Au Pair Cooperates After Guilty Plea and Detention Juliana Peres Magalhães agreed to testify a year after her October 2023 arrest, citing overwhelming guilt and shame, and she had pleaded guilty in October 2024 to involuntary manslaughter for shooting Joseph Ryan, securing a recommendation of time served [1]. She has remained in custody since her 2023 arrest and now provides a first‑hand account of the killings inside the Banfields’ Herndon home [1][2]. Her cooperation marks a pivotal shift from earlier letters suggesting she might not assist investigators [1].

Prosecutors Outline Elaborate Luring Scheme Using Fake Email According to Peres Magalhães, Brendan Banfield used his wife’s laptop to create a counterfeit email address and a fetish‑site profile to recruit a “patsy” for a staged rape fantasy [2]. After vetting several candidates, they selected Joseph Ryan, instructing him to arrive, undress Christine Banfield, bind her, and proceed with a non‑consensual act while Banfield directed every detail [2]. The plan called for Ryan to bring weapons and restraints, and for Banfield to later claim an intruder had attacked the couple [2][1].

Banfield Faces Not‑Guilty Plea and Potential Life Sentence Brendan Banfield has entered a not‑guilty plea to aggravated murder and using a firearm during a felony, charges that carry a possible life‑without‑parole sentence if convicted [1][2]. In addition, a December 2024 indictment accuses him of felony child abuse and cruelty, noting his four‑year‑old daughter was present during the crime [2]. The trial proceeds in Virginia, with prosecutors emphasizing the premeditated nature of the plot [1][2].

Defense Attacks Au Pair Credibility While Evidence Shows Scene Manipulation During cross‑examination, Banfield’s attorney challenged Peres Magalhães’s memory and reliability, prompting her to assert that Banfield “knows” the truth and that she stands by her account [1]. She described Banfield ordering her to hang up the 911 call after initially dialing, and to hide Christine’s phone to fabricate an intruder narrative [1][2]. The defense also argues investigators mishandled evidence and questions the catfishing theory, though the au pair’s testimony aligns with the prosecution’s reconstruction of the crime scene [2].