Dateline NBC - A dentist on trial for poisoning his wife. And detectives' doubts about the case of a Virginia dad accused of conspiring with his au pair.

Episode Date: July 17, 2025

In Colorado, security video takes center stage at the murder trial of dentist James Craig. In the D.C. suburbs, a dramatic pre-trial hearing in the case of Brendan Banfield, accused of plotting to kill his wife and a stranger with the help of the family au pair. And verdicts for both former MLB player Dan Serafini and Iowa farmer's widow Karina Cooper. Plus, a former secret service agent on a scam involving fake cops.Find out more about the cases covered each week here: www.datelinetruecrimeweekly.com

Good morning, good morning. Hey, morning. You're listening in to the Dateline Morning Meeting. All right, let's get going. Our producers are swapping tips on breaking crime news. According to these cops, this guy just loves attention. We've got religion, we've got a love triangle, we've got a basketball star. They're trying to reclaim what has happened and move on in the strongest way possible.

Welcome to Dateline True Crime Weekly. I'm Andrea Canning. what has happened and move on in the strongest way possible. Welcome to Dateline True Crime Weekly. I'm Andrea Canning. It's July 17th and here's what's on our docket. In the DC suburbs, the man accused of orchestrating a double homicide, allegedly with the help of his 4-year-old's au pair, is back in court. His team has turned up evidence that they say could undermine the prosecution's case. It was like the whole top brass of police was in the courtroom and what was revealed was eye-opening to say the least.

In Dateline Roundup, we've got two verdicts in two murder trials. Former Major League Baseball player Dan Serafini and Iowa farmers widow Karina Cooper both learned their fate this past week. And Karen Reed is back in the news. Reed's attorneys, a whole new team, are asking the court to throw out the lawsuit. Plus, I'll be talking to a former Secret Service agent about a new scam to watch out for. If there's a sense of urgency, you urgency, either do this or this will happen, that is a big red flag.

But before all that, we're off to the suburbs of Denver, Colorado, where a family dentist is on trial for spiking his wife's protein shakes with poison. In August 2017, the Summerbrook Dental Group in Aurora, Colorado posted a video to its Facebook page. It shows Dr. James Craig dressed in a white tutu caring for one of his patients. And here's the tooth fairy.

Why? I'm eating a tooth extract and I'm here to do the work. This week, almost eight years later, cameras in an Arapahoe County courthouse captured James Craig acting very differently, dressed in a business suit and wiping away tears as he went on trial for his wife Angela's murder. Prosecutors allege that in March of 2023, Craig poisoned Angela's protein shake with potassium cyanide and tetrahydrosaline, an ingredient found in eye drops. Craig has pleaded not guilty and says that his wife took her own life. This week jurors heard opening statements and the prosecution started

laying out its case, including surveillance video that's never been seen by the public before. Here to bring us the latest is Dateline producer Michelle Madigan, who was in court this week for trial and is in Colorado right now. Hey Michelle. Hi Andrea. So Michelle, it has taken years to get to this point. James Craig is on his fourth defense team. He's been accused of committing additional crimes while he's been awaiting trial, which we'll get to. What was the mood like in court? There was just so much anticipation that this was actually finally happening.

There was a big long line outside the courtroom waiting to file in. Everyone wanted to get a spot ready to hear what the attorneys had to say. So Michelle, what did we learn in the prosecution's opening statement? The assistant DA, Ryan Brackley, really laid it out like a timeline. He told the story of how Angela kept going back to the hospital. She went to urgent care. She just kept getting sicker and sicker and not understanding what was causing the symptoms. Then he talked about how James Craig had ordered potassium cyanide to his dental practice and kind of laid out how ultimately she did have potassium cyanide in her system. And this family had surveillance cameras inside their home.

So the prosecutor in his opening actually showed photos from this surveillance footage. We saw James Craig in the kitchen making a protein shake that he allegedly then gave to Angela to drink. Michelle, one thing that always confuses me, gets me, are these allegations of murder suspects that they do Google searches and this is no different. James Craig, you know, was accused of making some pretty incriminating searches.

