December 11, 2025 • 38 mins
In an unexpected twist, Brian Walshe’s defense team rested its case Thursday morning without ever calling a witness to the stand. During opening statements, defense attorney Larry Tipton told the jury that during the trial you will hear evidence of how an unexplained sudden death does and can happen; the cause of death which Walshe’s defense team are arguing happened to Ana Walshe. As a result of the defense resting, closing arguments are set for Friday morning followed by jury deliberations set to begin Friday afternoon. Criminal defense attorney Phil Tracy checked in to discuss the case.
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 Nightside with Dan Ray on WBS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Well, today, the defense rested in the case of Brian Walsh.
That is the case in which he is charged with
murdering and dismembering and taking the body parts of his
wife Anna and distributing them in dumpsters around the Greater
(00:32):
Boston area. This is a horrific case. It dates back
to New Year's Day of twenty twenty three. They celebrate.
I think everybody knows the story. They had a small
gathering at their home in Cohact with just one other person.
(00:54):
They had dinner and ended and something happened. I think
all of you have some maliarity with the case. But
the development today is astonishing in that the defense they
was their turn to to mount their defense and present
(01:15):
their case to the jury, and the defense rested without
calling one witness. Now, the lawyers for Brian Walsh in
their opening statements had implied pretty clearly that that Walsh
was going to get on the witness stand. And if
(01:37):
you don't believe me, let's listen to a couple of
sound bites. I'm also joined by Phil Tracy who's listening
Willhouse as well. Hey, Phil, how are you welcome. I
didn't didn't want to ignore you, but I want you
to hear what we're going to talk about, which is
which includes a couple of sound bites here from the
opening statements by the defense attorney, Attorney Larry Tifton on this.
(02:00):
So I think this is going to weigh the foundation
for what we're going to focus on tonight. This is
cut number thirty one. Please, Rob, you'll hear.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Evidence in now he is hannay and he doesn't understand
what has happened and.
Speaker 4 (02:14):
What is happening. It didn't make any sense.
Speaker 5 (02:21):
It didn't make sense that somebody that he had just
been with and enjoyed New Year's e into New Year's
Day would suddenly be dead.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Oh and then there's two other bites here there a
little longer, But listen carefully, because he talks about He
says to the jury, you will hear evidence of unexplained deaths.
And the implication to me is that the defendant who
has pled guilty in a surprise move before the trial
(03:00):
in chief started, he pled guilty to misleading police and
also disposing of body parts his wife's Swati. Cut number
thirty two, Rob.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
You will hear evidence that it is written.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
You will hear evidence that it happens in young people
and old You will hear evidence it happens in male
and feeding.
Speaker 4 (03:24):
You will hear evidence it happens during.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
The day and during the night, that it happens.
Speaker 4 (03:31):
Be trained evidence. You will hear evidence that it can
be the result of both.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Mechanical and are electrical problems within the body.
Speaker 4 (03:40):
You will hear evidence that it.
Speaker 5 (03:41):
Might be carnivascueler, pulmonary, neurological, are other reasons.
Speaker 4 (03:48):
You will hear evidence.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
That it occurs in people who have never manifested a
symptom that something might be wrong.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
And in fact, you will hear evidence.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Yeah, sometimes the first manifestation that something is or was
wrong with someone.
Speaker 4 (04:07):
Is the sudden undersluming. That's the end of here.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Is now the roadmap that the defense attorney presented in
his opening argument is opening statement of the jury is
not evidence. He's talking about evidence that would come in
in testimony. And the implication to me was pretty clear.
Brian Walsh was going to go on and talk about
going upstairs and finding his wife and not knowing what
(04:33):
to do. One more SoundBite, then we're gonna go to
attorney Tracy cut thirty three, rob.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
Mine Wallas upstairs. He went back down to the kitchen
about an hour later to clean it up, and then impossible,
the unimaginably.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Yeah, it didn't make sense to Brian Wall.
Speaker 4 (04:59):
It was confused. He never thought anybody would.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
Believe that Anna Walsh was alive one minute and dead
the next.
