're coming to her and asking her if she'll testify against my client. Because that's what they wanted from the beginning. She was a pawn in trying to get to my client. You'll see this timeline in these letters. It goes toward July. July was the date of her first trial. And you'll see. And I'm not suggesting what she's saying about her lawyer is correct. But it was obviously something that was on her mind. And she didn't feel like she had the support. At that point, if you think about it, the only support that she was having was from Brendan. Brendan was not arrested. Brendan was there communicating with her. Brendan's mom was actually supporting her lifestyle in the jail in terms of commissary, things like that. And also supporting her by having paid for a lawyer. Around August, you'll see in these letters, things get to be, it gets to be real despair. And then you can almost see hope just drop right away from her when she hears that Brendan's arrested. And then she testified. She went into the hospital from October 13th to October 23rd. And as soon as she's released and back to the jail, the deal is done. She's told if you testify against him, we'll recommend time-served disposition. She can go back to Brazil, be with her mom, create her new life. And we know a little bit about the new life that she's planning on creating. And you have it in the documents that are before you. She's been negotiating with people who are connected to Netflix. She's been negotiating with people who are connected to Hulu. She's been talking to every other news media at first to try to see if they just put $50 into her commissary. But then she realized, hey, there may be something here. She's invented, she's going to try to write letters. I mean, she's going to try to write a book. She wants to have a documentary. She wants to have a series. And she's about to sign or about to agree when her lawyer steps in and says, don't sign that. And so around March of 2025, you see negotiations essentially end. The number was in the area of $25,000 and it was going to be sent to her mother in Brazil. And so where's the downside for her? Where's the downside for her? I mean, there were plenty of people who would make that decision, given the circumstances, given your two weeks from the trial, when your client, your attorney asked for a continuance. And oddly enough, he was asking to find a digital forensic examiner. If they'd done that, maybe that wouldn't have happened. Maybe they would have realized how strong the digital forensics examinations are. Her entire story has been bought and paid for. First, with her freedom. And then now, a little bit on the back end. There's a jury instruction in here that says something about corroborated, uncorroborated testimony. And you should be careful of it. Now, how did they try to corroborate her? So isn't this funny? They're trying to bolster the witness who's the centerpiece of their entire case. Well, they found something when my client was arrested on his laptop that said they'd just gotten vinyl light windows into December. So, sitting in the meeting with whomever, they say, "Can you tell us anything about these vinyl light windows? They're triple-paned. Probably really good." I wasn't there. I don't know. But the story she gave was that, I mean, fantastic. We got the triple-pane windows because Brendan wanted to make sure you couldn't hear a gunshot in the bedroom. And she says, "He asked me to go outside and scream to see if the windows." And she says, "I'm not going to do that." So she ended up staying inside and saying, "Brendan went out and screamed." Well, you heard the test. I mean, this gentleman from vinyl light windows came in. They trotted him up there. And he said, "Yeah, you know, we met in January." That was when we first talked about this. And it wasn't just the windows for the bedroom, which is what Juliana said. It was the full windows. And then you saw an artifact on Facebook that is Christine Banfield actually talking to her neighbors about the numerous vendors that they had been working with to try to get a quote from December 2021. So this is well before Juliana came on the scene, but it's an opportunity to try to make her appear in the know, to corroborate her. Well, that was a disaster and that didn't work. And you heard the gentleman, you know, what the life cycle of order to quotes to all those things. They were all done well before any sort of relationship started with Brendan. And then, you know, the fact that she was in the middle of the day, she was in the middle of the day. And then, you know, she was in the middle of the day. [01:04:02] Speaker ?: And then, you know, she was in the middle of the day. [01:04:04] Speaker 2: And then, you know, she was in the middle of the day. And then, you know, she was in the middle of the day. And then, you know, she was in the middle of the day. And then, you know, she was in the middle of