December 1, 2025 • 37 mins
The trial of Brian Walshe, the man accused of killing and dismembering his wife’s body, began Monday. Walsh has pleaded guilty to misleading police and mishandling a body but stands firm on the claim that he did not kill his wife. In Monday’s opening statement, the Defense team claims that Ana Walshe died from a “sudden unexplained death” and that Brian disposed of Ana’s body to protect his kids. We discussed this riveting case with Attorney Phil Tracey.
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 (00:01):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WVS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
All Right, welcome back, everybody. We're at about nine nine.
Joining us is Toorney Phil Tracy. Phil. First, we're going
to listen to some of the opening arguments today in
the Brian Walsh case, and so I want to make
sure that you have a chance to hear these as
(00:29):
well as for my audience to hear them as well.
The Brian Walsh case follows close on the heels of
the Karen Reid case, and if today was any indication
this one is going to generate maybe not as much publicity,
but I think it was as strange an opening day
(00:50):
that I can ever imagine. This case involves Brian Walsh
and his late white life, his late wife, Anna Walls,
who disappeared. Her body has never been found for a
number of reasons. Walsh was indicted by a grand jury.
(01:10):
They have three children, I think it's three boys, and
that became a little part of the defense here. His
defense lawyer made the argument today that that his client
is not guilty of doing anything harmful to his late wife,
(01:36):
and essentially, his defense lawyer argued Larry Tipton Tifton Tipton
was the defense lawyer admitted, you know, to to several
of the facts. This Brian Walsh has already pled guilty
UH to disposing of uh his wife's remains and also
(02:02):
misleading police. But the argument that Tipton made in his
opening statement to the to the jury is one that
is I don't know if there's a word to describe
it here. It's it's one that to me is baffling.
(02:27):
But I want to hear. I want Phil, I want
you to listen to his words and then we'll comment
on that. So this is the defense lawyer speaking to
the jury and the opening statements basically laying it, laying
out the defense for Brian Walsh. Let me, I want
to pick the right m the right cut here, cut
(02:52):
number twenty four, please Rob.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
And he doesn't understand what has happened and what is happening.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
It didn't make any sense.
Speaker 5 (03:05):
You will hear evidence in this case of suddenly unexplained death.
You will hear evidence that it is great. You will
hear evidence that it happens.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
It is to this day not well understood, and that
is the evidence you will hear.
Speaker 6 (03:24):
And it is not well known to non medical professionals
and you will hear evidence Brian Walsh never imagined somebody
suddenly die.
Speaker 5 (03:40):
One hour he's with her, he cleans the kitchen, he
comes back up, and she is dead.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
That is the argument. Of course, the prosecution tells a
very different story. And let me play one bite from
the prosecutor in this case. I've got a lot of
notes here, Phil, so be bear with me. The prosecutor
(04:11):
is Greg Connor. Who the assistant district attorney is Greg Connor,
someone who I believe you're familiar with. Yes, And this
is the prosecutions. This is the prosecution opening opening statement.
Here cut number twenty three, please rob.
Speaker 7 (04:32):
Beginning on January books, at four fifty four am, the
mac cook search best way to dispose of a body,
and then with the similar websites more than that. At
six twenty four a same day, the same device search
(05:00):
how long for someone to missing to inherit? How long
missing to be dead? Can you throw away body parts?
Speaker 8 (05:13):
Later on that morning, on January first, at nine thirty
three am, the math Book went to search how long
does DNA last? And then an article is it possible.
Speaker 7 (05:24):
To clean DNA off the night?
Speaker 8 (05:28):
Thirty minutes later, the math Book research disposal of a
cell phone at ten twenty eight am the math book researcher,
I am the user of my wife's credit card. She
is missing, and again on January first, at eleven twenty
eight am, it's searched best way to dispose of body
(05:53):
parts after.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Ammerd Phil Tracy, you've been in the courtroom for many years,
you've defended capital cases. Have you ever heard a story
as I don't know, I want to say puzzling, as this, mystifying,
(06:18):
whatever you want to call it.
Speaker 4 (06:22):
It's well as Dan you know and listeners, the opening
statements are not evident. So whether or not these things
that the defense counselor has said can ever be confirmed verified,
I doubt it very much. The hid part for me
is the defense is obviously what the defendant has told
(06:48):
his lawyers. Now it's very difficult for the public to understand.
You have to do your best for your client. Now
if he tells you that this is what happened, and
then you say, I don't you know, I don't believe it,
or I'm skeptical, but if he sticks to it, you
(07:10):
have to present it now. Is it somewhat ludicrous? I
think so. Years ago there was a couple of cases
in which it's almost I hate to even bring it up,
but this sort of what do you call it? Dominetrix woman.
(07:33):
She was tied a guy up and the guy expired
by choking. She disposed of the body he choked on
his own. But that's the closest thing I can think of,
and that's a weird case in itself. But you mentioned
(07:53):
the Read case. Now what's the difference. There's a huge difference.
In Reid's case. She either hit him, whether she either
hit him by accident or she didn't at all. So
there was a lot of possibilities there. There's no other
possibility here. He went and got those instructions of how
(08:13):
did this member of body and how long a body
would take to start to get ripe. So I mean,
this is a cold calculated murder, premeditation, malice of forethought,
all of these things that were not part of the
Read case. The Read case was maybe taken from the
(08:36):
prosecution side. They fought she was strong, she backed up
at him. I wasn't sure it was a second degree
murder from the beginning, more like a motor vehicle homicide.
On the other hand, that generally found her not guilty.
So that case is so different as far as the
(08:59):
people involved. This this fellow, and it's not it's hard
to sympathize, it's hard to feel anything form. Uh.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
Well, one of the first Yeah, I think the prosecutor
today try to appeal people's common sense. We get back.
My guest is Phil Tracy. Uh, I'm going to ask
all of you to think about what you would do
under these circumstances. So where you're going to take a
quick break here, I'll be back with Phil Tracy. And
again I want all of you to to think about
(09:34):
this set of circumstances. And I'll pause, I'll pose the question.
I'm going to ask you to be, in effect, sit
in his jurors here and see if there's any way
you think that this story might be able to stand
the test of cross examination and the test of time.
