The State's Own Expert Just Excluded Brendan Banfield From the Blood Evidence

The prosecution called a DNA expert today. She testified that Christine Banfield's DNA was found on Joseph Ryan's bloody jeans. She also testified that Brendan Banfield is excluded as a contributor to that blood evidence.

Read that again.

The State's theory is that Brendan Banfield orchestrated the murder of his wife Christine. That he lured Joseph Ryan to their home, shot Ryan in the head, and then stabbed Christine to death with Ryan's knife. That he did all of this in a bedroom that, by all accounts, was a bloody crime scene.

And yet, when the prosecution's own DNA analyst from Bode Technology took the stand, she told the jury that Brendan Banfield's DNA is nowhere on the victim's clothing. Not on the red-brown staining. Not on the areas around the staining. Nowhere.

Christine's DNA was there. Mixed with Ryan's blood. The probability of it being someone other than Christine? One in 83 sextillion. One in 12 sextillion on the second sample. Those are astronomical numbers. That's her.

But Brendan? Excluded.

Juliana Magaz, the au pair who the State says helped carry out this plan? Also excluded.

What Does "Excluded" Actually Mean?

DNA analysis isn't always clean. Sometimes you get mixtures. Sometimes you can identify major contributors and minor contributors. Sometimes there's allelic dropout, meaning some genetic markers don't show up in the sample.

But "excluded" is different. Excluded means the DNA profile doesn't match. It means the analyst looked at the genetic markers present in the sample and determined that this person's DNA is not part of what's there.

The analyst was careful to note that she couldn't make conclusions about minor alleles due to possible dropout. That's standard scientific caution. But the exclusion of Banfield from the major mixture component? That's not hedging. That's a finding.

The Question the Jury Has to Ask

If Brendan Banfield stabbed his wife in a bloody bedroom, if he was physically present during a violent attack that left Christine with multiple stab wounds to her upper body, if he handled Ryan's knife and used it to kill the mother of his child...

Where is his DNA?

Blood gets on things. It transfers. It's sticky and persistent and notoriously difficult to completely clean. That's why DNA evidence is so powerful in criminal cases. It places people at scenes. It connects hands to weapons. It tells stories that witnesses can't.

This DNA evidence tells a story too. It tells the jury that Christine and Ryan's blood mixed on Ryan's jeans. And it tells them that Brendan Banfield, the man accused of orchestrating both deaths, left no trace on that evidence.

A Pattern Worth Noticing

This isn't the first time the prosecution's own evidence has raised questions about their theory. Remember Master Police Officer Brendan Miller, the digital forensics examiner? His analysis concluded there was no indication Christine lost control of her devices. His findings suggested Christine herself may have been active on FetLife. His report was peer-reviewed and affirmed by the University of Alabama.

Miller was transferred out of the digital forensics unit.

Now we have DNA evidence that excludes Banfield from the blood. The defense didn't need to hire their own expert to challenge it. The State's witness said it herself.

I'm not saying Brendan Banfield is innocent. That's not my call to make. The jury will weigh all the evidence, including Juliana Magaz's testimony, the phone records, the FetLife communications, and everything else the State presents.

But I am saying this: when your own experts keep producing findings that undercut your theory, maybe it's time to ask whether the theory fits the facts, or whether you're trying to make the facts fit the theory.

▶️ WATCH NOW Wife's DNA Found on Victim But Husband Excluded, Expert Testifies

The trial resumes Tuesday. The prosecution says they have more witnesses. We'll see if any of them can answer the question their DNA expert left hanging in the air:

If he did it, where's his DNA?