the day. And then, you know, she was in the middle of the day. And then, you know, she was in the middle of the day. And then, you know, she was in the middle of the day. And then, you know, she was in the middle of the day. And then, you know, she was in the middle of the day. And then, you know, she was in the middle of the day. And then, you know, she was in the middle of the day. And then, you know, she was in the middle of the day. [01:04:29] Speaker ?: And then, you know, she was in the middle of the day. [01:04:31] Speaker 2: Sgt. Ames, after receiving communications from Lt. Giaccio, immediately sends it up the chain. Could be just the way he does things. Or it could be read those emails. Hey, I'm being asked to do this. I need some support here. When you have a theory that gets pushed from non-investigative command staff, and you have a theory that the investigators look at, then you create something called tunnel vision. And that tunnel vision, if you're following what essentially are orders, is to the exclusion of any other evidence. Any other theory, such as, maybe this is a rekindling of previous fantasies, and the guy who brought the knife to the house is the stabber. You can see how that theory is going to be pushed aside. And you can see how that's not very noteworthy for purposes of media or other attention. Once again, rush to judgment. Catfishing. Catfishing. If you're catfishing, meaning you're trying to get the one guy, Joe Ryan, to come to the house so that you can do this gruesome act. Why are you saying anything about, I can't have marks on my face or my body? If you're catfishing, why would that matter? It doesn't make sense. It's inconsistent. However, if you're interested in babbling in this lifestyle or getting back into it, however you want to say, then that makes perfect sense. There's nine different conversations on FetLife with different people. And you have all of the FetLife communications and you can see. Why would you have discussions where you're bringing things like no marks, anything like that? All you need is one if you're going to carry out what the government's theory is. Why would you give anyone details about your work or your home or your husband if you were catfishing? I mean, if it's truly catfishing, you're looking for the biggest biggest pile of people that might be considered. If you're telling someone that you have a husband and you want them to come over to the house, why would anybody come? You're losing the potential people that you might want to have there who are violent or, you know, love to do all the things that Juliana has said. Why would you do that if you're catfishing? It doesn't make sense. On February 13th, 2023, why would there be generic recent search on secure apps for communications? In fact, why was there even a need to transition to Telegram? Because if you're on FetLife, it's clear there are FetLife communications. And so in the world of catfishing, if you think about it, you want to do as few things that can get you caught. So what was the, what was the leap to Telegram? It doesn't make any sense. In fact, this whole theory doesn't make any sense. And the only way the government can make any sense of it is if Juliana Perez Magalhaes adopts their story once again. As late as February 19th, which would be five days before Christine Banfield's death. Under the government's theory, there were dates that were being explored with five different FetLife users. Why? If Joe's already coming, why? It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense. Juliana Perez Magalhaes is doing what probably anyone would do, who's from another country, who comes here for an adventure, which is what au pair exchange is. It's essentially a cultural exchange. And the idea is you get to live in the country and you get to live like people in the United States. And then you go back at the end of your time. She knew at the point when she was hospitalized to the point of sickness as a result of what was going on in her life that she had to do something. And the Commonwealth and the police broke her. She turned down a misdemeanor, according to her, in January, on January 1st, and you'll see it in the in the communications. She turned down a misdemeanor and all she had to do was testify against Brendan. In July, you hear her recounting her meeting with her lawyer, where her lawyer floats the idea, what about a manslaughter, time served, and you don't have to testify against Brendan. She agreed to that. That was never what they were talking about. That was never what they wanted to do. You heard from Sergeant Matt Nielsen, who briefly came in, and he was one of the homicide people during the time of the of the killing of Christine Banfield. He's since rotated out to another division. But he came in and he said the whole goal of arresting Juliana was to flip her against Brendan. Once again, further corroboration. We knew