November 18, 2025 • 39 mins
Brian Walshe, the husband of the late Ana Walshe, is on trial for the murder of his wife, who was last seen on New Years Day three years ago. Brian has three charges against him, two of which he pleaded guilty to Tuesday prior to jury selection. Criminal defense attorney Phil Tracy stopped by to discuss the charges and trial!
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm WBSY Boston's Knee Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Right, Dan Hawkins, thank you very much.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
Today was a very interesting day in a high profile case,
criminal case, a murder case here in Massachusetts. It is
a case that goes back to twenty and twenty three.
It was New Year's Day twenty twenty three when a
cohacent man by the name of Brian Walsh allegedly killed
(00:31):
and dismembered his wife. Of course, like anything else, he's
been in custody since. I don't think there was.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Any bail to be given.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
And today the trial was supposed to start with jury selection,
which did proceed jury selection, but to the surprise of
just about everybody who covered this case, and certainly to
my surprise I did. I'm not covering it, but I'm
certainly familiar with it. Walsh entered a guilty plea on
two of the three charges. He still faces a murder
(01:03):
in the first degree charge, but he pled guilty to
the charge of willfully conveying a human body. It's alleged
that he had basically dismembered his wife and took her
to a number of locations. They never found the body
or any evidence of the body, I guess, and also
(01:25):
misleading state police investigators. So he has pled guilty to
those two chargers. Which I can never remember a case
as much of a high profile case as this, which
on the day when the trial was supposed to start
with the again the jury being impaneled, that in a
(01:46):
case like this, where the three charges are really quite related,
that the defendant would plead guilty to two of the charges. So,
of course, in this case, who am I going to
call but my friend Phil Tracy, longtime criminal defense attorney
here in Boston. He and I worked a little bit
together a long time ago. But Phil has had an
(02:07):
outstanding career at the bar as a criminal defense attorney. Phil,
you have much more experience than I over the years
in incredible court. But have you ever heard of a case.
I've heard of plea agreements in advance of a trial,
(02:27):
but I've never heard of a case like this where
there's a partial plea agreement on the day day the
jury and paneling begins. I think it's unprecedented. Show me
where I'm wrong.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
I've been fifty years a lawyer, and I've been involved
in probably fifty murder cases, both prosecuting and defending, and
I've never seen this. What the question now becomes, why
did they do it? Is it a strategy that should work? Uh?
(03:03):
You yourself, we talked earlier today. Brought up something that
I heard from two other attorneys later in the day
that maybe he's trying to the defense is trying to
say we had an argument, we struggled, she fell and
hit her head, and I panicked that could be a
(03:27):
possibility here. That's the first time I heard it was
from you, Tom Hoops another respected way. He thinks a
diminished capacity insanity fleet, So exactly what what's going to
turn out? It was interesting they got nine jurors today. Yes,
(03:47):
heard about it, and you know you're watching the television.
It's the number one story, better than Trompanepstein.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
For at least.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
It's the idea that you know, he's got something up
his sleeve or the lawyers as to how to get
around what he did. So they can't bring this up
the prosecution to the jurors. In other words, you can't
say he already pled guilty to these two other crimes.
(04:25):
That would be too prejudicial to to to him. It
would he wouldn't get a fair trial that way. But
on the other hand, if he took the stand, they
might be able to say did you go operate with
the police, which he'd have to say no.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
And so well, yeah, that's that's the question.
Speaker 4 (04:47):
An unprecedented That's one.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
Of the questions I feel that I had for you.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
And Okay, if if they're trying to in effect humanize
him and convinced the jury, well, this guy was honest
enough to admit that he did this and this, that
he that he somehow moved the corpse, although he never
told them where the corpse was or the pieces of
(05:14):
the corpse. Uh, and that he did admit to to
interfering with the investigation. However, having been honest about that, Uh,
do they put him on the stand and did they
have him say.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Look, you know we we did. He has to have
a story.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
How do they establish if they without putting him on
the stand, any empathy or how do they And you
should never put someone in the word, I mean, that's
that's a cardinal rule. You never put somebody like this
on the witness stand. But how did how do they
get that in? If it is a strategy. I I
(05:57):
don't understand how they're going to be able to get
that in.
Speaker 4 (06:00):
Again, we have heard you and I have heard, and
the public has heard that one of the claims that
she was having an affair. This has come out many times.
And you know there's another aspect of this too.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Before you get off that ways, hold on, that doesn't
justify oh on anything. I don't think there's any way
that the lawyer is going to be able to bring
that up as a motive, because that goes to motive,
and that might convince the juror that's why he killed her.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
That's right, that's absolutely right. But there's something further beyond
that which the government has, and that is that he
killed her. They'll be able to prove what I believe
in the home where there were three two or three children.
Now that dehumanizes them if you talk about, yeah, trying
(07:00):
to humanize him. That factor alone is very unsettling for
anybody listening to the case or anybody sitting as a juror,
because you can't get around that. The government's case will
be that she was killed in the home, whether dismembered
there or dismembered someplace else, and then dropped various dum
(07:27):
dumpsters around around the area. So I don't know. I
just don't know. But I know one thing, he doesn't
present himself as a very sympathetic guy. That wasn't the
television they have rolled out. I would say thirty or
(07:48):
forty pictures of her seeming and some pictures of her
playing with her children seeming to be a very nice
looking person and a nice person. Don't know, I don't
know what the strategy is, but making him humanizing, making
him like a regular person is im possible.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
Yeah, when we get back, I want to I want
to raise some of the theories that we talked about today,
uh and give you an opportunity to uh uh to
point out the flaws in my thoughts here. But I
also want to give our listeners an opportunity to call
and pose questions to you or to make comments about
this case.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
This is a high profile case.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
We have a couple of high profile cases coming on uh,
the one that Kevin Reddington is defending, on the woman
who is alleged to have killed her three children while
her husband went out to retrieve a dinner for the family.
I don't want to conflate these cases because although geographically
(08:52):
they are similar, maybe chronologically they're similar, they're different cases.
I want to focus on the Brian Walsh in a
w Wash case to and I want to emphasize this
is the case about Anna Walsh and and her the
murder of Anna Walsh, because we can never forget the
name of the person who who was killed here.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
This is not someone who died. Uh. And again I.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Also have to say he deserves the presumption of innocence.
There's no question about that.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
But we're going to talk about this case. And if
you have a question for Phil Tracy, if you want
to make an observation, if you want to whether you're
a lawyer or not, want to positive theory as to
why they did this. I still am having trouble figuring
it out. I'm not familiar with the lawyer his lawyer
in the case, although I did some research on her
today and her name is Kelly. I believe it's pronounced Porchios.
(09:46):
She seems to be a former prosecutor and an experienced
criminal defense lawyer, so she must have some strategy in
play here, and we're going to talk about it. Six
one seven four thirty six seven nine experienced criminal defense
attorney Phil Tracy, a friend of many years, uh, and
someone whose work I respect and whose opinion I respect
(10:09):
that I always hate to raise questions with it because
he'll always have a good, good, strong experience criminal defense
answer for me. But that's my job. I'm going to
do it. I hope you join me. Coming back on
Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
It's Night Side with Ray Foston's news radio.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
We're talking about the beginning of the Anna Wallshs murder case.