Six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty six one seven, nine, three,
(09:54):
one thirty. My name is Dan Ray. My guests Phil Tracy,
longtime criminal defense attorney here in Boston. He's hand capital cases,
and this to me is a really puzzling way to
try to defend this case. And and Phil, we're going to
explore a little bit more of what do you do
as a lawyer if you don't believe your your client,
(10:17):
because that is I can't I can't imagine you.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
Had to wrap your hands around Now, we will.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Do this, we will get through this filled. Stay right
there and if you'd like to join the conversation, your perspective,
and as a matter of fact, I'd prefer to hear
from people who are not lawyers. Phil's a lawyer, I'm
a lawyer, feels much more experienced this than in this
type of case than I am. But I want to
hear from the listeners who are not lawyers. And would
(10:46):
you sit there in that jury and say, yeah, sounds
to me like that that that that that story kind
of hangs together. Yeah, yeah, we'll see coming back. Six one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty six one seven, nine three, one ten
thirty Back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Boston's news Radio with me is Phil Tracy, experienced criminal
defense lawyer. Phil. Essentially, what the defense lawyer in this case,
Attorney Tipton, is asking the jury to accept is that
(11:25):
this guy did the dishes after this small New Year's
get together with just one other person when he went upstairs,
he found that his wife was not responsive. He tried
to wake or she didn't wake up. He pushed, he
nudged her a couple of times. One time he actually
nudged her and she fell off the bed dead. Now
(11:48):
you would think that most people in that situation would say,
I got to call nine to one one. That's not
what he did. Not what he did. And the next
day they have videotape of this guy going around and
buying all of these implements that he would have needed.
This is what the prosecution says. They are going to
(12:10):
be able to show what do you do? And we'll
get to the case a little bit more. But as
a lawyer, if walk said to them, look I killed her,
but here's a great story I could use, they have
to recuse themselves at that point.
Speaker 4 (12:25):
Correct, that's the line, that's the line in the sand.
You just said it. In other words, if he says
this is what happened, it is your duty as a
lawyer to present that to the person who's going to
make the judgment, a judge or a jury. The bottom
line here is if he says, I did it, but
(12:47):
I want you to tell him the story, that's where
I bail out, and that's where I hope every lawyer
in Massachusetts would bail out. Now, I can't say anything
about Tipton. I don't know him that well. He is
an experienced lawyer, uh young. Greg Connor is a very
good lawyer who I've had tases with and you know,
(13:11):
but the danger is, as my wife told me, that uh,
one juror could somehow, you know, be swayed that this
could have happened, and that this is preventing that eur
from going beyond a reasonable doubt. So that's that's the
(13:34):
hard part there. If this case ever went down as
a not guilty, which I don't think it will, the
only thing they could happen is, unfortunately, a retrial. Now
there's there's a lot of things no there what.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Holden want to make sure that that our audience is
not confused if this came up as a as as
a not guilty.
Speaker 4 (13:58):
Uh yeah, yeah, this jury and they could go back
it was not guilty. It came up like the read
case as a hung jury, they'd have to try it
over again because maybe one or two puldouts they call
(14:18):
them when they're in the jury room didn't have found
that that the story has proposed uh pass muster in
that it did not reach the line of proof on
a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Well, the other thing, one of which we should talk
about phil briefly is jury nullification. There had been occasions
that I'm aware of, where somehow, some way the due
diligence in the idea wasn't adequately done, and somehow, some
way a juror is impaneled, and that juror has made
(14:57):
up their decision their mind ahead of time for whatever reason,
for whatever reason, that they are not even going to
participate in the deliberations. And there I can think of
the case where there's there have been, There's been at
least one juror that I know of that said, look,
I'm not voting a convict, period, and I don't care
(15:20):
what the evidence shows. I am not gonna There are
some people who have no faith in the system, and
they they are they are actually they're almost adversarial to
the whole concept of the jury trial and jury of
your peers and all of that. But I just look
at this and I think to myself, the average person,
(15:43):
you go upstairs and for some reason, your spouse, your
partner is unresponsive. You call nine one one. That's that's
not only.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
You said. There's not a word about him trying to revive,
trying to well, not only nine one one, but let's
just say she had a physician for instances.
Speaker 9 (16:07):
What do I do?
Speaker 4 (16:08):
Or a friend?
Speaker 10 (16:10):
No, what do I do?
Speaker 4 (16:11):
She's passed out. It doesn't pass months.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
I thought I thought where they were going to go
with this when they admitted to a disposal of the
body and misleading investigators. I thought that they were going
to say, oh, they had an argument, and that he
did not want to be involved in the argument. And
he rushed out of the kitchen and went upstairs and
didn't realize that he had bumped her and that she
(16:38):
fell and she hit her head against the counter, And
when he came down fifteen or twenty minutes later, hoping
everything had cooled down, he realized that she was dead
on the floor.
Speaker 4 (16:51):
Now, now let me say this, if I were, that's
a more believable story than the one who's there trying
to road down. But remember, until the audience this the
opening statement is not evidence. Yeah, no, of course, I
don't know how they would get any evidence in there
unless he took the stand.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
He's going to have to take the stand. He's going
to have to take the witness stand. I don't see it.
He avoids and at that point I would assume that
the prosecute is going to be able to literally ask
him questions to which which will just show them that
any reasonable person, I mean, I guess the other alternative
(17:34):
would have been a potential insanity. Please, but that's still
going to end up being. You know, you're going to
spend a lot of time, maybe the rest of your life. Well,
we'll take some calls, we'll take some questions, and we'll
also we have some more sound from this extraordinary This
is I've this, this case is going to go down.
(17:55):
I mean, there's no doubt about it. This this this
may last longer than the Karen Reid trial because, uh,
in the minds of people. Here are the numbers we
got wide open lines six, one, seven, two, five, four
ten thirty six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty.
My question to my audience is if you had been
impaneled as a juror, and by the way, the judge
(18:18):
has ordered the jurors not to listen to television, or
read newspapers or listen to radio. So I'm sure, we're
not influencing anyone anyone, but I'm wondering if there is
anything in anyone in this audience tonight who, after having
heard of what went on in court today, could say
that this sounds like a story that has any level
(18:39):
of credibility. Six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty
six one seven, nine, three, one ten thirty. Coming back
with my guest, longtime criminal defense attorney Phil Tracy.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on wbzas Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Come at the Brian Walsh case which began for real
today opening statements by the prosecution and defense. With me
is longtime criminal defense attorney in Boston, Phil Tracy. Phil,
I just want to play a little bit more here
of the defense lawyer. His name is Attorney Tipton, and
(19:17):
again obviously a difficulty case here, Larry Tipton. This is
a sound bite that's cut twenty five.
Speaker 5 (19:27):
Please, Robin, you will hear evidence that it happens.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
It is to this day not well understood, and that
is the evidence you will hear, and it is not
well known.
Speaker 6 (19:40):
To non medical professionals. You will hear evidence Brian Welsh.
Never imagine some suddenly die.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
That sounds to me like they're going to try to
find some doctor who's going and to say, yes, it
is possible that a thirty nine year old woman who
is an apparent good health can suddenly die, And there
are cases like that, Obviously, there are occasionally cases like that.