it. We saw it from her letters. And now you have someone who was involved saying, yeah, that was what we wanted to do. That's why we did it. They broke her. In talking about the blood work and the blood testimony. It was suggested by the Commonwealth that we hadn't proven anything. The Commonwealth had not shown anything. Well, I beg to differ. You heard from Leanne Singley. Leanne Singley is an expert. She's an expert with tremendous credentials. And she's an expert in truth in terms of what she's allowed to say, what she can say, what she can't say. And she speaks to you in the language of bloodstain pattern analysis. She's not talking about possibilities. She's talking about facts. She's a scientist. Her counterpart from the Commonwealth was willing to entertain any possibilities. In fact, questioning of her was, well, isn't it possible this? Isn't it possible this? Isn't it possible this? And oftentimes you would hear her respond, well, that wouldn't be something that I would have expected to see. Which is a very interesting statement if you think about it. What is it that she's expecting to see? Which makes you wonder, who's telling her what she should be seeing? And does it fit the narrative? So let's go to Leanne Singley. She tells you of the account of the events. Ryan stabbed Christine in the neck. Brendan shot Ryan in self-defense. Brendan rendering aid to Christine. Ryan moved toward Brendan and grabbed Brendan's arm. You see that in the videos. And Juliana shot Ryan to end the threat. What Leanne Singley tells you is all of the blood evidence supports this. Ryan brought the knife. That'll be Camos Exhibit 10. The knife has blood on it with Christine's DNA on the blade and Ryan's DNA on the handle. Ryan has Christine's blood on his hand as well as a puncture wound, which the medical examiner says is consistent with the knife. And if you look at the knife, it's described in the, um, the certificates of analysis as the certificates of analysis as testing underneath the handle by the edge of the blade. And if you look at the, the marks on, um, Joseph Ryan's hand, the medical examiner states that these wounds are consistent with that knife. Which reminds me, the medical examiner also said that Joe Ryan was capable of movement. And you'll, you can recall your own notes on that. That was very clear, which is an absolute conflict with Ms. Graff and is an absolute conflict with the Commonwealth's theory. She further goes on to say, Ryan has Christine's, I'm sorry, the blood on his hand shows his hand was closed when the blood was deposited. That's that closed fingers we were talking about. That's what the Commonwealth was talking about in terms of having nothing going in between the fingers. That's holding a knife. That's how that happens because you're holding it very rigid in order to do that. The bloody handprint on Ryan's thigh is consistent with him touching his own leg with his bloody hands. That's, uh, uh, Ms. Graff. The stains on Brendan's jeans and shirt are what you expect he would get while giving aid to Christine. And we see it. We see it on the body-worn camera. We see it on the still shots. He's leaning down. He's down there on his knees. Interestingly, Ms. Graff says, all I saw was, uh, his hands around, uh, Christine's neck. I, I, and, and I, I don't, I don't know that that's not accurate, but that's probably not what was really going on there because everyone else said he was rendering aid. The police witnesses who are more objective than the expert witness for the Commonwealth all say that he was rendering aid. Testimony by, uh, Ms. Graff and the ME indicated that Ryan could move after the, uh, gunshot. And what's most important is that there's a DNA, DNA mixture of Christine and Ryan on the arm of the jacket where Brendan said he was grabbed. Three times, three times when he was being, uh, told by the first responders go into the bathroom. He said, they're asking, is he okay? Uh, he hit me, he hit me on the right side under the shoulder blade by the arm. He said that. Then in the ambulance, you'll hear that. He says, when they're asking, are you okay? Are you okay? Uh, I, I don't think I'm injured. Um, he, but he did hit me on the back side of my jacket. In the ambulance, they grabbed the jacket. And then when he was in the hospital, the doctor asks, and he says, uh, he hit me on the back, but I'm not injured. The critical part of that is that the DNA mixture of Christine's blood and Joe Ryan's blood on the jacket was if you were listening to my client yesterday, he tells you that that was Joe Ryan after he shot him. That mixture of blood with Christine and Joe Ryan himself had to be, had to be after Joe Ryan had stabbed Christine in the neck. And that's the way her blood would get on him in order to be able to get the back of my client's jacket. That's what Ms. Singley says. And that's why the Commonwealth is so intent on saying this had to