Yes, this is in the days leading up to Angela's death. They say he's doing them on a computer in the dental practice that's not in his office. He's using a computer in an exam room. And that's where they found the most incriminating of these Google searches. How to make murder look like a heart attack. Tetrahydrosaline poisoning. Lethal dose is arsenic detectable in ophthalm. Five most dangerous chemicals on earth. Where to buy arsenic? Ryan Brackley also talked about James and Angela's marriage, that it was deteriorating.

He did. James was having casual affairs with women over the course of their 23-year marriage. They said he met them on sugar daddy websites. He was having an affair with one woman who he actually met at a dental conference, Dr. Karen Kane. The prosecution said this affair was escalating. They read text messages between them and you can see he wants to plan a future with her and wants to no longer be with Angela.

He was even texting with Karen as Angela died. The prosecutor ended his opening statement referencing the additional charges against James that we mentioned off the top. What is he accused of doing since he's been behind bars? It's pretty wild, right? It is. I think prosecutors are looking into what he was doing from behind bars and they say

he was trying to fabricate evidence, implying that his wife had taken her own life. He started asking fellow inmates to plant fake letters around his home, making it seem that Angela was suicidal. He also offered a fellow inmate $20,000 to kill the lead investigator on the case. And these were inmates who were about to be released. So in theory, they could, they could go into the world and do this. This is all according to prosecutors. So we'll see how they lay out that evidence, asking the jury to convict Dr. Craig of solicitation to commit murder and solicitation to commit perjury, in addition to the first degree murder charge.

James has pleaded not guilty to all of them. How did Dr. Craig's attorney respond in her opening statement? So his attorney isn't disputing that Angela was sick or that she had poison in her system. It's really coming down to how she died. And they're saying you can't prove that it was murder. She talked about this family being broken. The marriage was broken. Angela had worked hard to create this image of a beautiful family. But behind closed doors, James was having affairs. And they said Angela knew all along. This wasn't anything new. So this intense emotional affair that was leading up to this

murder, they said it wasn't a spark, it wasn't a motive for murder. And the defense says this all comes down to tunnel vision that the investigators had blinders on. They pointed out a lot of evidence that wasn't collected from the house and the initial investigation, including Angela's computer. They had her phone so they could see what types of searches she was doing, you know, trying to solve the mystery of her own illness. But perhaps her laptop would have given them even more information about what Angela was doing in the days leading up to her death. The defense also called Angela a broken person. They played some home surveillance video

after Angela's first visit to the hospital. There was this conversation the defense played of the two of them in the kitchen, and they're saying that it was James Craig who actually asked for a toxicology screening in the hospital. But at the same time, you know, as you're listening to the sound, it touches on something the prosecution mentioned, that her husband was trying to spin the narrative of her illness towards suicide. the suicide work. Like I did it to myself and there's nothing I said could be believed. So it'll be interesting to see how these conflicting stories play out in the trial.

Okay, this is a very informative first step as we plan to have the team back to continue talking about this trial for us. Thank you so much, Michelle, for coming on the podcast. My pleasure, Andrea. Coming up, the man accused of a catfishing plot that left his wife and another man dead says the prosecution's got the case all wrong. Back in February of 2023, a mysterious story hit the news in the Washington, D.C. suburbs. Police are still working to piece together what exactly happened inside that home. We're just trying to work out the details, the sequence of these violent acts.

Christine Banfield, an ICU nurse and a mom to a four-year-old, was stabbed to death in her bedroom, and a man named Joseph Ryan was found shot to death just a few feet away. Christine's husband, Brendan, told 911 he'd shot Ryan, a total stranger, after walking in on him, attacking his wife. But eight months later, there was a big twist in the case. Police arrested someone else for Christine's murder, the family AuPair. Through the great police work, they have been able to get to a point where they have identified the Au Pair

as Juliana Perez Margulies, and they have charged her with second degree murder. Almost a year later, Brendan Banfield was arrested too. Prosecutors accused him of scheming with Juliana, his alleged lover, to murder his wife and frame Joseph Ryan for it. They said it was an elaborate plot involving catfishing and a fetish website. Banfield pleaded not guilty. Then, in a dramatic pre-trial hearing

late last week, Brendan's defense team revealed that two of the original detectives on the case harbored doubts about the prosecution's theory. Dateline producer Marianne O'Donnell was in the courtroom and is here to tell us what happened. Hey, Marianne. Hey, Andrea. Remind everyone first what the prosecution is alleging happened in this case. Sure, so it is a bit complicated.