In this case, there was no opportunity to do an autopsy.
(20:19):
In this case, there was no opportunity to figure out
if she had ingested some form of narcotic which might
have killed her, or anything like that. So, in effect,
wallsh In admitting that he disposed of the body really
almost gave the jury nothing to hang their hat on.
(20:43):
You know, if some medical examiner had looked at the
body and said, yeah, there was there was a blockage
of in her heart. I just kind of imagine what
medical expert he is going to be able to put
on can talk about the specifics of her death because
the body never been discovered.
Speaker 4 (21:00):
Are you're not there?
Speaker 2 (21:02):
They can talk ethically, they could talk hypothetically, is it
possible that somebody for no apparent reason can can die?
But then that still doesn't get past the question of
his actions. And in order to explain his actions, he's
got to get on the witness stand because it's only
he that can explain what would have driven him to
(21:23):
do what he claims he did. Go ahead, Phil, I'm sorry.
Speaker 4 (21:27):
That's okay, kid, You're hitting it right on the head.
The problem is this. Usually they used to say that
if you didn't have a body, the prosecution was hindered
by that, you'd have to have all sorts of circumstantial evidence. Well,
he's given the circumstantial evidence by making these attempts to
find to prove the internet out of this disposed dismember
(21:52):
not true a body. It's pretty heenus stuff. And it's
with three little boys in bed upstairs. Oh, I mean,
a lot of yours will say this guy's a monster.
His body language doesn't look too good either, because he's
sort of, you know, sitting there like you know, cock robin,
like he's got some you know what I mean. It's
(22:13):
just not a book.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 10 (22:14):
No.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
And remember when he was first arrested, there's a photograph
of him in custody and he's smiling as if as
if he had just won a super Bowl or something.
I just I'm amazed. Let's see what some of our
listeners think as we go along here, Phil let me
go first, up to Tom and Weymouth. Hey, Tom, welcome,
(22:36):
you're a night side. I'm here along with Phil Tracy,
a very experienced criminal defense attorney. Go right ahead, Tom,
what's your comment of question?
Speaker 9 (22:44):
Thanks you for your time, Dan, And hello mister Tracy.
I love you when you're on the show. Mister Tracy.
I just love your perspective on so many things. It's
refreshing and I'm so glad you're hit tonight to comment
on this. And I just want to say a couple
quick things. Dan took the words out of my mouth
when he was saying the other day, this guy is
(23:05):
a monster. I think you know he was in court
and he was smiling and waving to his mother.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
It was actually that was strange. Yeah, it was strange.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
Yeah, what strangers? We just we just lost the call
to Tom. If if you want to call back, feel
feel free. We're talking about the beginning. Uh, the really,
the the opening the jury was was chosen last week,
but the opening statements by prosecution and defense, and again
it just to me defies any level of reason, any
(23:39):
level of reason whatsoever. Uh, that if someone did find
a family member on a responsive that the first instinct
would not be to if not, if you're not capable
of providing some form of resuscitation. You know, you've seen
it all on television all every time, you know, chess
(24:02):
compressions and things like that. You I mean, what what
is he who knows what he's going to say to
to the to the prosecutor. But he's going to have
to get on the witness stand here. They just can't
spin this tail and have him sit.
Speaker 4 (24:20):
There and then let let it hang out there. You know,
there's got to be although Dan, you just touched on it.
They'll get an expert who say that two things. Number one,
you can die, you can drop dead in the old
fashioned way, and people can panic. They might try to
(24:42):
bring some psychiatrists in to say, uh, the panic is
not an abnormal reaction to such a horrible thing as this.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Our call has has has rejoined us here, Phil, you
must have run into a bad spot. Hey, Tom, you're
thanks for checking back in what why don't you repeat
your comment or question?
Speaker 9 (25:04):
Okay, certainly, thank you very much. And again I'm so
excited to mister Tracy's on the show. I really enjoy
when he's on the show in his carment.
Speaker 2 (25:12):
Thank you are you not related to Attorney Tracy here?
All right, I'm not getting gloved ahead, Go ahead, Tom,
It's one of my.
Speaker 9 (25:22):
Favorite favorite people that you have on the show. Then,
But anyways, I'll get right to the point. You know,
what did it for me? Uh? And I believe in
due process and being fair. But you know, the the
internet searches which are ultra specific, which just blew my mind.
And then the fact that you know, on some Wednesday afternoon,
(25:42):
he goes to the home people on Wednesday on on
some midday and he buys these very very very specific
items the tie back suit, leach and and and the
hacksaw and some other items that really tie into what
you might need if you were to dismember a body,
and how to cover up the smell and whatnot. I mean,
(26:04):
you're not buying that for any other reason. So all
that I can say to myself is when you have
an Internet search that specific, and then you go to
the store and you buy these items that really tie
into something like that if you were going to do that,
and then you delay reporting reporting it to the police
to give yourself enough time for the body if he
(26:25):
did dismember her, for that to be taken away, you know,
by the trash disposal companies, and then we may find
on top of it all, then DNA evidence around one
of the dumpsters or something like that. I mean, I
just can't imagine the defense lawyer trying to convince or
(26:45):
even influence a jury to the contract.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
Are you going to, well, the defense lawyer assuming that
that Wolves has not told him a different story if
he has said to Wolves, tell me what happened, but
be careful what you say. Uh, and and and he
has not, as Phil said, crossed over the line. The
other thing that Phil mentioned once I thought was a
(27:09):
great point is that this guy has left this digital
footprint on his I guess his son's laptop computer. Now,
in the old days, if someone was contemplating disposing of
a body in the old days, they probably would have
gone to a public library where they weren't known and
(27:32):
and and looked at some books and maybe taking some notes.
But now he's left this digital footprint that Tom you
just referred to, Phil, It shows how convenient the internet
is for for for people. But it also and we
lost Tom again there, so that's the timing, is okay? There? Uh?
(27:53):
This how dumb? I mean, how evil of evil and
stupidity I.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
Mean, and a criminal mind. Now what I mean by
that is he had already been federally charged with fraud
about some paintings or something, Yes, and he was gonna
was going to do time for that anyways. Yeah, so
I think he had like the show says, he was
(28:24):
a he had a criminal mind. That's what it looked
like from the outside and from the jurisd perspective. I
don't know how you he can get around this.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
Let's take a quick break. We'll get more phone calls
for Phil Tracy, Tom and Waymouth's favorite guest on Nightside,
one of my favorite guests as well, Phil Tracy. Attorney Tracy,
who have known for a long time a great criminal
defense lawyer here in Boston. And we're basically looking at
the opening day, the actual opening day of the Brian
wallsh trial. And we'll come back if you'd like to
(28:56):
continue the conversation. I got Steven Cambridge coming up. Always
will have an interesting take six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty six, one seven, nine, three, ten thirty back
with more calls in an attorney Phil Tracy.