have been on the floor. This had to been on the bed. But there's no evidence to support that. There's a story to support it, but there's no evidence to support that. The evidence in terms of what happened in that room, and the crucial evidence is spot A on the back of the jacket. And you have it in evidence and you also have it, um, under, um, Commonwealth's exhibit 160, 161 and 167. Now let's just talk a little bit about the prosecution's evidence. Brendan's DNA is not on the knife. That's also supported by those same forensics, uh, reports. He doesn't have any injuries to his hands. That was confirmed by EMTs. In fact, poor officer, um, I'm sorry, the young man who was, who was one year on, I forget his name now. Um, he was brought up to introduce his video and then was asked, "Well, why'd you let him wash his hands?" And you can see my client for a period of probably 40 minutes is literally walking around, you know, in a, in a trance from what he was just involved with. And he was walking around with blood all over his hands. And it was only after he was told that his wife had died. And the emotions that come from that, where he was blowing his nose and wiping his eyes and doing all those things, it was offered for him to wash his hands. But that appears to be some sort of a, uh, a horrible thing that this officer allowed him to do. And it was even an insinuation that my client was trying to cover something up. This was 45 minutes later. It wasn't as though he went into the bathroom and did it right there after being removed from rendering aid. Brennan's DNA does not show up anywhere on Joe Ryan, which is consistent what he told you, which is that he never touched Joe Ryan. There's no indication that there was any sort of movement. And frankly, what's the possibility, I guess I'll use the same word, that a 185 pound man would have been moved, uh, if he, if he was otherwise dead. It's not an easy task. And Brendan Banfield's an athletic guy, but I don't think he's up to moving 200 pounds in that, in that sort of way. So that's an absolute red herring in this. Ladies and gentlemen, we left off, um, in the discussion of the blood stain pattern analysis. And what was an interesting moment, um, in terms of the experts, was when there was talk of blood stain inside the zipper, um, and around that area. But if you look at the DLI report, which is number 169, you'll see in that report, they were looking actually for touch DNA. They weren't actually looking for blood staining. They identified blood staining, but the whole point of it was to find Brendan Banfield's touch DNA on the inside of Joe's pants, based upon some theory that he was either pulling the pants off or moving them or something like that. And, and that was one of the reasons why they went to a private lab to try to do that. And it didn't pan out. And you'll see the report. Okay. Now, in terms of the evidence, um, on the blood stain pattern analysis, let me just do a rundown. Uh, with regard to the knife, it was identified as being blood stained. Leanne, uh, singly said that she negated the possibility of anything being wiped off, which might be one of the things that you might find in a situation, um, of, of the nature of the government's theory. But she's negated that. That it contained DNA of Christine and Ryan, and Brendan was excluded. That Joe Ryan's DNA at the base of the blade handled juncture. That was the testimony of Leanne Singly, and also confirmed by the Division of Forensic Science. That Ryan had a puncture to the left thumb. That was Leanne Singly's testimony, as well as the medical examiner, Dr. Kessler confirmed that. It was consistent with the knife, Dr. Kessler said. And it was consistent with the self-wounding that happens in, in situations involving stabbings. And you heard, uh, Leanne Singly touch on that. Um, and, uh, she was able to kind of give you a more circumspect view of what self-wounding was. I think, uh, Ms. Graff talked about slicing, you know, fingers or sliding or something like that. What we were looking for, and what I think Leanne Singly was able to tell you, is that there are a wide variety of injuries that occur, but oftentimes the stabber is someone that's injured. And I think, uh, there were significant statistics that she talked about, which I won't try. Uh, you'll have to rely on your recollections regarding that. You, you saw on the body cam footage, as well as through Ms. Singly's testimony that Brendan does not have any injuries on his hands. And Ms. Dolly's testimony, uh, indicates Ryan's right hand closed when blood was deposited on it. Uh, that's consistent with Ryan holding the knife when stabbing, causing blood stains. Joe Ryan, there's a lot to be said, and I think you've already seen pictures of it in Ms. Closing, of the four stains on Ryan's forearm. What's, what hasn't been said is that they were not tested. Leanne Singly says they're not able to be