Northern Virginia prosecutors are saying that Brendan Banfield, who is an IRS agent, and his au pair, Juliana Magalés, pretended to be Brendan's wife, Christine, to lure someone named Joseph Ryan to her house with the promise of kinky sex is what I think we'd call it. This Joseph is like just somebody on a website. He doesn't know these people.

Exactly. Really, truly a random guy. So he arrives at the house. He arrives at the house and the prosecutors are saying that the object was this, kill Christine, but make it look like this guy was the one who killed Christine and that they then shot Joseph Ryan in a case of self-defense. Thank you. That is a complicated story. Brendan and Juliana, they get arrested

and they are still behind bars now? Yes. So Juliana Magaliz, the au pair, was charged with second degree murder based on statements she gave police really just after the crime. However, Brendan Banfield the husband

refused to talk to police that day and since and so they had a tougher time making a case Against him and it was more than a year later that Juliana offered a proffer where she said yes that Juliana offered a proffer where she said, yes, the state's case, the Commonwealth case is correct, and they finally were able to arrest him. Yeah, so she pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter? Yes, and in exchange, once the trial against Banfield is over,

she is deported to her native country, Brazil. Okay, so her case is almost wrapped up. Brendan is marching toward trial in October. There was a hearing late last week in the case. You thought it was going to be pretty routine, right, Mary Ann? I would say so. It wasn't? Yeah.

When we got there, it was like the whole like top brass of police was in the courtroom. And it became clear very quickly that the defense was questioning this investigation and what was revealed was eye-opening to say the least. First witness is the digital forensics detective who said he examined devices from the Banfields and the Au Pair, and he determined that it was Christine, and Christine alone, who likely set up the profile and was in contact with Joseph Ryan. And he says he bases this on the IP address, the home's Wi-Fi and router, also on the language used that he said was really very specific to Christine and would have been hard for anyone else to duplicate. So there's no catfishing.

That is essentially what the detective says. It wasn't her husband and au pair pretending to be her. And really what the defense was establishing in this hearing was reasonable doubt. I mean, if your lead forensics detective is saying, sorry guys, I don't see proof of this anywhere in the data, your case falls apart. Your case is gone. It's Christine who invited this man over to the home. The session turned especially violent. He kills her. The husband and the au pair run up the stairs to discover this happening and they shoot and kill Joseph Ryan.

So the defense team for Brendan. What they're saying is au pair, Juliana, she has been pressured into turning on Brendan Banfield, concocting this story so that she can get a ticket out of jail and be deported back to her home country. Did the prosecution push back on any of the naysayers? They tried to gingerly approach it and say it was sort of a, if you will, a difference of opinion and that it didn't affect the Commonwealth's case. One of the prosecutors asked the homicide detective on the stand if all 12 Fairfax homicide detectives have different theories about the case?

Correct. And he said, yes, he couched it in such a way that you're going to get 12 people in a room and they're all going to get 12 people in a room and they're all going to have their theories. That in itself was not unusual. But on the stand, the lead detective in the case, Kyle Bryant, was asked by the defense, did you receive pressure from above regarding this investigation? And he said, yes. Okay, and what is happening now with these members of the investigation team who are not agreeing

with the prosecution's theory? Real mess. And a lot of it is to be determined. But the deputy chief, one of the commanders over this case, essentially made sure that the digital forensics detective was transferred out of the unit. And he said he'll never work another case in major crimes under his watch again. That's how much he disagreed with what the digital forensics detective was saying in

his report. However, that data and the detective's analysis was sent for peer review to the University of Alabama. And the review said, no, this detective did everything right. He analyzed the data as he was supposed to, and his conclusion was sound. Now, the defense has asked for all the paperwork involved in the transfers.

The lead detective was also transferred and there were others on the case who were also transferred and the judge essentially agreed. Yes, the defense had the right to see what was involved in that transfer. What was the basis? What were the details? And then on Monday we find out that the deputy chief handed in his retirement papers. So we really are sitting by waiting to see what other shoe is going to drop. Okay. Well, Mary Ann, I know you'll be on top of all these pre-trial hearings as we approach the fall. Thank you so much.