Speaker 1 (29:09):
Right after this, you're on Night Side with Dan Ray
on w BZ, Boston's news radio with Biss.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
Phil Tracy, Boston attorney, criminal defense attorney. Let me go
next to Steve in Cambridge. Steve, you are on night Side.
We're talking about the Brian Walsh murder case. Phil Tracy
is alongside. Go right ahead, Steve.
Speaker 11 (29:29):
Good Evening, Dan Good, Evening. Mister Tracy, as far as
I can understand, he has already pled guilty to the
improper disposal of a body. Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (29:41):
That is correct?
Speaker 4 (29:42):
Correct?
Speaker 11 (29:42):
So what he's been what he's he's not contesting that,
he is saying.
Speaker 4 (29:47):
He did not murder her.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
That's correct.
Speaker 11 (29:50):
And I can just think of two comments they could make.
Number one, if it's not a professional secret, how much
would a criminal defense like this cost? Can you give
us a ball park idea to layman a ball park idea?
Not that I think I'm going to need one.
Speaker 2 (30:09):
It depends upon the client. To be really honest with you, Steve,
I don't think this guy has has a lot of
money at this point.
Speaker 4 (30:16):
But Tipton, his current lawyer is it is a very
experienced lawyer. Uh And I think he was at the
top of the scot for the public defenders. Now I
don't know if he's in private practice now, but he
might be a public defender on this case. Because so
you don't know guy has any money.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
Yeah, so let me ask you this question, Phil, if
this I had a limited case his let me let
me change Steve's question lit bit, if this guy had
unlimited funds on a murder case like this, And and Steve,
I assume you know your question here is what is
(30:59):
the normal rate for a case of this seriousness?
Speaker 4 (31:05):
Right?
Speaker 11 (31:05):
And I know you're both attorneys, so I don't want
you to give away any professional.
Speaker 4 (31:09):
Secrets, but I can tell you that it's above one
hundred thousand, might be two hundred thousand, because if you
were a from private attorney, you would be looking for
expert witnesses. And in this case, if the if this
is being funded by the Committee for Public Counsel, they
(31:31):
can access those type of expert witnesses. So those type
of things if you're private, you can you know, years
ago down in Texas, there was a guy named Racehorse
Ains and he had these millionaire oilmen and he got
(31:52):
a lot of them off for bad things, particularly one
I can remember where his wife had a girlfriend a
boyfriend and he killed them both and he got away
with it because the lawyer was renowned for getting.
Speaker 11 (32:09):
I think I heard about this learn I think he
got someone off who's accused of killing a twelve year
old girl.
Speaker 4 (32:16):
You know, I don't know, but you know, once again,
the key element in this is you have to defend
your client to the best of your ability and make
the government proved on a reasonable doubt that this is
the that your client is guilty. Now, on the other hand,
as Dan correctly said, if this guy says I want
(32:40):
you get up there and lie, you can't do that.
That's crossing a line that should never be crossed. I
would say, you've got to get somebody else because I
won't do that. I will be disburbed.
Speaker 11 (32:52):
If that was proved, you would be disbarred.
Speaker 4 (32:54):
I assume, well, you know what, for him to stand
up and say these things from the jury, it has
to be coming from the defendant. That's my take on it.
Speaker 11 (33:12):
I mean, think of one expert witness who could help
them out. If the woman's doctor, and I'm sure this
is probably not going to be the case, said she
was suffering some foremi illness that could have caused immediate
death and sudden debt.
Speaker 2 (33:28):
So I just want to add I just want to
add one thing, gentlemen, and that is that if the
defendant wants to get on the witness stand and the
lawyer knows the defendant is going to lie, okay, if
he knows he's going to lie, and we got to
define no, is he he knows he's going to lie,
(33:51):
not that he suspects, but if he knows he's going
to lie, he has an obligation. In my opinion, the
training that I received would be to say to the court,
I want to call my client who would like to
make a statement to the court, and he could not engage,
in my opinion, as a lawyer in good faith in
(34:11):
a colloquy with the his defendant if he is aware
the fact that what the defendant is going to say
is untrue.
Speaker 11 (34:22):
Exactly, that would be participating in praise.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
Yep, Okay, yep, Steve, I got I gotta let you go.
Speaker 11 (34:29):
I want to get one Steve.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
I'm going to try to get one more in here.
Larry is in New York. Larry, are you there? Let
me try this. Larry put that Larry on hold. I
think he's called it until Larry go right ahead, Yes, sir,
go ahead, Larry to go ahead, No problem at all.
Speaker 10 (34:50):
So let's play a little have a little fun here. Counselor,
you are handed the file. You were told by the
judge that this defendant is indigent, and you are going
to act to the public defender. What is your defense?
Lay it out for us?
Speaker 4 (35:05):
Well, Dan had mentioned if you were going to say,
I pant and dispose of the body, a better story
would be we were pushing and shoving. I just pushed
her away and went upstairs and went to bed. I
came back down found us she had fallen and hit
her head. That would be a more plausible description. Then
(35:31):
she was in bed and she wasn't moving. And then
Dan brought up again, why did you call nine one one?
Why didn't you call your neighbor? Why didn't you call
the doctor? So well the police? But he was for
two or three days acting like she just disappeared.
Speaker 10 (35:51):
So what do you offer is something that will get
you at least one juror.
Speaker 4 (35:57):
I think that's the best you could offer. And again,
if the guy is telling you I got to make
up a story, then you got to get out of
the case. Yeah, that's a guy who's trying to take
the stand and lie and you know it. You got
to get out of it that way too.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
I mean, if the guy convinced you that he had
somehow inadvertently rushing out of the room, he was, he
was angry that he rushed by her, didn't realize that
bumped she lost her balance. That's a potentially believable story.
This story I don't think has any credibility whatsoever. Larry,
thank you for calling in. Unfortunately we're flat out of time,
(36:37):
so I gotta let you Larry. Thanks for listening down
in New York. I know who this Larry is. Thank
you my friend. I phil.
Speaker 4 (36:49):
Absolutely appreciate and I'll be available to you anytime.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Well, as this case goes on, we'll have you back.
And they won't play a football game up against US,
I promise.