Her husband, her former husband, Brian Wallash, is charged with
her murder, but not only is charged with her murder,
but is charged with dismembering. He's pled guilty now to
basically taking her body, which had been apparently dismembered, uh,
(10:51):
and taking it to a number of locations her corpse.
There's no evidence of her corpse, but he has now
entered a guilty play that he willfully conveyed a human
body to his wife and misled a police investigation. Phil
Tracy is my guess, Phil real quickly. There's no murder
crime which could be as personal as what we're talking
(11:13):
about tonight.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
This is not.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Two strangers arguing over an automobile fender bender and one
shoots the other. This isn't even a gangland murder or
or a drug deal gone bad. This is a husband
and a wife with children. Now this is all part
of one event, meaning you know, he's alleged to have
(11:39):
killed her, and then he he googled how do you
dispose of a body? All of these instructions which I
think you know going to come in evidence, Oh yeah,
oh yeah, and this members takes the body God knows where,
(12:00):
and this is it's all part. These are not separate crimes.
These these are all part of an incredible crime that
that's just beyond imagination. I don't understand the strategy here
because if he's not going to get in the witness stand,
(12:23):
I don't know what the defense lawyer is. What sort
of a case the defense lawyer could put up and
yet can't put this guy on the witness stand in
all reason, within any reasonable reasonable aspects. Do you understand this?
I don't.
Speaker 4 (12:38):
Well, let me let me say this. There's something you
just mentioned before we broke. The woman who was the
attorney who I don't know, uh did most of the
handling of the plea behind her, was sitting a lawyer
who I thought was the lead lawyer for the defendant,
(13:01):
and his name is Larry Tipton. He's been around a
long time. I don't know him personally, but he has
a good reputation and he can handle big cases. Now,
after the plea was over, he then approached and sat
beside the woman attorney. And I'm not sure whether he'll
be handling the lead role or they'll be sharing it
(13:25):
or as as in the Read case, there was a
lot of attorneys helping Karen Read, trading off different aspects
of the case. So that's a us Let me.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Ask you this.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
I gotta ask a question, Phil hold On, I gotta
ask questions. Do you read anything into the fact that
this other attorney, who you say is well respected, and
I'm not familiar with his work either, Why would he
sit away from her?
Speaker 4 (13:57):
You know, I found that strange. He sat back away
from the defendant and the poet gave me her name.
I really don't know. I never saw her before, and
she handled the ant the back and forth with the
judge about different aspects of the plea. He then got up,
(14:21):
as they said, now we'll move on to jury selection,
and he sat down at the council table. Don't know
what the significance of that was. There's another thing too.
Sometimes the client in a murder case, this guy is
not a what did I say? He's not a babe
(14:44):
in the woods. He's already been convicted in federal court
of a huge fraud of involving some paintings or something like.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
That, fraudulent paintings that he claimed were productions of Andy Warhol.
Speaker 4 (15:00):
He doesn't appear to be the kind of sympathetic defendant.
He doesn't look that way. His body language is weird,
you know, It's just it's he's a strange guy. Now
he could be calling the shots, telling them I want
to do it this way. That's a possible.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
I'll tell you if you if you had a client
in a murder case who was telling you how he
wanted or she wanted you to conduct the trial, how
long would you would you continue?
Speaker 4 (15:29):
As say a lawyer, Well, I mean they they sometimes
can speak out and say, you know, why didn't you
do this or why didn't you do that?
Speaker 3 (15:38):
Well that, yeah, a recommendation of question is one thing.
But but if someone says to he.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
Don't do it my way?
Speaker 2 (15:46):
Yeah, yeah, because you know you're flying the airplane.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
As as as a criminal defense lawyer and they're at
the passenger seat, and they can make suggestions. But okay,
so so let us come back real quick to to
what we know has happened. Okay, the plea has been
entered on two counts. He'll be sentenced on those do counts.
(16:11):
At the end, what they're doing here is they're angling,
I assume the best hope they have. They kind of
imagine they're going to beat this this case. There's not
a there's not going to be an acquittal here in
my opinion, So they're looking to get a past murder one,
which is life in prison without without parole, and.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
Murder two or maybe manslaughter.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
I think that's what they are hoping for, which would
be a miraculous win in my opinion for the defense
under these circumstances.
Speaker 4 (16:46):
It certainly would.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
And you know, uh big and a big difference, we
should add a big difference for those who don't understand.
Murder one, life in prison without the chance of parole,
murder two fifteen years not guaranteed, but of a chance.
Speaker 4 (17:02):
Right. And of course, if you were a juvenile, were
a juvenile when convicted, you Supreme Court has reversed the
light for a juvenile.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
Right, well, this guy wasn't a juveniles. There's no question,
no question about that. Go ahead, I interrupted you. You're
making a point for that.
Speaker 4 (17:19):
Tell no. It's a befuddeling turn of events. And as
I say, in all my years as an od time lawyer,
I haven't seen it. I haven't seen this this play
out this way.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
So I guess it's Phil Tracy.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
We're talking about a plea that was entered by Brian
Walsh today. He's charged accused of the murder of his wife,
Anna Walsh on New Year's Morning, twenty twenty three. This
is and again just reading very quickly here from the
Globe piece today. Prosecutors alleged that after Walsh fifty killed
(18:01):
his wife, he made a number of disturbing Google searches
on his son's tablet, including quote how to embomb a body,
another quote ten ways to dispose of a dead body
if you really need to, or another one quote how
to stop a body from decomposing? And how long before
a body starts to smell? I mean, whether, I mean,
(18:30):
we'll take a break if you like to join the
conversation and ask Phil a question or even posit.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
Would you think the defense lawyers are doing here.
Speaker 3 (18:38):
I think they have a very difficult task in front
of them. Maybe they have a strategy. I'm still trying
to figure out what that strategy is. And Phil Tracy
is trying to do the same. And again, I don't
want to diminish by any stretch of the imagination the
(19:01):
seriousness of this case. Everything that I've read about Anna
Waalsh is that she was a wonderful woman who was
very smart, very accomplished. Uh And and there's no justification
for what Brian Walsh, who does enjoy the presumption of innocence,
is nonetheless alleged to have done, not only in terms
(19:23):
of whatever happened in the house, but what happened afterwards.
Six one seven, two five four, six one seven ninety Phil,
stick with us here. We'll get some phone calls and
we'll get this thing rollward. Coming back on nights.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on w Boston's news radio.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
Free of full lines, Phil Tracy. So we'll get to
the phone calls and see what people have to say.
Your comments or your questions, your questions please direct them
to attorney Phil Tracy. UH A friend and periodically a
foam a colleague. Back in the day, let's go to
Phil as opposed to feel Tracy. Hey, Phil, welcome you're
next time.
Speaker 5 (20:04):
I felt the same way you gentlemen felt this morning
when I heard it. But what I heard also, I
guess if I was dreaming that the plan is at home.
I don't want to get end up getting suited of
saying something stupid. But apparently there might be a plan
of saying, well, she died of how poising? She died
(20:25):
of a suicide. He was so ashamed because she was
having an a fish.
Speaker 4 (20:29):
She chilled herself.