Always good to talk with you. Up next, it's time for Dateline Roundup. We've got verdicts in the murder trials of former Major League Baseball pitcher Dan Serafini and Iowa farmers wife, Karina Cooper, whose Snapchat messages took center stage at her trial. Plus a new scam involving impersonating law enforcement officers. What you need to know.

Welcome back. Joining me for this week's Roundup is Dateline producer Sue Simpson. Hey, Sue. Hey, Andrea. So, Sue, we're starting in California with a real blockbuster, a verdict in the high-profile murder trial of former Major League Baseball pitcher Dan Serafini. We've been covering it on the podcast for a while. Sue, remind us about the story. Well, Andrea, prosecutors allege that Serafini shot and killed his father-in-law, Gary Spore, in an execution-style murder, that's what they called it, at his home in Lake Tahoe in 2021.

Spore's wife, Wendy Wood, was also shot. She survived, but later died by suicide. The woman that Serafini was having an affair with, Samantha Scott, has admitted driving him to his in-law's home the day of the shooting. Scott took a plea deal and she's awaiting sentencing as an accessory to the crime. Okay, so Sue, jurors reached a verdict after three days of deliberations. Let's take a listen to that. We, the jury, in the above entitled action, find the defendant, Daniel Joseph Serafini,

guilty. We further find the degree of murder to be that of murder in the first degree. Sue, how did Serafini react in the courtroom? You know, Andrea, you never know how a defendant will react, do you? So as the verdict was read, Serafini tipped his head back, looked up at the ceiling, and Adrienne, the victim's youngest daughter, burst into tears, and she actually spoke out after the verdict. It's been four years since my mom and dad were shot. And it's been four years of just hell. This case really divided the victim's family. As you know, Andrea, Dan's wife Erin took

her husband's side against her sister Adrienne, even sitting on a different side of the courtroom during the closings. After the verdict, Erin left the court without commenting. Erin, is there anything you'd like to say? No, thank you. Not right now. So the former pitcher faces life in prison without the possibility of parole. He'll be sentenced later this summer and we'll be sure to update you with that. Now onto another verdict in a case we've been watching.

This one is in Iowa where Karina Cooper was accused of murdering her husband Ryan four years ago. Andrea, let's note that Cooper did something relatively rare for a defendant. She took the stand in her own defense. I see Ryan and then I see a large pool of blood. I shook his foot and then I just started screaming. Karina Cooper admitted that she lied to investigators initially about her affair with her former client Houston Danker. She blamed Danker for the murder when she was on the stand.

Did Houston talk about killing Ryan? Several times. Did you ever take him seriously? No, I thought he was full of crap. Prosecutors argued that Snapchat messages between the two prove that they work together. You have a conversation with Agent Tarbett. He tells you, no detail is too small.

Tell me everything. Correct. You never mentioned any of these texts or snapshots that you sent. No. You never mentioned that at 3 31 you sent a heart emoji to Houston Denker. I did not mention that. 3.31 a.m. is right before the time prosecutors say the murder took place. So Sue, what did the jury decide? The jury found Karina Cooper guilty of murdering her husband. Cooper faces a life sentence without parole

and Danker will stand trial later this year. We're gonna keep an eye on that, of course. Danker entered a plea of not guilty and is scheduled to go on trial August 12th. And finally, the latest from Massachusetts on the Karen Reed case. Last month, a jury, of course, acquitted her of murder in the death of her Boston police officer boyfriend, John O'Keefe, convicting her only of drunk driving. But the courts are not done with her yet, are they? That's right. John O'Keefe's family has filed a wrongful death suit against Karen Reed.

The suit seeks more than $50,000 and Reed was supposed to be deposed after her murder trial ended. Well, that time is now, right? But Reed's attorneys, a whole new team, are asking the court to throw out the lawsuit. Andrea, you know I'm going to be watching this one. Also, a quick footnote, Reid and her attorney, Alan Jackson, have signed a deal to develop a screen adaptation of her story. So it looks like we're all going to be living in Karen Reedland for a while longer. Yeah, no kidding. Sue, thank you so much for joining us this week. Thank you, Andrea. Talk soon. We try to keep you up to date on the podcast about some of the latest ways scammers are going after your money. A few weeks ago,

we told you about tariff scams. Before that, it was bogus road tolls. You might think you'd never fall for any of these scams, but what would you do if you got a call from someone impersonating a police officer? In the past few months, NBC News affiliates in Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas have raised the alarm about a scam involving fake officers. Have you gotten a call from law enforcement lately? In a new scam, subjects are calling you from fake numbers impersonating law enforcement. In a post, the sheriff's office says people are claiming to have an arrest warrant on the person they've called.

