Two Guns. Two Shots. The Ballistics Tell the Story.

Today the state called Cara McCarthy, a firearms expert from the Virginia Department of Forensic Science. Twelve years of experience. Almost 2,500 examinations. Testified 89 times. The jury heard from someone who knows what she's talking about.

And what she told them is simple: Joe Ryan was shot by two different guns.

The bullet in his head? That came from a Glock 19M. Brendan Banfield's duty weapon. His IRS service firearm.

The bullet in his chest? That came from a Glock 43X. The gun Brendan bought on January 28, 2023, less than a month before the killings. The gun Juliana says he gave her and trained her to shoot at Silver Eagle Group.

Why This Matters

This is the state's theory in forensic form. Two shooters. Two guns. A coordinated attack.

Juliana testified that Brendan shot Joe first with his duty weapon. She said that when Joe kept moving, Brendan directed her to shoot him with the Glock 43X. The ballistics match that account exactly.

You can't cross-examine a bullet. You can't impeach a cartridge case. The microscopic markings on those ammunition components don't change based on who's asking questions. They either match the firearm or they don't.

They matched.

The Muzzle Distance Question

McCarthy also testified about something called muzzle-to-target distance determination. Basically, how far was the gun from the target when it was fired?

When a gun goes off, it doesn't just send a bullet downrange. It also sends out gunpowder residue. Burned particles, unburned particles, smoke. If you're shooting someone up close, that residue leaves marks on the clothing. The closer you are, the more concentrated the pattern.

McCarthy examined Joe Ryan's t-shirt for gunshot residues around the chest wound. She found no pattern of residues. Her conclusion: the muzzle of the Glock 43X was more than 21 inches from the shirt when it was fired.

That's not point-blank range. That's not someone standing directly over him. That's shooting from a distance of nearly two feet or more.

The Defense's Question

John Carroll didn't challenge the ballistics match. He couldn't. The science is what it is.

Instead, he went after something else. When McCarthy opened the bag containing Brendan's Glock 19M, she noted "possible biological material" on the firearm. Blood, most likely. She didn't clean it. Didn't test it. Just noted it and did her firearms examination.

Carroll asked whether DNA testing should have been done before the firearm examination. McCarthy said that's typically how it works. DNA and latent prints first, then firearms testing. But here's the thing: McCarthy said that once a weapon goes through firearms testing, the state lab won't do DNA testing on it. Contamination concerns.

So whose blood was on that gun? We don't know. And now we probably never will.

Is that sloppy evidence handling? Possibly. Does it change the ballistics match? No. But it's a thread the defense can pull during closing arguments. Another question the jury might ask themselves in that deliberation room.

The Bottom Line

The state needed forensic evidence to back up Juliana's story. Today they got it. Two guns matched to two different shots in the same victim. The timing, the sequence, the physical evidence, it all lines up with what she told the jury.

Brendan Banfield is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That hasn't changed. But the prosecution's case just got harder to explain away.

▶️ WATCH NOW Firearms Expert Reveals Which Gun Fired Which Shot in Au Pair Murder Trial

The trial continues tomorrow. The defense will have their turn to poke holes in the state's case. But right now, the ballistics are speaking for themselves.