Speaker 5 (20:31):
He cut a body. But that's why, That's what I'm
thinking is going on here. That's what someone else is saying,
and I'm just rendering the same point.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Well to me, Yeah, Phil, let's get feel Tracy in here.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
Let me just say that I would hope that if
she did die of you know, suicide or of some
natural causes. Let's assume she had a heart attack or
a stroke. Is that the last thing that a husband
would think about was, well, let me slice her up
and take.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Her to the to the.
Speaker 5 (21:05):
I'm thinking of you.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
No, let's get let's get Phil Tracy in here. He
has more experience on this than either.
Speaker 5 (21:09):
One of us.
Speaker 4 (21:11):
I guess, you know, the way, the only way they
could get in that's that there's some alternative to him
actually killing her was is to put him on the stand,
which I think is extremely risky. But uh, that's the
(21:32):
only way you could get that to the jury, that
there's an alternative to him to the homicide, an accidental
fall or something like that. But then again, why what
would any spouse just you know, obviously do what he
did to that body? So really I'm stumped by the
(21:58):
uh to give it out, give a logical explanation. I
just don't know.
Speaker 5 (22:04):
Yeah, well that's I mean, the only thing I think
is a kind of a hail Mary pass, so I
think might be going on. I don't know, someone what
just makes kind of sense that everything else is going
on this crazy world. It makes sense, I guess. And
that's what else can I do? I mean, most husbands,
he was grieving, he was drinking, he was doing driving,
(22:25):
he faced in time, he panicked, and he didn't know
what to do. So he who knows you all.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
Right, Phil, appreciate, appreciate you.
Speaker 5 (22:33):
I'm glad. I'm good to you guys.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
All right, Thanks Phil, Thanks for listenings. Always have a
great night.
Speaker 3 (22:39):
Let me go next to Carol in Randolph. Carol Good
to get a female perspective of this story. How are
you tonight?
Speaker 4 (22:46):
I'm good?
Speaker 6 (22:47):
How are you?
Speaker 4 (22:47):
Dan?
Speaker 2 (22:48):
I mean troubled by this story, that's for sure.
Speaker 6 (22:52):
I mean this guy was a fraud from the get go,
and I do not believe a word he says. I
think right now he's just doing whatever he can to
get more drama out of it. And poor me. He
I mean he went to Bridgewater and they said, no,
he's fine. I mean this guy killed her. There's no
(23:16):
doubt in my mind. And yeah, make a last grasp.
But how is a jury ever gonna say, Oh I
chopped her up afterwards. I think he's gonna try and
play the okay on the murder charge. Oh, I was
so out of my mind distraught. And no, he's a
(23:39):
piece of crap and he needs to go down.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
Well, if if the bookies in London had this up
of the board, I would certainly agree with you.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
But the lawyers must have something in mind. Phil. Is
it possible that that there's something that these.
Speaker 3 (24:02):
Lawyers see that that you, and more importantly you and
I are missing.
Speaker 6 (24:07):
Oh I don't think so. I think he's got money
and he's playing it. And I mean his mother was
in there the other day looking like, oh, kissing and everything.
I mean, people, money, can.
Speaker 7 (24:20):
You got to give the mother a little bit of
a break, Carol, And that I'm sure that you know
a lot of parents never been in that situation, never
hoping to be in that situation.
Speaker 2 (24:32):
I'm sure that they are parents who just don't want
to believe that their son.
Speaker 6 (24:37):
No, No, I agree with that, Dan, But I mean
I think these people are just playing the leadal system.
I mean, yeah, what is he going to go and
now he's already admitted to chopping her up, and what's
he going to go in front of a jewelry? Like,
what is his defense there?
Speaker 3 (24:58):
I don't think he can get on the witness stand.
I don't think Phil thinks he get a witness stand.
And Phil explained to Carol again, I'm still troubled that
this ongoing it's an ongoing crime. You know, the murder.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
Obviously occurs, the.
Speaker 3 (25:19):
Cutting up of the body, disposing of the body, and
then misleading the police is all part of one one avenge. Yeah,
but you're saying that there's no way the prosecution is
going to be able to get any of that in
unless he gets on the witness stand.
Speaker 4 (25:36):
That's right, And Carol had a point there. The mother
is on the witness list and now whether she and
of course you got to feel bad there's grandchildren involved
for her, But I agree, yeah, there was a tough
(25:56):
she had a bad attitude towards the deceased. Not defense,
but there seemed to be some sort of terrible friction
between the mother and the deceased. And I'm sure that
it had something to do with the defendant saying, you know,
(26:19):
I'm not happy, or she's cheating on me or something
like that. But she is on the witness list, the mother,
So that's interesting why they would work on the witness
unless there's something that she could add to his defense
or detract from the commonwealth position. So Carol raised a
(26:43):
good point. The point is are we wasting money on
a case that you know this is not a case
at Dan pointed out that you can say, we'll plead
to a second degree of amurder. This is not a second
degree of America. This is malice of forethive. It's premeditated,
(27:04):
and it shows that his infanity defense would have a
difficult time in showing that, you know, he was calculating
enough to go on Google, to dismember the body, hide
the body, all these things, you know, So it's not
(27:28):
it's a first degree murdered there ever was.
Speaker 3 (27:30):
So let me ask you this, Phil just playing Devil's
advocate for one second here, and I get Carol's response
as well. The Norfolk County District Attorney's Office has just
gone through the Karen Reid case and that has been
a complete embarrassment, disaster, disaster. Could it be in another
(27:51):
high profile case that the DA's office might have said, Gee,
if we can't get in the evidence on the dismemberment
and on the misleading the police, let's take it. Let's
he's fifty two years old or fifty years old, Let's
let's take the second degree murder and go away. They
(28:13):
apparently said, no, we're not gonna we're not gonna bargain,
We're not gonna get off, come off the first degree
murder case. Maybe maybe they they they I mean, if
it ever came back, uh, you know, on the heels
of the Karen Reid case.
Speaker 6 (28:32):
You're you're the attorney there, I mean, filter the attorney
here I'm gonna talks.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
Go ahead. I happen to be an attorney, but he's
the attorney.
Speaker 8 (28:42):
Go ahead, let me.
Speaker 6 (28:44):
There's no way he should get the easy way out.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
No, no, no, I'm not suggesting that. Let me. Let
me get filed.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
Respond to my comment, all right, I'm sorry, I'll stand
down to the Italian No, no, go ahead. Pecutor in
this case is a hop notch prosecutor. His name is
Greg Connor, and he had a very difficult case. Probably
(29:11):
it was before the Karen Reid case, and that was
when a man killed the police officer, took the police
officer's gun and shot an elderly woman sitting on her
porch who had viewed the attack. Now, that case ended
(29:34):
with somebody holding out against a guilty finding. The prosecutor
went back, tried it again and got the guilty for
both of those murders, for the family of that police
officer and for the little lady. You know, it was
hot warming for the public to see that they weren't
(29:58):
given up on it. So I have a lot of
faith in that prosecutor.
Speaker 3 (30:02):
Yeah, in that particular case of Weymouth, that was a
jury dullification case. You had one person who went there
who never should have gotten past the void here as
far as I'm concerned, And they could have had videotape
of it and it wouldn't have made a difference.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
Carol, final comment from you, and then I gotta go
to break.
Speaker 6 (30:22):
Ask you guys for prayers for my husband right now.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
Please, what is going on with your husband?