A man we're calling, John, parked right here and handed over $8,000, convinced he was about to be arrested. My next guest, Kristin Barnett, conducted several fraud investigations during her career working for the federal government. She is here to tell us more about how this scam works and what to look out for. Great to have you on the show, Kristen. Thank you so much, Andrea. It's great to be here.

Kristen, give us the basics of this new scam. Sure, so a worrisome current trend involves criminals presenting themselves as law enforcement officials, calling people to inform them that they have a warrant out for their arrest. And in order to make it go away, the victim is told he or she needs to wire large sums of money or purchase

high value gift cards or even cryptocurrency in some cases. And they're presenting themselves as law enforcement officials very convincingly. What happens a lot is they will spoof their phone number to make it appear like a police officer is calling you. SONIA DARA-MURPHY That's really scary to hear because that's kind of how we, you know, up to this point know that something's legitimate is by our caller ID. Absolutely. And the way to verify these things is when you get one of these calls, ask for their badge number and you can call your local police

department and provide that badge number. Just say, hey, is this person a legitimate police officer? I like to go a step further and request the name and phone number of their supervisor. But first and foremost, if someone is calling you to say there was a warrant out for your arrest, it's more than likely the scam because there were very few instances, if any, that law enforcement will call and notify someone that there was an arrest warrant. So true, yeah. They're going to show up at your door, at your work, they're going to pull you over. Right.

And really the other thing too is use common sense. Have you done anything in your life that would warrant you getting arrested? Exactly. Always think about, could this in any way be legitimate? And most likely it's not. I mean, there could be somebody who has unpaid parking tickets and suddenly like in their mind is freaking out because they're thinking maybe they do arrest people for not paying tickets or whatever. So it's possible that people can be manipulated in that way. Absolutely, and criminals know this and take advantage of this.

Yeah, and in the heat of the moment, situations can feel real. According to an investigation by our NBC affiliate, KPRC, one man in Texas lost $8,000. Scammers did more than just call him up. They took things a step further. So they required him to take out a surety bond, meet with a bail bondsman in a parking lot somewhere and to present this bond. When the individual showed up, this quote unquote bail bondsman went as far as providing a business card with a actual bail bonds business in the area. It seems like one of the more silly parts of this is these gift cards.

I mean, if law enforcement is asking you to pay them in gift cards, I mean, look, money's one thing, gift cards are another. Exactly. And you have some, a few other dead giveaways that it could be a scam? Absolutely. So if there's a sense of urgency and something like, you know, either do this or this will happen, that is a big red flag to look out for

because there's no instance where a law enforcement official will present you with a deal, like that sort of thing. Yeah, for sure. Kristin, amazing tips. Thank you for joining us. Oh, thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate it. That's it for this episode of Dateline True Crime Weekly. To get ad-free listening for all our podcasts, subscribe to Dateline Premium. And don't forget to check out Josh's new season

of the Dateline Missing in America podcast. You can binge the whole series wherever you get your podcasts. Coming up this Friday on Dateline, we've got a classic Keith mystery. When a private investigator goes missing, detectives follow a trail of broken relationships and money. But will it lead them to her killer? It's kind of like a roller coaster. You're just hanging over the edge and you're just waiting to drop. Watch The Necklace this Friday at 9-8 Central on NBC. Thanks for listening. Dateline True Crime Weekly is produced by Frannie Kelly, Katie Ferguson, and Sue Simpson. Our associate producers are Carson Cummins,

Caroline Casey, and Kim Flores Gainer. Our senior producer is Liz Brown-Kuruloff. Production and fact-checking helped by Terry Dickerson. Veronica Mazaca is our digital producer. Rick Kwan is our sound designer. Original music by Jesse McGinty. Bryson Barnes is head of audio production. Paul Ryan is executive producer.

And Liz Cole is senior executive producer of Dateline. All right, have a good day, everyone.