Speaker 4 (37:00):
Oh yeah, that's a blowout.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
Hopefully people are coming back in the next hour, Bacerfield,
Thank you much, bow and get back. I'd like to
continue on this story, and I'd like to find out
if there's anyone out there who could have been a
durer that could have believed can believe this story. That's
what my question is, that's my challenge we'll try to
do that right after the ten o'clock news here on
night Side
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WVS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
All Right, welcome back, everybody. We're at about nine nine.
Joining us is Toorney Phil Tracy. Phil. First, we're going
to listen to some of the opening arguments today in
the Brian Walsh case, and so I want to make
sure that you have a chance to hear these as
(00:29):
well as for my audience to hear them as well.
The Brian Walsh case follows close on the heels of
the Karen Reid case, and if today was any indication
this one is going to generate maybe not as much publicity,
but I think it was as strange an opening day
(00:50):
that I can ever imagine. This case involves Brian Walsh
and his late white life, his late wife, Anna Walls,
who disappeared. Her body has never been found for a
number of reasons. Walsh was indicted by a grand jury.
(01:10):
They have three children, I think it's three boys, and
that became a little part of the defense here. His
defense lawyer made the argument today that that his client
is not guilty of doing anything harmful to his late wife,
(01:36):
and essentially, his defense lawyer argued Larry Tipton Tifton Tipton
was the defense lawyer admitted, you know, to to several
of the facts. This Brian Walsh has already pled guilty
UH to disposing of uh his wife's remains and also
(02:02):
misleading police. But the argument that Tipton made in his
opening statement to the to the jury is one that
is I don't know if there's a word to describe
it here. It's it's one that to me is baffling.
(02:27):
But I want to hear. I want Phil, I want
you to listen to his words and then we'll comment
on that. So this is the defense lawyer speaking to
the jury and the opening statements basically laying it, laying
out the defense for Brian Walsh. Let me, I want
to pick the right m the right cut here, cut
(02:52):
number twenty four, please Rob.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
And he doesn't understand what has happened and what is happening.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
It didn't make any sense.
Speaker 5 (03:05):
You will hear evidence in this case of suddenly unexplained death.
You will hear evidence that it is great. You will
hear evidence that it happens.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
It is to this day not well understood, and that
is the evidence you will hear.
Speaker 6 (03:24):
And it is not well known to non medical professionals
and you will hear evidence Brian Walsh never imagined somebody
suddenly die.
Speaker 5 (03:40):
One hour he's with her, he cleans the kitchen, he
comes back up, and she is dead.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
That is the argument. Of course, the prosecution tells a
very different story. And let me play one bite from
the prosecutor in this case. I've got a lot of
notes here, Phil, so be bear with me. The prosecutor
(04:11):
is Greg Connor. Who the assistant district attorney is Greg Connor,
someone who I believe you're familiar with. Yes, And this
is the prosecutions. This is the prosecution opening opening statement.
Here cut number twenty three, please rob.
Speaker 7 (04:32):
Beginning on January books, at four fifty four am, the
mac cook search best way to dispose of a body,
and then with the similar websites more than that. At
six twenty four a same day, the same device search
(05:00):
how long for someone to missing to inherit? How long
missing to be dead? Can you throw away body parts?
Speaker 8 (05:13):
Later on that morning, on January first, at nine thirty
three am, the math Book went to search how long
does DNA last? And then an article is it possible.
Speaker 7 (05:24):
To clean DNA off the night?
Speaker 8 (05:28):
Thirty minutes later, the math Book research disposal of a
cell phone at ten twenty eight am the math book researcher,
I am the user of my wife's credit card. She
is missing, and again on January first, at eleven twenty
eight am, it's searched best way to dispose of body
(05:53):
parts after.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Ammerd Phil Tracy, you've been in the courtroom for many years,
you've defended capital cases. Have you ever heard a story
as I don't know, I want to say puzzling, as this, mystifying,
(06:18):
whatever you want to call it.
Speaker 4 (06:22):
It's well as Dan you know and listeners, the opening
statements are not evident. So whether or not these things
that the defense counselor has said can ever be confirmed verified,
I doubt it very much. The hid part for me
is the defense is obviously what the defendant has told
(06:48):
his lawyers. Now it's very difficult for the public to understand.
You have to do your best for your client. Now
if he tells you that this is what happened, and
then you say, I don't you know, I don't believe it,
or I'm skeptical, but if he sticks to it, you
(07:10):
have to present it now. Is it somewhat ludicrous? I
think so. Years ago there was a couple of cases
in which it's almost I hate to even bring it up,
but this sort of what do you call it? Dominetrix woman.
(07:33):
She was tied a guy up and the guy expired
by choking. She disposed of the body he choked on
his own. But that's the closest thing I can think of,
and that's a weird case in itself. But you mentioned
(07:53):
the Read case. Now what's the difference. There's a huge difference.
In Reid's case. She either hit him, whether she either
hit him by accident or she didn't at all. So
there was a lot of possibilities there. There's no other
possibility here. He went and got those instructions of how
(08:13):
did this member of body and how long a body
would take to start to get ripe. So I mean,
this is a cold calculated murder, premeditation, malice of forethought,
all of these things that were not part of the
Read case. The Read case was maybe taken from the
(08:36):
prosecution side. They fought she was strong, she backed up
at him. I wasn't sure it was a second degree
murder from the beginning, more like a motor vehicle homicide.
On the other hand, that generally found her not guilty.
So that case is so different as far as the
(08:59):
people involved. This this fellow, and it's not it's hard
to sympathize, it's hard to feel anything form. Uh.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
Well, one of the first Yeah, I think the prosecutor
today try to appeal people's common sense. We get back.
My guest is Phil Tracy. Uh, I'm going to ask
all of you to think about what you would do
under these circumstances. So where you're going to take a
quick break here, I'll be back with Phil Tracy. And
again I want all of you to to think about
(09:34):
this set of circumstances. And I'll pause, I'll pose the question.
I'm going to ask you to be, in effect, sit
in his jurors here and see if there's any way
you think that this story might be able to stand
the test of cross examination and the test of time.