Speaker 6 (30:30):
He needed a brain injury. He's in that. There's a
real deepness right now. And yeah, just prayers.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
Well, there's a lot of people who will pray who
listening to this program. What's your husband? What is your
husband's first name? Carol Jay Jay? Yeah, okay, Well there's
a lot of people who listen to this program every night.
Speaker 6 (30:51):
And I I'm sorry. I didn't mean to bring this up,
but yeah.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
Carol, cal you know what prayers never heard, never heard?
Speaker 6 (30:59):
And okay, thanks, thank you, Dan, thank you, take care.
Speaker 3 (31:05):
Bye, take a really kick quick break here at nightside.
Coming back if you'd like to try to get in,
the lines have been very busy. Six one seven, two, five,
four ten thirty or six one seven, nine three one
ten thirty. I got Alex dot Eileen. We're going to
get you folks in for sure, and maybe we'll get
an extra one or two. We'll see what happens. Coming
back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray. I'm w BZ,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 3 (31:31):
Okay, let's get everybody in here. We go to Dot
and med for Dot next on Nightside, Go.
Speaker 9 (31:35):
Right ahead, Hi, Danna, Phil. I think the mother is
too involved in this too. She is the one that's
funding it because he hasn't got a pot, he doesn't
have anything. His mother is funding it. She got a
lawyer to spy on this poor young woman, and she
(31:58):
she's up to her ears in this case too.
Speaker 3 (32:01):
I don't know if she got a lawyer. I think
you are you referring to that she there was a
private investigator that.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
Was yeah, yeah, that wouldn't necessarily have been a lawyer.
Speaker 9 (32:11):
Doed well whatever whatever he was on this girl. I
mean the mother is if you took a look at
her in court, she's not.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Charged with anything.
Speaker 9 (32:24):
Kisses back and forth to this murderer and he better
go for too bad, we don't have the death penalty.
Really too bad.
Speaker 3 (32:37):
Dot is one of my more liberal listeners here on
crime and Punishment.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Only kidding. I'm having a little bit of fun. With
dot with Phil.
Speaker 9 (32:46):
But anyway, he has a dreadful case. Those those little
boys now have lost that beautiful mother. It's just awful.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
And they've also lost the father of course, cause well.
Speaker 9 (32:59):
I mean you who needed him from.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
The no I understand, but I mean these kids now
are orphans. I mean they literally have neither.
Speaker 9 (33:07):
Her mother lives in Europe, so I don't know where
the kids are. I hope they're not with that which
mother is.
Speaker 3 (33:18):
All right, all right, we'll let you go. But of
my favorite call is Phil here on night side, I
lean in Cambridge. I lean you were next on Nightside
with Phil.
Speaker 10 (33:31):
Tracy Well, I uh was very much affected by this
case because I had moved to Hall and I was
traveling to Cohasset every day to visit my husband who
(33:53):
was in a nursing home. But and so it's this
whole story worry just freaked me out. And I also
feel especially bad about the three children that were left behind,
and that's not been in the news, and I don't
(34:13):
think anybody knows what happened.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
They give them their privacy A lean that's.
Speaker 10 (34:19):
Probably yes, yeah, absolutely, But.
Speaker 6 (34:25):
That's just.
Speaker 10 (34:28):
One of the saddest parts about this case.
Speaker 2 (34:31):
But there's so many sound points about the case.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
I mean, if if the marriage had had dissolved, one
and the two of them just you know, divorced.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
It's legal in Massachusetts.
Speaker 3 (34:43):
A lot of people go through it, uh, and people
come out the other side and they're and they're fine.
Speaker 10 (34:48):
So I think that's what she was trying to do.
Actually was wasn't it? It sounds like she was.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
You know, yeah, no, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (34:58):
No one ever knows what on inside of marriage except
the people inside the marriage. And at some point you
got to look at it and say, hey, this is
just not working for both of us, and let's uh,
let's shake hands and go in a different direction. But
I mean this that this is Phil sees a lot
of these cases, and but this, this, this one is
(35:21):
so you know, I remember Phil had a major case
they shooting at the ninety nine restaurant and actually got
an acquittal for one of the people who were charged
in the case. Did some great legal work on that
for that case for a young man who yeah, no,
I know, truly truly not guilty. But as we learned
(35:43):
at different times, sometimes the guilty are convicted in in
incorrectly in this country, and sometimes they're in they're convicted intentionally.
But you you put this man back on the road
of life, and I hope that he's done well, and
I hope that he's kept in touch with you, because
it's amazing that.
Speaker 4 (36:01):
On both counts. But the caller Eileen is correct in
saying that the tragedy goes to the nature of the
of the man involves here using his son's tablet to
(36:22):
search for at least to dispose of the bottle is abhorrent,
horrific in my mind. Uh, the children, you know, in
the house when he did.
Speaker 3 (36:35):
This, and she's dead at that point, I mean, she's
this is yeah, at that point.
Speaker 4 (36:43):
Around trying to figure out how he's gonna chop her up.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
That's not right, Eileen.
Speaker 3 (36:48):
I got to get one more call in, So thank
you for your compassion and your empathy tonight. I really
do appreciate it. It was an important call.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Thank you.
Speaker 10 (36:56):
Thanks thanks to him.
Speaker 3 (36:57):
By let me go to Alex and Millis, like, I say,
I got about a minute for you. You've called a
little lap and I'm going to get you and go ahead, Alex.
Speaker 8 (37:05):
Hey, Dan Hey, Schoel. I was going to say, as
they say, all the good ones are taken, you know,
but you know how much is is the this trial
and of course the Karen Reid trial costing the taxpayers
or the commonwealth? Which one is more expensive? Do you think, Phil,
I know it's an odd question, but you know, they
(37:26):
brought in.
Speaker 4 (37:27):
On the Karen Reid casey experienced counsel. I think his
name was Hank Brennan yep. And I don't really know
him that well, but I think he did the best
job he could with a very difficult case which was
torpedoed by all sorts of extraneous and collaterations. So you know,
(37:49):
that case costs a lot for a lot of different reasons.
That was tried twice, and you know, the jurors had
to be really god and so they had to be
taken care of and busting it out to keep those
crowds away. Now I'm not sure that this case is
(38:10):
going to draw those crowds, but they when a case
for US crowds, you need police to keep order outside.
That costs money. So that that read both read cases
cost a lot of money.
Speaker 2 (38:26):
And this case is never going to get to never
get to that point, Alex. I hate to do this
year but we're flat out of time.
Speaker 3 (38:33):
Usually I give you more time, but the eleven o'clock
news is coming down the track, so I got to
let you go.
Speaker 2 (38:38):
Thank you much to the on the line who are
not there. We're going to go to a.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
Different issue next hour. If you want to stay on,
you can. If not, I got to get you to
call a little earlier. Phil Tracy is always thanks for
your insight. We'll follow this case and we'll have you
back periodically.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
I don't think this was going to be a long trial.
Speaker 4 (39:00):
They got a lot of jurors today. That was an
impressive thing to get that many jurors.
Speaker 2 (39:04):
Yep.
Speaker 3 (39:05):
Then they're halfway home. Nine of sixteen. Phil Tracy, thank
you much. I'm sure you're up early tomorrow morning. Thanks
for staying up late. Thanks pro have a great nime.
