The Blood Was Already Drying

Day one of the Banfield trial gave us something the prosecution probably wishes hadn't come out quite the way it did.

Lieutenant Michael Gibbons was the squad sergeant who responded to 13230 Stable Brook Way on February 24, 2023. His job was to take command of the scene. Apply a chest seal to Christine Banfield. Keep Brendan Banfield contained in the bathroom while medical personnel worked. Standard stuff.

But then he made an observation. And it's the kind of observation that can stick with a jury.

Think about that for a second.

Why This Matters

The prosecution's theory goes like this: Brendan Banfield orchestrated a plan to have Joseph Ryan arrive at the house that morning. Ryan thought he was meeting Christine for a consensual sexual encounter. Instead, Banfield shot him in the head, then stabbed his wife to make it look like Ryan was the attacker. The whole thing happened fast. Ryan arrives around 7:20. The 911 call comes in at 7:47. Police respond.

That's maybe 30 minutes, give or take. Fresh blood. Fresh wounds. Fresh crime scene.

But blood that's already drying? Blood that's clotting and clumping? Blood that's soaked into carpet fibers?

That's not what fresh blood looks like.

The Defense Has Been Building to This

John Carroll, Banfield's attorney, told the jury in his opening that the investigation decided on a theory first and made the evidence fit. He pointed to the digital forensics expert who concluded Christine Banfield was controlling her own devices, not being catfished by her husband. He pointed to investigators who questioned the official narrative and got transferred out of the unit.

Now add this: a scene sergeant who walked into that bedroom cold, before anyone told him what the theory was, and noted that the blood looked old.

Gibbons isn't a forensic expert. He said so himself. He doesn't know the technical terms for what he saw. But sometimes the observations of first responders matter more than the later analysis. They're seeing the scene before it's been processed. Before anyone's told them what to look for. Before the narrative has been constructed.

What the Prosecution Will Say

Blood drying isn't simple science. Temperature, humidity, the type of surface, the amount of blood, air circulation in the room. All of these affect how quickly blood dries. The prosecution will almost certainly bring in a forensic expert to explain why Gibbons' observation doesn't mean what it seems to mean. They'll contextualize it. They'll explain it away.

And maybe they're right. Maybe blood dries faster than people think. Maybe the conditions in that bedroom were perfect for rapid drying. Maybe Gibbons' observation is scientifically meaningless.

But here's the thing: now they have to explain it. Now the jury has this image in their heads. A sergeant walking into a crime scene and seeing blood that looked like it had been there a while. That's not nothing.

The Bigger Picture

My father used to say that the system only works when we force it to work. When we watch. When we question. When we refuse to accept narratives that don't match what we're seeing with our own eyes.

I'm not saying Brendan Banfield is innocent. I'm not saying the prosecution's theory is wrong. I'm saying that a scene sergeant just told this jury something that doesn't fit neatly into the state's narrative, and we should pay attention to that.

This is Day One. There's a lot more testimony coming. But the blood observation is now in the record. The jury heard it. And juries remember things like that.

▶️ WATCH THE FULL TESTIMONY Responding Sergeant Testifies Blood at Scene Already Appeared to Be Drying and Clotting

Watch the system. Question everything. That's how we honor the people who fought for due process before us.