Six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty six one seven, nine, three,
(09:54):
one thirty. My name is Dan Ray. My guests Phil Tracy,
longtime criminal defense attorney here in Boston. He's hand capital cases,
and this to me is a really puzzling way to
try to defend this case. And and Phil, we're going to
explore a little bit more of what do you do
as a lawyer if you don't believe your your client,
(10:17):
because that is I can't I can't imagine you.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
Had to wrap your hands around Now, we will.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Do this, we will get through this filled. Stay right
there and if you'd like to join the conversation, your perspective,
and as a matter of fact, I'd prefer to hear
from people who are not lawyers. Phil's a lawyer, I'm
a lawyer, feels much more experienced this than in this
type of case than I am. But I want to
hear from the listeners who are not lawyers. And would
(10:46):
you sit there in that jury and say, yeah, sounds
to me like that that that that that story kind
of hangs together. Yeah, yeah, we'll see coming back. Six one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty six one seven, nine three, one ten
thirty Back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Boston's news Radio with me is Phil Tracy, experienced criminal
defense lawyer. Phil. Essentially, what the defense lawyer in this case,
Attorney Tipton, is asking the jury to accept is that
(11:25):
this guy did the dishes after this small New Year's
get together with just one other person when he went upstairs,
he found that his wife was not responsive. He tried
to wake or she didn't wake up. He pushed, he
nudged her a couple of times. One time he actually
nudged her and she fell off the bed dead. Now
(11:48):
you would think that most people in that situation would say,
I got to call nine to one one. That's not
what he did. Not what he did. And the next
day they have videotape of this guy going around and
buying all of these implements that he would have needed.
This is what the prosecution says. They are going to
(12:10):
be able to show what do you do? And we'll
get to the case a little bit more. But as
a lawyer, if walk said to them, look I killed her,
but here's a great story I could use, they have
to recuse themselves at that point.
Speaker 4 (12:25):
Correct, that's the line, that's the line in the sand.
You just said it. In other words, if he says
this is what happened, it is your duty as a
lawyer to present that to the person who's going to
make the judgment, a judge or a jury. The bottom
line here is if he says, I did it, but
(12:47):
I want you to tell him the story, that's where
I bail out, and that's where I hope every lawyer
in Massachusetts would bail out. Now, I can't say anything
about Tipton. I don't know him that well. He is
an experienced lawyer, uh young. Greg Connor is a very
good lawyer who I've had tases with and you know,
(13:11):
but the danger is, as my wife told me, that uh,
one juror could somehow, you know, be swayed that this
could have happened, and that this is preventing that eur
from going beyond a reasonable doubt. So that's that's the
(13:34):
hard part there. If this case ever went down as
a not guilty, which I don't think it will, the
only thing they could happen is, unfortunately, a retrial. Now
there's there's a lot of things no there what.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Holden want to make sure that that our audience is
not confused if this came up as a as as
a not guilty.
Speaker 4 (13:58):
Uh yeah, yeah, this jury and they could go back
it was not guilty. It came up like the read
case as a hung jury, they'd have to try it
over again because maybe one or two puldouts they call
(14:18):
them when they're in the jury room didn't have found
that that the story has proposed uh pass muster in
that it did not reach the line of proof on
a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Well, the other thing, one of which we should talk
about phil briefly is jury nullification. There had been occasions
that I'm aware of, where somehow, some way the due
diligence in the idea wasn't adequately done, and somehow, some
way a juror is impaneled, and that juror has made
(14:57):
up their decision their mind ahead of time for whatever reason,
for whatever reason, that they are not even going to
participate in the deliberations. And there I can think of
the case where there's there have been, There's been at
least one juror that I know of that said, look,
I'm not voting a convict, period, and I don't care
(15:20):
what the evidence shows. I am not gonna There are
some people who have no faith in the system, and
they they are they are actually they're almost adversarial to
the whole concept of the jury trial and jury of
your peers and all of that. But I just look
at this and I think to myself, the average person,
(15:43):
you go upstairs and for some reason, your spouse, your
partner is unresponsive. You call nine one one. That's that's
not only.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
You said. There's not a word about him trying to revive,
trying to well, not only nine one one, but let's
just say she had a physician for instances.
Speaker 9 (16:07):
What do I do?
Speaker 4 (16:08):
Or a friend?
Speaker 10 (16:10):
No, what do I do?
Speaker 4 (16:11):
She's passed out. It doesn't pass months.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
I thought I thought where they were going to go
with this when they admitted to a disposal of the
body and misleading investigators. I thought that they were going
to say, oh, they had an argument, and that he
did not want to be involved in the argument. And
he rushed out of the kitchen and went upstairs and
didn't realize that he had bumped her and that she
(16:38):
fell and she hit her head against the counter, And
when he came down fifteen or twenty minutes later, hoping
everything had cooled down, he realized that she was dead
on the floor.
Speaker 4 (16:51):
Now, now let me say this, if I were, that's
a more believable story than the one who's there trying
to road down. But remember, until the audience this the
opening statement is not evidence. Yeah, no, of course, I
don't know how they would get any evidence in there
unless he took the stand.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
He's going to have to take the stand. He's going
to have to take the witness stand. I don't see it.
He avoids and at that point I would assume that
the prosecute is going to be able to literally ask
him questions to which which will just show them that
any reasonable person, I mean, I guess the other alternative
(17:34):
would have been a potential insanity. Please, but that's still
going to end up being. You know, you're going to
spend a lot of time, maybe the rest of your life. Well,
we'll take some calls, we'll take some questions, and we'll
also we have some more sound from this extraordinary This
is I've this, this case is going to go down.
(17:55):
I mean, there's no doubt about it. This this this
may last longer than the Karen Reid trial because, uh,
in the minds of people. Here are the numbers we
got wide open lines six, one, seven, two, five, four
ten thirty six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty.
My question to my audience is if you had been
impaneled as a juror, and by the way, the judge
(18:18):
has ordered the jurors not to listen to television, or
read newspapers or listen to radio. So I'm sure, we're
not influencing anyone anyone, but I'm wondering if there is
anything in anyone in this audience tonight who, after having
heard of what went on in court today, could say
that this sounds like a story that has any level
(18:39):
of credibility. Six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty
six one seven, nine, three, one ten thirty. Coming back
with my guest, longtime criminal defense attorney Phil Tracy.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on wbzas Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Come at the Brian Walsh case which began for real
today opening statements by the prosecution and defense. With me
is longtime criminal defense attorney in Boston, Phil Tracy. Phil,
I just want to play a little bit more here
of the defense lawyer. His name is Attorney Tipton, and
(19:17):
again obviously a difficulty case here, Larry Tipton. This is
a sound bite that's cut twenty five.
Speaker 5 (19:27):
Please, Robin, you will hear evidence that it happens.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
It is to this day not well understood, and that
is the evidence you will hear, and it is not
well known.
Speaker 6 (19:40):
To non medical professionals. You will hear evidence Brian Welsh.
Never imagine some suddenly die.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
That sounds to me like they're going to try to
find some doctor who's going and to say, yes, it
is possible that a thirty nine year old woman who
is an apparent good health can suddenly die, And there
are cases like that, Obviously, there are occasionally cases like that.
In this case, there was no opportunity to do an autopsy.