We get back, we're going to talk about stress and
how you can de stress. I think it's going to
be an interesting hour back on night Side after the
eleven
It's Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm WBSY Boston's Knee Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Right, Dan Hawkins, thank you very much.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
Today was a very interesting day in a high profile case,
criminal case, a murder case here in Massachusetts. It is
a case that goes back to twenty and twenty three.
It was New Year's Day twenty twenty three when a
cohacent man by the name of Brian Walsh allegedly killed
(00:31):
and dismembered his wife. Of course, like anything else, he's
been in custody since. I don't think there was.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Any bail to be given.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
And today the trial was supposed to start with jury selection,
which did proceed jury selection, but to the surprise of
just about everybody who covered this case, and certainly to
my surprise I did. I'm not covering it, but I'm
certainly familiar with it. Walsh entered a guilty plea on
two of the three charges. He still faces a murder
(01:03):
in the first degree charge, but he pled guilty to
the charge of willfully conveying a human body. It's alleged
that he had basically dismembered his wife and took her
to a number of locations. They never found the body
or any evidence of the body, I guess, and also
(01:25):
misleading state police investigators. So he has pled guilty to
those two chargers. Which I can never remember a case
as much of a high profile case as this, which
on the day when the trial was supposed to start
with the again the jury being impaneled, that in a
(01:46):
case like this, where the three charges are really quite related,
that the defendant would plead guilty to two of the charges. So,
of course, in this case, who am I going to
call but my friend Phil Tracy, longtime criminal defense attorney
here in Boston. He and I worked a little bit
together a long time ago. But Phil has had an
(02:07):
outstanding career at the bar as a criminal defense attorney. Phil,
you have much more experience than I over the years
in incredible court. But have you ever heard of a case.
I've heard of plea agreements in advance of a trial,
(02:27):
but I've never heard of a case like this where
there's a partial plea agreement on the day day the
jury and paneling begins. I think it's unprecedented. Show me
where I'm wrong.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
I've been fifty years a lawyer, and I've been involved
in probably fifty murder cases, both prosecuting and defending, and
I've never seen this. What the question now becomes, why
did they do it? Is it a strategy that should work? Uh?
(03:03):
You yourself, we talked earlier today. Brought up something that
I heard from two other attorneys later in the day
that maybe he's trying to the defense is trying to
say we had an argument, we struggled, she fell and
hit her head, and I panicked that could be a
(03:27):
possibility here. That's the first time I heard it was
from you, Tom Hoops another respected way. He thinks a
diminished capacity insanity fleet, So exactly what what's going to
turn out? It was interesting they got nine jurors today. Yes,
(03:47):
heard about it, and you know you're watching the television.
It's the number one story, better than Trompanepstein.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
For at least.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
It's the idea that you know, he's got something up
his sleeve or the lawyers as to how to get
around what he did. So they can't bring this up
the prosecution to the jurors. In other words, you can't
say he already pled guilty to these two other crimes.
(04:25):
That would be too prejudicial to to to him. It
would he wouldn't get a fair trial that way. But
on the other hand, if he took the stand, they
might be able to say did you go operate with
the police, which he'd have to say no.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
And so well, yeah, that's that's the question.
Speaker 4 (04:47):
An unprecedented That's one.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
Of the questions I feel that I had for you.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
And Okay, if if they're trying to in effect humanize
him and convinced the jury, well, this guy was honest
enough to admit that he did this and this, that
he that he somehow moved the corpse, although he never
told them where the corpse was or the pieces of
(05:14):
the corpse. Uh, and that he did admit to to
interfering with the investigation. However, having been honest about that, Uh,
do they put him on the stand and did they
have him say.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Look, you know we we did. He has to have
a story.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
How do they establish if they without putting him on
the stand, any empathy or how do they And you
should never put someone in the word, I mean, that's
that's a cardinal rule. You never put somebody like this
on the witness stand. But how did how do they
get that in? If it is a strategy. I I
(05:57):
don't understand how they're going to be able to get
that in.
Speaker 4 (06:00):
Again, we have heard you and I have heard, and
the public has heard that one of the claims that
she was having an affair. This has come out many times.
And you know there's another aspect of this too.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Before you get off that ways, hold on, that doesn't
justify oh on anything. I don't think there's any way
that the lawyer is going to be able to bring
that up as a motive, because that goes to motive,
and that might convince the juror that's why he killed her.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
That's right, that's absolutely right. But there's something further beyond
that which the government has, and that is that he
killed her. They'll be able to prove what I believe
in the home where there were three two or three children.
Now that dehumanizes them if you talk about, yeah, trying
(07:00):
to humanize him. That factor alone is very unsettling for
anybody listening to the case or anybody sitting as a juror,
because you can't get around that. The government's case will
be that she was killed in the home, whether dismembered
there or dismembered someplace else, and then dropped various dum
(07:27):
dumpsters around around the area. So I don't know. I
just don't know. But I know one thing, he doesn't
present himself as a very sympathetic guy. That wasn't the
television they have rolled out. I would say thirty or
(07:48):
forty pictures of her seeming and some pictures of her
playing with her children seeming to be a very nice
looking person and a nice person. Don't know, I don't
know what the strategy is, but making him humanizing, making
him like a regular person is im possible.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
Yeah, when we get back, I want to I want
to raise some of the theories that we talked about today,
uh and give you an opportunity to uh uh to
point out the flaws in my thoughts here. But I
also want to give our listeners an opportunity to call
and pose questions to you or to make comments about
this case.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
This is a high profile case.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
We have a couple of high profile cases coming on uh,
the one that Kevin Reddington is defending, on the woman
who is alleged to have killed her three children while
her husband went out to retrieve a dinner for the family.
I don't want to conflate these cases because although geographically
(08:52):
they are similar, maybe chronologically they're similar, they're different cases.
I want to focus on the Brian Walsh in a
w Wash case to and I want to emphasize this
is the case about Anna Walsh and and her the
murder of Anna Walsh, because we can never forget the
name of the person who who was killed here.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
This is not someone who died. Uh. And again I.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Also have to say he deserves the presumption of innocence.
There's no question about that.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
But we're going to talk about this case. And if
you have a question for Phil Tracy, if you want
to make an observation, if you want to whether you're
a lawyer or not, want to positive theory as to
why they did this. I still am having trouble figuring
it out. I'm not familiar with the lawyer his lawyer
in the case, although I did some research on her
today and her name is Kelly. I believe it's pronounced Porchios.
(09:46):
She seems to be a former prosecutor and an experienced
criminal defense lawyer, so she must have some strategy in
play here, and we're going to talk about it. Six
one seven four thirty six seven nine experienced criminal defense
attorney Phil Tracy, a friend of many years, uh, and
someone whose work I respect and whose opinion I respect
(10:09):
that I always hate to raise questions with it because
he'll always have a good, good, strong experience criminal defense
answer for me. But that's my job. I'm going to
do it. I hope you join me. Coming back on
Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
It's Night Side with Ray Foston's news radio.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
We're talking about the beginning of the Anna Wallshs murder case.
Her husband, her former husband, Brian Wallash, is charged with
her murder, but not only is charged with her murder,
but is charged with dismembering. He's pled guilty now to
basically taking her body, which had been apparently dismembered, uh,
(10:51):
and taking it to a number of locations her corpse.