classified. Ms. Groff disagrees, saying that they are drip stains. She needs to say they're drip stains, which Leanne Singly says you can't say, because you don't know the position of the arm. You don't know, uh, where it was at the time the blood came out. Um, it could have been something from a, from a, uh, significant bleeder as, as he's standing up. It could have been from, uh, numerous other possibilities. But Ms. Groff's, classifies something that Ms. Singly says you can't classify without certain factors, suggesting that it's falling from above and has Ryan on the floor. One might think you'd find the source of whatever that blood is if you're to have tested the blood that's in question. That might give you a little more guidance. And I think that's one of the reasons Leanne Singly was unable to identify that. If it was from Joe, then, uh, she'd probably have some explanation for that as an expert. If it was from anyone else, that perhaps could be a different explanation. But now all we, all we deal with are possibilities. And that seems to be the crux of how the Commonwealth is pursuing this case. They're not putting on any evidence in terms of their own exam, uh, investigators. Um, they're not, um, uh, providing any concrete evidence as to what happened that day. And, and interestingly enough, the shift in the last closing argument was that I hadn't been doing that. And the defense hadn't been doing that. But I think it's, we can all agree that we've called significantly greater number of police witnesses because we had to, because we want the truth out here. I called my client, though he has the absolute right, right not to come up and testify. And he testified and, and the, the relationship issues with Juliana Perez Magalhaiz are touchy and they're, they're, you know, an awful story. But he sat there and he answered the questions. He was cross-examined. He answered those questions. We're bringing you the truth. We're trying in every way to get the truth. And so, and many of the Fairfax County detectives have, uh, provided that and that's goes to their integrity. The genes, the touch DNA from the waistband zipper indicate Ryan, Joe Ryan and Christine Banfield are the contributors. Brendan Banfield is excluded. All samples collected and tested on Ryan were from Joe Ryan or Christine. Brendan not identified as a contributor in any of them. Nothing in the materials reviewed gave any indication that Ryan was not the stabber. That was Lee Ann Singley's testimony. Brendan's jacket. Blood on the rear of the Wright's sleeve. DNA on exterior of Wright's sleeve. Mix of Ryan and Christine. Brendan indicates that Ryan grabbed his arm. On Officer Beckner's, uh, video. Officer Baumler's video. In the ambulance. And also in the hospital. Brendan's jeans. The small stains on the thigh is consistent with cast off from the hands. That's Miss Dolly. Miss Groff. Brendan sat in the bathroom. If you look on the, on the video. And the first responders arrived. He had his, he was basically told to sit on the tub. And you see him. When you look at that video and he's sitting there and he's just, you know, hands down. Not sure where his hands go. And he was watching, watching as his wife was being tended to. The stains on Brendan's jeans are consistent with him kneeling at Christine, giving aid. And that's what the body cam video shows. Back to the digital forensics for a moment. February 19th was a critical day. Because that was the beginning of the telegram account. Juliana says, she watched Brendan. They stole the laptop on the phone. They deleted the two-factor authentication code. But the two-factor authentication code remains on the phone to this day. And this is exhibit, defense exhibit 156. Is it possible that Brendan and Juliana did this without Christine knowing that a telegram account was opened in her name? It's not. Based on this exhibit. Because if you look at it, and you can look at the message from telegram, shows up right underneath a message from Brad of Inova PICU. And right above a message from Nicole at Inova PICU. It was done early in the morning. If it had been done by someone other than herself, as soon as she looks at that message from Nicole, she'd realize something's going on. I should check this out. I should check this out. February 23rd. We saw digital forensics evidence from the evening of February 23rd. We saw use of Christine's laptop for 90 minutes for resort searches. With a couple of minutes of telegram use interspersed, the Commonwealth, in cross-examination, opined, well, wouldn't it be possible that even if you were sitting in the same room, that she could have gone away to go to the bathroom for two minutes? And I guess, you know, in this world, anything's possible. Is it probable, however? And that's really the more, um, germane point to this. The Commonwealth, the Commonwealth's, I guess, concern in cross-examination was confirmed, at least