Speaker 4 (05:12):
Well he could think about it were those three boys.
Speaker 5 (05:15):
What would happen to their three boys now that An
is no longer here.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
What will happen if they think he did something bad
to end?
Speaker 4 (05:24):
Where will those three boys go?
Speaker 6 (05:28):
And so.
Speaker 7 (05:31):
He lock.
Speaker 4 (05:37):
He's trying to hope so he could hang on to
those boys.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Pretty dramatic. But in the words of a nineteen eighties
television commercial, where's the beef, Phil Tracy, where's the beef?
Speaker 7 (05:54):
Well, you know, we were shocked at the beginning of
the case, and we were shocked day and I'm talking
about the court of public opinion and everyday citizens, lawyers, doctors, plumbers, whatever,
if they're following this case, they have to say to
themselves what is going on? Because at least they should
(06:19):
have called a doctor forensic evidence that yes, people can
die in their sleep, or they can just drop dead.
But the reality is they use the government's medical examiner
to say, can this happen? And he said, yes, it
(06:42):
can happen, but not to a young, vibrant, healthy, a
person was working out all the time. Traveling just doesn't
happen to those type of people. A thirty nine year
old woman, Yeah, thirty nine, the prime in the prime
of life. Uh.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
That witness was obviously a prosecution witness. It was on
cross examination, Yeah, prosecution witness. He's uh, you know, Tifton
is questioning the prosecution witness and the prosecution witness is
not giving him what he wants, and the prosecution witness
can it says yes, but it's rare.
Speaker 6 (07:24):
He could.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
I Uh, I believe that there was every suggestion up
until yesterday that Walsh, you know, very rarely would would
you ever put a defendant on the witness stand in
a murder case, never mind a defendant with against whom
so much compelling, circumstantial evidence existed. Videotapes, videotapes of him
(07:53):
pushing a market card with with equipment that that he bought,
and uh, and tools and and that that you know.
The point they're going to make is that these were
the tools that he used to to dismember the wife.
And do you think who's calling the shots in this case?
(08:14):
Phil is the defensive.
Speaker 7 (08:15):
That's let me let me say this. I think that
the defendant had a lot to say about how he
wanted the case tried, and that would lead you to
believe that he said, let's plead on the two charges
of dismembering and line to the police and withholding evidence
(08:39):
from the police, and then try the case. And then
of course, uh excellently in an excellent fashion. The prosecution,
unlike other cases we've seen recently, they were able to
put the case together with evidence, and they were able
(09:02):
to use forensic evidence and circumstance of evidence that put
a great case together fast, which is sometimes is a
very good thing for the prosecution. The OJ Simpson case
was an example of the length of a prosecution's case
can destroy the case. Now he goes or that I
(09:28):
would be if I was his. Listen, you cannot get
on the stand. They'll rip you apart with this scientific evidence.
They'll show a picture of you again with your son
after you allegedly dismembered his mother's body. How they connect
get I mean, there aren't many cases that we've seen.
(09:52):
This isn't like two gang members shooting each other. It
isn't like drug dealers shooting each other. It isn't like
mobsters shooting each other. This is cold blooded, pre determined,
with malice of forethought. He was, you know, I think
(10:13):
they put in a great case. Now, can it happen
that one person can hold out like a dura a
rogue duror that can happen. But I think this will
be a decision of conviction and honor the woman that's
(10:36):
been gone now. I think her children are in Europe
with her mother. But what a sad case.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
I was surprised that the timing today of the defense resting.
I mean, the expectation I assumed that the judge had
was that the defense is going to use at least
a couple of days and the case would go over
to next Monday. I'm surprised that she is having the
(11:05):
closing arguments tomorrow, and unless there's an unexpected problem, the
jury likely will have this case sometime tomorrow in the
early afternoon.
Speaker 7 (11:20):
Yes, that's correct. And jurors in the old days, they
were sequested, you know, they were put in the hotel.