There's no evidence of her corpse, but he has now
entered a guilty play that he willfully conveyed a human
body to his wife and misled a police investigation. Phil
Tracy is my guess, Phil real quickly. There's no murder
crime which could be as personal as what we're talking
(11:13):
about tonight.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
This is not.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Two strangers arguing over an automobile fender bender and one
shoots the other. This isn't even a gangland murder or
or a drug deal gone bad. This is a husband
and a wife with children. Now this is all part
of one event, meaning you know, he's alleged to have
(11:39):
killed her, and then he he googled how do you
dispose of a body? All of these instructions which I
think you know going to come in evidence, Oh yeah,
oh yeah, and this members takes the body God knows where,
(12:00):
and this is it's all part. These are not separate crimes.
These these are all part of an incredible crime that
that's just beyond imagination. I don't understand the strategy here
because if he's not going to get in the witness stand,
(12:23):
I don't know what the defense lawyer is. What sort
of a case the defense lawyer could put up and
yet can't put this guy on the witness stand in
all reason, within any reasonable reasonable aspects. Do you understand this?
I don't.
Speaker 4 (12:38):
Well, let me let me say this. There's something you
just mentioned before we broke. The woman who was the
attorney who I don't know, uh did most of the
handling of the plea behind her, was sitting a lawyer
who I thought was the lead lawyer for the defendant,
(13:01):
and his name is Larry Tipton. He's been around a
long time. I don't know him personally, but he has
a good reputation and he can handle big cases. Now,
after the plea was over, he then approached and sat
beside the woman attorney. And I'm not sure whether he'll
be handling the lead role or they'll be sharing it
(13:25):
or as as in the Read case, there was a
lot of attorneys helping Karen Read, trading off different aspects
of the case. So that's a us Let me.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Ask you this.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
I gotta ask a question, Phil hold On, I gotta
ask questions. Do you read anything into the fact that
this other attorney, who you say is well respected, and
I'm not familiar with his work either, Why would he
sit away from her?
Speaker 4 (13:57):
You know, I found that strange. He sat back away
from the defendant and the poet gave me her name.
I really don't know. I never saw her before, and
she handled the ant the back and forth with the
judge about different aspects of the plea. He then got up,
(14:21):
as they said, now we'll move on to jury selection,
and he sat down at the council table. Don't know
what the significance of that was. There's another thing too.
Sometimes the client in a murder case, this guy is
not a what did I say? He's not a babe
(14:44):
in the woods. He's already been convicted in federal court
of a huge fraud of involving some paintings or something like.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
That, fraudulent paintings that he claimed were productions of Andy Warhol.
Speaker 4 (15:00):
He doesn't appear to be the kind of sympathetic defendant.
He doesn't look that way. His body language is weird,
you know, It's just it's he's a strange guy. Now
he could be calling the shots, telling them I want
to do it this way. That's a possible.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
I'll tell you if you if you had a client
in a murder case who was telling you how he
wanted or she wanted you to conduct the trial, how
long would you would you continue?
Speaker 4 (15:29):
As say a lawyer, Well, I mean they they sometimes
can speak out and say, you know, why didn't you
do this or why didn't you do that?
Speaker 3 (15:38):
Well that, yeah, a recommendation of question is one thing.
But but if someone says to he.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
Don't do it my way?
Speaker 2 (15:46):
Yeah, yeah, because you know you're flying the airplane.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
As as as a criminal defense lawyer and they're at
the passenger seat, and they can make suggestions. But okay,
so so let us come back real quick to to
what we know has happened. Okay, the plea has been
entered on two counts. He'll be sentenced on those do counts.
(16:11):
At the end, what they're doing here is they're angling,
I assume the best hope they have. They kind of
imagine they're going to beat this this case. There's not
a there's not going to be an acquittal here in
my opinion, So they're looking to get a past murder one,
which is life in prison without without parole, and.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
Murder two or maybe manslaughter.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
I think that's what they are hoping for, which would
be a miraculous win in my opinion for the defense
under these circumstances.
Speaker 4 (16:46):
It certainly would.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
And you know, uh big and a big difference, we
should add a big difference for those who don't understand.
Murder one, life in prison without the chance of parole,
murder two fifteen years not guaranteed, but of a chance.
Speaker 4 (17:02):
Right. And of course, if you were a juvenile, were
a juvenile when convicted, you Supreme Court has reversed the
light for a juvenile.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
Right, well, this guy wasn't a juveniles. There's no question,
no question about that. Go ahead, I interrupted you. You're
making a point for that.
Speaker 4 (17:19):
Tell no. It's a befuddeling turn of events. And as
I say, in all my years as an od time lawyer,
I haven't seen it. I haven't seen this this play
out this way.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
So I guess it's Phil Tracy.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
We're talking about a plea that was entered by Brian
Walsh today. He's charged accused of the murder of his wife,
Anna Walsh on New Year's Morning, twenty twenty three. This
is and again just reading very quickly here from the
Globe piece today. Prosecutors alleged that after Walsh fifty killed
(18:01):
his wife, he made a number of disturbing Google searches
on his son's tablet, including quote how to embomb a body,
another quote ten ways to dispose of a dead body
if you really need to, or another one quote how
to stop a body from decomposing? And how long before
a body starts to smell? I mean, whether, I mean,
(18:30):
we'll take a break if you like to join the
conversation and ask Phil a question or even posit.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
Would you think the defense lawyers are doing here.
Speaker 3 (18:38):
I think they have a very difficult task in front
of them. Maybe they have a strategy. I'm still trying
to figure out what that strategy is. And Phil Tracy
is trying to do the same. And again, I don't
want to diminish by any stretch of the imagination the
(19:01):
seriousness of this case. Everything that I've read about Anna
Waalsh is that she was a wonderful woman who was
very smart, very accomplished. Uh And and there's no justification
for what Brian Walsh, who does enjoy the presumption of innocence,
is nonetheless alleged to have done, not only in terms
(19:23):
of whatever happened in the house, but what happened afterwards.
Six one seven, two five four, six one seven ninety Phil,
stick with us here. We'll get some phone calls and
we'll get this thing rollward. Coming back on nights.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on w Boston's news radio.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
Free of full lines, Phil Tracy. So we'll get to
the phone calls and see what people have to say.
Your comments or your questions, your questions please direct them
to attorney Phil Tracy. UH A friend and periodically a
foam a colleague. Back in the day, let's go to
Phil as opposed to feel Tracy. Hey, Phil, welcome you're
next time.
Speaker 5 (20:04):
I felt the same way you gentlemen felt this morning
when I heard it. But what I heard also, I
guess if I was dreaming that the plan is at home.
I don't want to get end up getting suited of
saying something stupid. But apparently there might be a plan
of saying, well, she died of how poising? She died
(20:25):
of a suicide. He was so ashamed because she was
having an a fish.
Speaker 4 (20:29):
She chilled herself.
Speaker 5 (20:31):
He cut a body. But that's why, That's what I'm
thinking is going on here. That's what someone else is saying,
and I'm just rendering the same point.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Well to me, Yeah, Phil, let's get feel Tracy in here.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
Let me just say that I would hope that if
she did die of you know, suicide or of some
natural causes. Let's assume she had a heart attack or
a stroke. Is that the last thing that a husband
would think about was, well, let me slice her up
and take.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Her to the to the.