(20:19):
In this case, there was no opportunity to figure out
if she had ingested some form of narcotic which might
have killed her, or anything like that. So, in effect,
wallsh In admitting that he disposed of the body really
almost gave the jury nothing to hang their hat on.
(20:43):
You know, if some medical examiner had looked at the
body and said, yeah, there was there was a blockage
of in her heart. I just kind of imagine what
medical expert he is going to be able to put
on can talk about the specifics of her death because
the body never been discovered.
Speaker 4 (21:00):
Are you're not there?
Speaker 2 (21:02):
They can talk ethically, they could talk hypothetically, is it
possible that somebody for no apparent reason can can die?
But then that still doesn't get past the question of
his actions. And in order to explain his actions, he's
got to get on the witness stand because it's only
he that can explain what would have driven him to
(21:23):
do what he claims he did. Go ahead, Phil, I'm sorry.
Speaker 4 (21:27):
That's okay, kid, You're hitting it right on the head.
The problem is this. Usually they used to say that
if you didn't have a body, the prosecution was hindered
by that, you'd have to have all sorts of circumstantial evidence. Well,
he's given the circumstantial evidence by making these attempts to
find to prove the internet out of this disposed dismember
(21:52):
not true a body. It's pretty heenus stuff. And it's
with three little boys in bed upstairs. Oh, I mean,
a lot of yours will say this guy's a monster.
His body language doesn't look too good either, because he's
sort of, you know, sitting there like you know, cock robin,
like he's got some you know what I mean. It's
(22:13):
just not a book.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 10 (22:14):
No.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
And remember when he was first arrested, there's a photograph
of him in custody and he's smiling as if as
if he had just won a super Bowl or something.
I just I'm amazed. Let's see what some of our
listeners think as we go along here, Phil let me
go first, up to Tom and Weymouth. Hey, Tom, welcome,
(22:36):
you're a night side. I'm here along with Phil Tracy,
a very experienced criminal defense attorney. Go right ahead, Tom,
what's your comment of question?
Speaker 9 (22:44):
Thanks you for your time, Dan, And hello mister Tracy.
I love you when you're on the show. Mister Tracy.
I just love your perspective on so many things. It's
refreshing and I'm so glad you're hit tonight to comment
on this. And I just want to say a couple
quick things. Dan took the words out of my mouth
when he was saying the other day, this guy is
(23:05):
a monster. I think you know he was in court
and he was smiling and waving to his mother.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
It was actually that was strange. Yeah, it was strange.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
Yeah, what strangers? We just we just lost the call
to Tom. If if you want to call back, feel
feel free. We're talking about the beginning. Uh, the really,
the the opening the jury was was chosen last week,
but the opening statements by prosecution and defense, and again
it just to me defies any level of reason, any
(23:39):
level of reason whatsoever. Uh, that if someone did find
a family member on a responsive that the first instinct
would not be to if not, if you're not capable
of providing some form of resuscitation. You know, you've seen
it all on television all every time, you know, chess
(24:02):
compressions and things like that. You I mean, what what
is he who knows what he's going to say to
to the to the prosecutor. But he's going to have
to get on the witness stand here. They just can't
spin this tail and have him sit.
Speaker 4 (24:20):
There and then let let it hang out there. You know,
there's got to be although Dan, you just touched on it.
They'll get an expert who say that two things. Number one,
you can die, you can drop dead in the old
fashioned way, and people can panic. They might try to
(24:42):
bring some psychiatrists in to say, uh, the panic is
not an abnormal reaction to such a horrible thing as this.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Our call has has has rejoined us here, Phil, you
must have run into a bad spot. Hey, Tom, you're
thanks for checking back in what why don't you repeat
your comment or question?
Speaker 9 (25:04):
Okay, certainly, thank you very much. And again I'm so
excited to mister Tracy's on the show. I really enjoy
when he's on the show in his carment.
Speaker 2 (25:12):
Thank you are you not related to Attorney Tracy here?
All right, I'm not getting gloved ahead, Go ahead, Tom,
It's one of my.
Speaker 9 (25:22):
Favorite favorite people that you have on the show. Then,
But anyways, I'll get right to the point. You know,
what did it for me? Uh? And I believe in
due process and being fair. But you know, the the
internet searches which are ultra specific, which just blew my mind.
And then the fact that you know, on some Wednesday afternoon,
(25:42):
he goes to the home people on Wednesday on on
some midday and he buys these very very very specific
items the tie back suit, leach and and and the
hacksaw and some other items that really tie into what
you might need if you were to dismember a body,
and how to cover up the smell and whatnot. I mean,
(26:04):
you're not buying that for any other reason. So all
that I can say to myself is when you have
an Internet search that specific, and then you go to
the store and you buy these items that really tie
into something like that if you were going to do that,
and then you delay reporting reporting it to the police
to give yourself enough time for the body if he
(26:25):
did dismember her, for that to be taken away, you know,
by the trash disposal companies, and then we may find
on top of it all, then DNA evidence around one
of the dumpsters or something like that. I mean, I
just can't imagine the defense lawyer trying to convince or
(26:45):
even influence a jury to the contract.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
Are you going to, well, the defense lawyer assuming that
that Wolves has not told him a different story if
he has said to Wolves, tell me what happened, but
be careful what you say. Uh, and and and he
has not, as Phil said, crossed over the line. The
other thing that Phil mentioned once I thought was a
(27:09):
great point is that this guy has left this digital
footprint on his I guess his son's laptop computer. Now,
in the old days, if someone was contemplating disposing of
a body in the old days, they probably would have
gone to a public library where they weren't known and
(27:32):
and and looked at some books and maybe taking some notes.
But now he's left this digital footprint that Tom you
just referred to, Phil, It shows how convenient the internet
is for for for people. But it also and we
lost Tom again there, so that's the timing, is okay? There? Uh?
(27:53):
This how dumb? I mean, how evil of evil and
stupidity I.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
Mean, and a criminal mind. Now what I mean by
that is he had already been federally charged with fraud
about some paintings or something, Yes, and he was gonna
was going to do time for that anyways. Yeah, so
I think he had like the show says, he was
(28:24):
a he had a criminal mind. That's what it looked
like from the outside and from the jurisd perspective. I
don't know how you he can get around this.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
Let's take a quick break. We'll get more phone calls
for Phil Tracy, Tom and Waymouth's favorite guest on Nightside,
one of my favorite guests as well, Phil Tracy. Attorney Tracy,
who have known for a long time a great criminal
defense lawyer here in Boston. And we're basically looking at
the opening day, the actual opening day of the Brian
wallsh trial. And we'll come back if you'd like to
(28:56):
continue the conversation. I got Steven Cambridge coming up. Always
will have an interesting take six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty six, one seven, nine, three, ten thirty back
with more calls in an attorney Phil Tracy.