in terms of the room, when Brendan testified. And if you recall his discussion, we were talking about, um, we were already going on a cruise, and we were talking about going to, uh, the Dominican Republic. We saw the calendar that showed the place. Royalton resorts. We showed the, um, searches that showed kid-friendly vacations. So we knew who was behind the keyboard, and Brendan knew who was behind the keyboard, because he was there with Christine. And they were collaborating on the vacation research. Brendan was playing with Valerie, and Christine was on the couch with her laptop and her phone. That's the testimony. The device's symmetry and connectivity you heard about has the context to complete the entire picture. Juliana was not in the room, and this is supported by the analysis on her phone, showing a steady stream of messaging, social media use, and Netflix at the same time that Telegram, FetLife, and the suspect Gmail account were being used by Christine. And finally, February 24th, Juliana was not awake, not out of bed, based on her devices at the time she claimed to be watching Brendan Manfield sending messages in the kitchen. You heard Mr. Litsky talk about her, uh, Apple Watch. You heard him talk about her phone, were showing when steps were showing, which would be an indication of someone moving. She had not moved for some time after the laptop was accessed. What we know from the testimony yesterday was that Christine Banfield had the laptop and the phone in her bedroom and was awake when he went up to retrieve Valerie. That is an artifact in the world of digital forensic analysis. And you'll see this entire exchange. Defense exhibit 348, 349, 350. You'll see Juliana Perez Magalhae's first steps at 626. defense exhibit 351, 352, and 353. Juliana Perez starts her day after the telegram message is already sent. In conflict with what she's told in conflict with the story that she's adopted on behalf of the commonwealth. Brendan's at McDonald's. Exhibit 354, 355, 356. Those are timestamp screenshots from the McDonald's videos. Juliana is on the phone telling us, her phone tells us that her activity stops at 724 under defense exhibit 357. At the exact same time, her watch steps are stopping at 724. Defense exhibit number 358. Defense exhibit 359, Juliana steps resuming on the phone at 741. Exhibit 360, Juliana. Car is parked at 741. Exhibit 361, Juliana's watch resuming steps at 742. We know that Brendan was out of the house. We know that Juliana was in her car. And if you look at exhibit 362, there's someone who's logging into Christine's laptop at 733. There are no other humans in the house. And Juliana and Brendan were not there. In conflict with the government's theory, Christine logs into her laptop and places her devices in a drawer. She puts the devices away. She gets Lily down into the basement, brings her food to the basement, and gates her in. And she meets Joe Ryan. And they walk up to the master bedroom. Why? Why would Joe Ryan stab Christine? If you take away the consensual part of this, if he were found in a bedroom of someone by someone who's a police officer, he'd be looking at a life sentence. In this instance, he was confronted by an armed law enforcement officer saying police. That officer was standing in the only way to get out of that room, other than jumping through the window and falling down three flights. He had a gun trained on him and he was telling him and was told that he was going to be arrested. He had marijuana in his system and he was angry. Who was he angry at? Could he have been angry at Christine thinking that she set him up? Could he have been angry at his situation for deciding to go into a house that he didn't know and put himself in this situation? Could he be angry at my client who was there to try to figure out what was going on and ultimately try to protect his wife? Those are the whys. And if we'd had any investigators that were actually involved in the case coming to the stand, those would be questions that I would want to know. And there would be questions that you would want to know. Because you have a decision before you. And that decision requires a review of all of the evidence. Is it reasonable after a six to eight week affair that someone's going to try to get rid of their companion of 19 years, wife of 12 years? Is that reasonable? You heard from my client, he thinks it's absurd. In pursuing this case, the Commonwealth has presented absolutely no forensics evidence that supports that Brendan Banfield had anything to do with this. Yet the story continues. This isn't how justice works. And you can't just come up with a theory and make it fit. They're trying to sell you a story without any facts. And we have the facts. And those facts are in evidence. And those jury instructions, when you see them, you'll realize they're very clear. If you have doubts about the investigation, if you have doubts about how they've