Speaker 5 (21:05):
I'm thinking of you.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
No, let's get let's get Phil Tracy in here. He
has more experience on this than either.
Speaker 5 (21:09):
One of us.
Speaker 4 (21:11):
I guess, you know, the way, the only way they
could get in that's that there's some alternative to him
actually killing her was is to put him on the stand,
which I think is extremely risky. But uh, that's the
(21:32):
only way you could get that to the jury, that
there's an alternative to him to the homicide, an accidental
fall or something like that. But then again, why what
would any spouse just you know, obviously do what he
did to that body? So really I'm stumped by the
(21:58):
uh to give it out, give a logical explanation. I
just don't know.
Speaker 5 (22:04):
Yeah, well that's I mean, the only thing I think
is a kind of a hail Mary pass, so I
think might be going on. I don't know, someone what
just makes kind of sense that everything else is going
on this crazy world. It makes sense, I guess. And
that's what else can I do? I mean, most husbands,
he was grieving, he was drinking, he was doing driving,
(22:25):
he faced in time, he panicked, and he didn't know
what to do. So he who knows you all.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
Right, Phil, appreciate, appreciate you.
Speaker 5 (22:33):
I'm glad. I'm good to you guys.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
All right, Thanks Phil, Thanks for listenings. Always have a
great night.
Speaker 3 (22:39):
Let me go next to Carol in Randolph. Carol Good
to get a female perspective of this story. How are
you tonight?
Speaker 4 (22:46):
I'm good?
Speaker 6 (22:47):
How are you?
Speaker 4 (22:47):
Dan?
Speaker 2 (22:48):
I mean troubled by this story, that's for sure.
Speaker 6 (22:52):
I mean this guy was a fraud from the get go,
and I do not believe a word he says. I
think right now he's just doing whatever he can to
get more drama out of it. And poor me. He
I mean he went to Bridgewater and they said, no,
he's fine. I mean this guy killed her. There's no
(23:16):
doubt in my mind. And yeah, make a last grasp.
But how is a jury ever gonna say, Oh I
chopped her up afterwards. I think he's gonna try and
play the okay on the murder charge. Oh, I was
so out of my mind distraught. And no, he's a
(23:39):
piece of crap and he needs to go down.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
Well, if if the bookies in London had this up
of the board, I would certainly agree with you.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
But the lawyers must have something in mind. Phil. Is
it possible that that there's something that these.
Speaker 3 (24:02):
Lawyers see that that you, and more importantly you and
I are missing.
Speaker 6 (24:07):
Oh I don't think so. I think he's got money
and he's playing it. And I mean his mother was
in there the other day looking like, oh, kissing and everything.
I mean, people, money, can.
Speaker 7 (24:20):
You got to give the mother a little bit of
a break, Carol, And that I'm sure that you know
a lot of parents never been in that situation, never
hoping to be in that situation.
Speaker 2 (24:32):
I'm sure that they are parents who just don't want
to believe that their son.
Speaker 6 (24:37):
No, No, I agree with that, Dan, But I mean
I think these people are just playing the leadal system.
I mean, yeah, what is he going to go and
now he's already admitted to chopping her up, and what's
he going to go in front of a jewelry? Like,
what is his defense there?
Speaker 3 (24:58):
I don't think he can get on the witness stand.
I don't think Phil thinks he get a witness stand.
And Phil explained to Carol again, I'm still troubled that
this ongoing it's an ongoing crime. You know, the murder.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
Obviously occurs, the.
Speaker 3 (25:19):
Cutting up of the body, disposing of the body, and
then misleading the police is all part of one one avenge. Yeah,
but you're saying that there's no way the prosecution is
going to be able to get any of that in
unless he gets on the witness stand.
Speaker 4 (25:36):
That's right, And Carol had a point there. The mother
is on the witness list and now whether she and
of course you got to feel bad there's grandchildren involved
for her, But I agree, yeah, there was a tough
(25:56):
she had a bad attitude towards the deceased. Not defense,
but there seemed to be some sort of terrible friction
between the mother and the deceased. And I'm sure that
it had something to do with the defendant saying, you know,
(26:19):
I'm not happy, or she's cheating on me or something
like that. But she is on the witness list, the mother,
So that's interesting why they would work on the witness
unless there's something that she could add to his defense
or detract from the commonwealth position. So Carol raised a
(26:43):
good point. The point is are we wasting money on
a case that you know this is not a case
at Dan pointed out that you can say, we'll plead
to a second degree of amurder. This is not a second
degree of America. This is malice of forethive. It's premeditated,
(27:04):
and it shows that his infanity defense would have a
difficult time in showing that, you know, he was calculating
enough to go on Google, to dismember the body, hide
the body, all these things, you know, So it's not
(27:28):
it's a first degree murdered there ever was.
Speaker 3 (27:30):
So let me ask you this, Phil just playing Devil's
advocate for one second here, and I get Carol's response
as well. The Norfolk County District Attorney's Office has just
gone through the Karen Reid case and that has been
a complete embarrassment, disaster, disaster. Could it be in another
(27:51):
high profile case that the DA's office might have said, Gee,
if we can't get in the evidence on the dismemberment
and on the misleading the police, let's take it. Let's
he's fifty two years old or fifty years old, Let's
let's take the second degree murder and go away. They
(28:13):
apparently said, no, we're not gonna we're not gonna bargain,
We're not gonna get off, come off the first degree
murder case. Maybe maybe they they they I mean, if
it ever came back, uh, you know, on the heels
of the Karen Reid case.
Speaker 6 (28:32):
You're you're the attorney there, I mean, filter the attorney
here I'm gonna talks.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
Go ahead. I happen to be an attorney, but he's
the attorney.
Speaker 8 (28:42):
Go ahead, let me.
Speaker 6 (28:44):
There's no way he should get the easy way out.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
No, no, no, I'm not suggesting that. Let me. Let
me get filed.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
Respond to my comment, all right, I'm sorry, I'll stand
down to the Italian No, no, go ahead. Pecutor in
this case is a hop notch prosecutor. His name is
Greg Connor, and he had a very difficult case. Probably
(29:11):
it was before the Karen Reid case, and that was
when a man killed the police officer, took the police
officer's gun and shot an elderly woman sitting on her
porch who had viewed the attack. Now, that case ended
(29:34):
with somebody holding out against a guilty finding. The prosecutor
went back, tried it again and got the guilty for
both of those murders, for the family of that police
officer and for the little lady. You know, it was
hot warming for the public to see that they weren't
(29:58):
given up on it. So I have a lot of
faith in that prosecutor.
Speaker 3 (30:02):
Yeah, in that particular case of Weymouth, that was a
jury dullification case. You had one person who went there
who never should have gotten past the void here as
far as I'm concerned, And they could have had videotape
of it and it wouldn't have made a difference.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
Carol, final comment from you, and then I gotta go
to break.
Speaker 6 (30:22):
Ask you guys for prayers for my husband right now.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
Please, what is going on with your husband?