Speaker 1 (29:09):
Right after this, you're on Night Side with Dan Ray
on w BZ, Boston's news radio with Biss.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
Phil Tracy, Boston attorney, criminal defense attorney. Let me go
next to Steve in Cambridge. Steve, you are on night Side.
We're talking about the Brian Walsh murder case. Phil Tracy
is alongside. Go right ahead, Steve.
Speaker 11 (29:29):
Good Evening, Dan Good, Evening. Mister Tracy, as far as
I can understand, he has already pled guilty to the
improper disposal of a body. Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (29:41):
That is correct?
Speaker 4 (29:42):
Correct?
Speaker 11 (29:42):
So what he's been what he's he's not contesting that,
he is saying.
Speaker 4 (29:47):
He did not murder her.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
That's correct.
Speaker 11 (29:50):
And I can just think of two comments they could make.
Number one, if it's not a professional secret, how much
would a criminal defense like this cost? Can you give
us a ball park idea to layman a ball park idea?
Not that I think I'm going to need one.
Speaker 2 (30:09):
It depends upon the client. To be really honest with you, Steve,
I don't think this guy has has a lot of
money at this point.
Speaker 4 (30:16):
But Tipton, his current lawyer is it is a very
experienced lawyer. Uh And I think he was at the
top of the scot for the public defenders. Now I
don't know if he's in private practice now, but he
might be a public defender on this case. Because so
you don't know guy has any money.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
Yeah, so let me ask you this question, Phil, if
this I had a limited case his let me let
me change Steve's question lit bit, if this guy had
unlimited funds on a murder case like this, And and Steve,
I assume you know your question here is what is
(30:59):
the normal rate for a case of this seriousness?
Speaker 4 (31:05):
Right?
Speaker 11 (31:05):
And I know you're both attorneys, so I don't want
you to give away any professional.
Speaker 4 (31:09):
Secrets, but I can tell you that it's above one
hundred thousand, might be two hundred thousand, because if you
were a from private attorney, you would be looking for
expert witnesses. And in this case, if the if this
is being funded by the Committee for Public Counsel, they
(31:31):
can access those type of expert witnesses. So those type
of things if you're private, you can you know, years
ago down in Texas, there was a guy named Racehorse
Ains and he had these millionaire oilmen and he got
(31:52):
a lot of them off for bad things, particularly one
I can remember where his wife had a girlfriend a
boyfriend and he killed them both and he got away
with it because the lawyer was renowned for getting.
Speaker 11 (32:09):
I think I heard about this learn I think he
got someone off who's accused of killing a twelve year
old girl.
Speaker 4 (32:16):
You know, I don't know, but you know, once again,
the key element in this is you have to defend
your client to the best of your ability and make
the government proved on a reasonable doubt that this is
the that your client is guilty. Now, on the other hand,
as Dan correctly said, if this guy says I want
(32:40):
you get up there and lie, you can't do that.
That's crossing a line that should never be crossed. I
would say, you've got to get somebody else because I
won't do that. I will be disburbed.
Speaker 11 (32:52):
If that was proved, you would be disbarred.
Speaker 4 (32:54):
I assume, well, you know what, for him to stand
up and say these things from the jury, it has
to be coming from the defendant. That's my take on it.
Speaker 11 (33:12):
I mean, think of one expert witness who could help
them out. If the woman's doctor, and I'm sure this
is probably not going to be the case, said she
was suffering some foremi illness that could have caused immediate
death and sudden debt.
Speaker 2 (33:28):
So I just want to add I just want to
add one thing, gentlemen, and that is that if the
defendant wants to get on the witness stand and the
lawyer knows the defendant is going to lie, okay, if
he knows he's going to lie, and we got to
define no, is he he knows he's going to lie,
(33:51):
not that he suspects, but if he knows he's going
to lie, he has an obligation. In my opinion, the
training that I received would be to say to the court,
I want to call my client who would like to
make a statement to the court, and he could not engage,
in my opinion, as a lawyer in good faith in
(34:11):
a colloquy with the his defendant if he is aware
the fact that what the defendant is going to say
is untrue.
Speaker 11 (34:22):
Exactly, that would be participating in praise.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
Yep, Okay, yep, Steve, I got I gotta let you go.
Speaker 11 (34:29):
I want to get one Steve.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
I'm going to try to get one more in here.
Larry is in New York. Larry, are you there? Let
me try this. Larry put that Larry on hold. I
think he's called it until Larry go right ahead, Yes, sir,
go ahead, Larry to go ahead, No problem at all.
Speaker 10 (34:50):
So let's play a little have a little fun here. Counselor,
you are handed the file. You were told by the
judge that this defendant is indigent, and you are going
to act to the public defender. What is your defense?
Lay it out for us?
Speaker 4 (35:05):
Well, Dan had mentioned if you were going to say,
I pant and dispose of the body, a better story
would be we were pushing and shoving. I just pushed
her away and went upstairs and went to bed. I
came back down found us she had fallen and hit
her head. That would be a more plausible description. Then
(35:31):
she was in bed and she wasn't moving. And then
Dan brought up again, why did you call nine one one?
Why didn't you call your neighbor? Why didn't you call
the doctor? So well the police? But he was for
two or three days acting like she just disappeared.
Speaker 10 (35:51):
So what do you offer is something that will get
you at least one juror.
Speaker 4 (35:57):
I think that's the best you could offer. And again,
if the guy is telling you I got to make
up a story, then you got to get out of
the case. Yeah, that's a guy who's trying to take
the stand and lie and you know it. You got
to get out of it that way too.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
I mean, if the guy convinced you that he had
somehow inadvertently rushing out of the room, he was, he
was angry that he rushed by her, didn't realize that
bumped she lost her balance. That's a potentially believable story.
This story I don't think has any credibility whatsoever. Larry,
thank you for calling in. Unfortunately we're flat out of time,
(36:37):
so I gotta let you Larry. Thanks for listening down
in New York. I know who this Larry is. Thank
you my friend. I phil.
Speaker 4 (36:49):
Absolutely appreciate and I'll be available to you anytime.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Well, as this case goes on, we'll have you back.
And they won't play a football game up against US,
I promise.
Speaker 4 (37:00):
Oh yeah, that's a blowout.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
Hopefully people are coming back in the next hour, Bacerfield,
Thank you much, bow and get back. I'd like to
continue on this story, and I'd like to find out
if there's anyone out there who could have been a
durer that could have believed can believe this story. That's
what my question is, that's my challenge we'll try to
do that right after the ten o'clock news here on
night Side
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.
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
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.