conducted this investigation, If you believe that there's something that's been held back in this investigation, that's reasonable doubt. That's reasonable doubt before you even get into the things that negate the possibilities of their case. And these are hard decisions. There's a lot on the line. But know this. If they fell short in what you expect should be the investigation. If they fell short, that's not on you. The jury instructions say you must acquit. And it's not on you. I don't have another opportunity to talk to you. It's their burden to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. So they get the opportunity to speak. So I apologize if I've gone too long. But I wanted to make sure that these important issues came before you. And might leave you with these words. When they lie and manipulate to get someone to make a statement. That's not discovering the truth. That's planting the truth. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attention. Thank you for your patience. And at the end of your deliberations, I ask that you find my client not guilty of all charges. Thank you. [01:47:21] Speaker 1: Rebuttal argument? Switch over the mic again, Mr. Kerr. Thanks. All right, just a couple of last words. Mr. Kerr has a really interesting recollection of the evidence. It certainly doesn't match ours. And I'm guessing it doesn't match yours. FYI, the lab for the code was 165, not 167. And the DLI lab, it doesn't say anywhere on it that it was touch DNA. It was blood that they tested. Juliana did not repeatedly say that she didn't know how to work Gmail. She said that she did not create the Gmail account, that that was Brendan. Giaccio and Bruce had the catfish plan and they peddled it and pushed it to everyone. I don't think that's at all what came out. I think that Mr. Kerr is trying to focus on the HR woes of the Fairfax County Police Department to distract you from the fact that the evidence actually supported that theory and that he has provided you and his client has provided you with absolutely nothing to refute that theory. Why was there so much discussion and disagreement over the digital evidence? Because it could never be that smoking gun. You all heard it from their expert. You can't put someone behind that screen unless you're sitting next to them. So as much as we want it to tell the story here, as much as we want it to be the perfect evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that this thing had to happen, the digital evidence just isn't that. We wish it were, but it's not. And Detective Miller did nothing wrong. And Mr. Lidsky did nothing wrong. They just told you the truth. And the truth is that they can tell you what a device was doing, but they can't tell you who was using the device. Juliana Perez Magaliz's testimony was bought and paid for. Yes, she pled guilty to a lesser offense in exchange for her testimony. Ms. Fristler made sure you knew that from the get-go. Juliana talked about that. She explained for her reasons why nothing was hidden. After her sentence, it sounds like she might have the opportunity to make, what, 10 grand off of selling her story. She said that she would use that to support her family. And then what? Is she going to work as a nanny? I mean, she's a convicted murderer. Do we really think that it is so reasonable that she made up this complete lie for 10 grand? Really? If this version is correct, coming from Mr. Banfield, then she would be set free. She would be as not guilty as he would be. So she's going to give up that shot for 10 grand? I just don't buy it. Whose story is more credible here? Juliana's or Mr. Banfield's? Whose version does the rest of the evidence support? The defendant took the stand and he lied. And he lied about collateral matters. He told you that he had a big career-defining work meeting the morning of the murder. And then you heard from his boss, who said, "No, he didn't." He lied. He said that he and Juliana did not have a plan to kill Christine at the time that they went to the shooting range. Well, he said, "Not at that time." If he's lying about the things that don't matter, how can you believe a single word he said? And ladies and gentlemen, you have to do that in this case. Because without some alternate theory, the Commonwealth's evidence is uncontroverted. So you've got to pick one. Juliana? Mr. Banfield? Whose story does the evidence support? All of that blood. The DNA. To some extent, the digital forensics. The physical evidence collected at the scene. That's what you can rely on. Don't rely on his narrative and his recollection of the evidence. For that reason, don't rely on mine or on Ms. Ristler's. Rely on yours. It is your collective recollection of the evidence that you have heard that is controlling. You know what was said here. You know what the evidence is. We trust you to make the decision. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am.