Speaker 6 (30:30):
He needed a brain injury. He's in that. There's a
real deepness right now. And yeah, just prayers.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
Well, there's a lot of people who will pray who
listening to this program. What's your husband? What is your
husband's first name? Carol Jay Jay? Yeah, okay, Well there's
a lot of people who listen to this program every night.
Speaker 6 (30:51):
And I I'm sorry. I didn't mean to bring this up,
but yeah.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
Carol, cal you know what prayers never heard, never heard?
Speaker 6 (30:59):
And okay, thanks, thank you, Dan, thank you, take care.
Speaker 3 (31:05):
Bye, take a really kick quick break here at nightside.
Coming back if you'd like to try to get in,
the lines have been very busy. Six one seven, two, five,
four ten thirty or six one seven, nine three one
ten thirty. I got Alex dot Eileen. We're going to
get you folks in for sure, and maybe we'll get
an extra one or two. We'll see what happens. Coming
back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray. I'm w BZ,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 3 (31:31):
Okay, let's get everybody in here. We go to Dot
and med for Dot next on Nightside, Go.
Speaker 9 (31:35):
Right ahead, Hi, Danna, Phil. I think the mother is
too involved in this too. She is the one that's
funding it because he hasn't got a pot, he doesn't
have anything. His mother is funding it. She got a
lawyer to spy on this poor young woman, and she
(31:58):
she's up to her ears in this case too.
Speaker 3 (32:01):
I don't know if she got a lawyer. I think
you are you referring to that she there was a
private investigator that.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
Was yeah, yeah, that wouldn't necessarily have been a lawyer.
Speaker 9 (32:11):
Doed well whatever whatever he was on this girl. I
mean the mother is if you took a look at
her in court, she's not.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Charged with anything.
Speaker 9 (32:24):
Kisses back and forth to this murderer and he better
go for too bad, we don't have the death penalty.
Really too bad.
Speaker 3 (32:37):
Dot is one of my more liberal listeners here on
crime and Punishment.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Only kidding. I'm having a little bit of fun. With
dot with Phil.
Speaker 9 (32:46):
But anyway, he has a dreadful case. Those those little
boys now have lost that beautiful mother. It's just awful.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
And they've also lost the father of course, cause well.
Speaker 9 (32:59):
I mean you who needed him from.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
The no I understand, but I mean these kids now
are orphans. I mean they literally have neither.
Speaker 9 (33:07):
Her mother lives in Europe, so I don't know where
the kids are. I hope they're not with that which
mother is.
Speaker 3 (33:18):
All right, all right, we'll let you go. But of
my favorite call is Phil here on night side, I
lean in Cambridge. I lean you were next on Nightside
with Phil.
Speaker 10 (33:31):
Tracy Well, I uh was very much affected by this
case because I had moved to Hall and I was
traveling to Cohasset every day to visit my husband who
(33:53):
was in a nursing home. But and so it's this
whole story worry just freaked me out. And I also
feel especially bad about the three children that were left behind,
and that's not been in the news, and I don't
(34:13):
think anybody knows what happened.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
They give them their privacy A lean that's.
Speaker 10 (34:19):
Probably yes, yeah, absolutely, But.
Speaker 6 (34:25):
That's just.
Speaker 10 (34:28):
One of the saddest parts about this case.
Speaker 2 (34:31):
But there's so many sound points about the case.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
I mean, if if the marriage had had dissolved, one
and the two of them just you know, divorced.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
It's legal in Massachusetts.
Speaker 3 (34:43):
A lot of people go through it, uh, and people
come out the other side and they're and they're fine.
Speaker 10 (34:48):
So I think that's what she was trying to do.
Actually was wasn't it? It sounds like she was.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
You know, yeah, no, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (34:58):
No one ever knows what on inside of marriage except
the people inside the marriage. And at some point you
got to look at it and say, hey, this is
just not working for both of us, and let's uh,
let's shake hands and go in a different direction. But
I mean this that this is Phil sees a lot
of these cases, and but this, this, this one is
(35:21):
so you know, I remember Phil had a major case
they shooting at the ninety nine restaurant and actually got
an acquittal for one of the people who were charged
in the case. Did some great legal work on that
for that case for a young man who yeah, no,
I know, truly truly not guilty. But as we learned
(35:43):
at different times, sometimes the guilty are convicted in in
incorrectly in this country, and sometimes they're in they're convicted intentionally.
But you you put this man back on the road
of life, and I hope that he's done well, and
I hope that he's kept in touch with you, because
it's amazing that.
Speaker 4 (36:01):
On both counts. But the caller Eileen is correct in
saying that the tragedy goes to the nature of the
of the man involves here using his son's tablet to
(36:22):
search for at least to dispose of the bottle is abhorrent,
horrific in my mind. Uh, the children, you know, in
the house when he did.
Speaker 3 (36:35):
This, and she's dead at that point, I mean, she's
this is yeah, at that point.
Speaker 4 (36:43):
Around trying to figure out how he's gonna chop her up.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
That's not right, Eileen.
Speaker 3 (36:48):
I got to get one more call in, So thank
you for your compassion and your empathy tonight. I really
do appreciate it. It was an important call.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Thank you.
Speaker 10 (36:56):
Thanks thanks to him.
Speaker 3 (36:57):
By let me go to Alex and Millis, like, I say,
I got about a minute for you. You've called a
little lap and I'm going to get you and go ahead, Alex.
Speaker 8 (37:05):
Hey, Dan Hey, Schoel. I was going to say, as
they say, all the good ones are taken, you know,
but you know how much is is the this trial
and of course the Karen Reid trial costing the taxpayers
or the commonwealth? Which one is more expensive? Do you think, Phil,
I know it's an odd question, but you know, they
(37:26):
brought in.
Speaker 4 (37:27):
On the Karen Reid casey experienced counsel. I think his
name was Hank Brennan yep. And I don't really know
him that well, but I think he did the best
job he could with a very difficult case which was
torpedoed by all sorts of extraneous and collaterations. So you know,
(37:49):
that case costs a lot for a lot of different reasons.
That was tried twice, and you know, the jurors had
to be really god and so they had to be
taken care of and busting it out to keep those
crowds away. Now I'm not sure that this case is
(38:10):
going to draw those crowds, but they when a case
for US crowds, you need police to keep order outside.
That costs money. So that that read both read cases
cost a lot of money.
Speaker 2 (38:26):
And this case is never going to get to never
get to that point, Alex. I hate to do this
year but we're flat out of time.
Speaker 3 (38:33):
Usually I give you more time, but the eleven o'clock
news is coming down the track, so I got to
let you go.
Speaker 2 (38:38):
Thank you much to the on the line who are
not there. We're going to go to a.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
Different issue next hour. If you want to stay on,
you can. If not, I got to get you to
call a little earlier. Phil Tracy is always thanks for
your insight. We'll follow this case and we'll have you
back periodically.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
I don't think this was going to be a long trial.
Speaker 4 (39:00):
They got a lot of jurors today. That was an
impressive thing to get that many jurors.
Speaker 2 (39:04):
Yep.
Speaker 3 (39:05):
Then they're halfway home. Nine of sixteen. Phil Tracy, thank
you much. I'm sure you're up early tomorrow morning. Thanks
for staying up late. Thanks pro have a great nime.
We get back, we're going to talk about stress and
how you can de stress. I think it's going to
be an interesting hour back on night Side after the
eleven
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com