They don't do that anymore. But nevertheless, these jurors, like
the read case ures. You know, they've been through the
ringer here, they've gone through the process of elimination, and
(11:42):
they have come into the jury doing their civic duty.
But I think they want to go home. So based
on the evidence I've seen, and you've seen, and the
public has seen, which doesn't include what he said in
the opening or what he says in the closing, meaning
(12:04):
the defense counsel that's not evidence. Judge will tell them,
don't believe anything they said. Their job is to explain
to you what they think the evidence was, but it's
not to say that what they say is definitely the evidence.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Well, but they can in the close make an argument
to the jury which if they can persuade the jury
that this fact and this fact when connected with this fact,
takes the jury toward toward this type of verdict, they
had that ability to do that. Obviously, the prosecution has
(12:41):
a much easier time of it tomorrow with their closing
to say, think about this, think about this, Think about that.
You're a reasonable person. Everybody in the jury's reasonable. Is
this action's reasonable? You know? Checking being on a computer
trying to figure rug how to dispose of a body,
had a lot of planning, a lot of a lot
(13:03):
of thought. Here cool is a cucumber walking through that?
The Uh that that that strike? I guess it was
a low store. I'm not sure if it was Lows
or home depot. I think it was Lows picking out
pretty casually, like someone might on a spring day pick
out a bag of grass seed and maybe a.
Speaker 7 (13:24):
One case with one of the children with them. Yeah,
that that frosts is a line that I don't believe
anybody could stand can stand.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
Let's let me let me do this for let me,
I've gone long along with you. Let me take a
quick break. We'll come back. We'll invite callers to call
if they'd like to ask a question. I know at
this point, uh, some people probably have not even heard now.
The case is not gone to the jury yet. It
will get to the jury at some point tomorrow absent
you know, if a couple of juries call in sick
(13:59):
tomorrow or and there always can be a problem. But
assuming it goes as the judge has scheduled, this jury
should have the case sometime by one on one thirty.
We could have a verdict tomorrow night. We could be
talking this time tomorrow night about a verdict. I don't
think it will be an acquittal. And the best that
I think the defense can hope for at this point
(14:21):
is that, as you said, that one one juror wants
to basically engage in what's called jury nullification. Let's take
a break. It will invite people to call get their
impressions as well. If you want to ask Phil Tracy
a question six one seven, two, five, four, ten thirty
six one seven, nine three one ten thirty two five four,
ten thirty or nine three one, ten thirty six one
(14:44):
seven is the area code? UH? Love to know what
you thought when you heard today that the defense rested
and no witnesses were called, not even an expert witness,
UH to make the case U of what they were
calling sudden unexpected death. Back on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
You're on Night Side with Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Joined by attorney Phil Tracy, and we're talking about the
Brian Walsh case that I've never seen. Phil, you have
much more experience in this than I do in the courtroom.
I've never seen anything that is close to this. Is
there any case that comes to your mind?
Speaker 7 (15:34):
Well, I mean, there are cases in which there's no
body and that I'm remembered. I'm reminded of the Durst case.
That was the case from several years ago where he
eventually was convicted of some murder, but he was acquitted
of a murder in which he didn't in which they
(15:56):
didn't ever body. That's the only thing that's arguable about
this case is that there is no body.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Right, and the premise there is that, well, maybe somebody
just took off. But when you have this amount.
Speaker 7 (16:14):
Of DNA.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
It's available, I think it's a it's a strong case.
And I don't know if there I believe at some
point in common law, meaning going back to the English days,
that if there was nobody there could be no murder charge.
Speaker 7 (16:34):
That maybe so, I'm not familiar with it. But from
this perspective, again, the idea of the prosecution pushing a
case without a body is just ludicrous because it doesn't happen.
(16:54):
They had plenty of evidence, They had the evidence that
indicated uh, not only he had some motive, insurance policies,
problems in the marriage, the idea of a separate form
in Washington, and her situation of complaining too friends that
(17:18):
I'm not happy in the marriage and things aren't going well.
There's so much stuff collateral to the to the forensic evidence.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
Yeah, but it's also it's also the evidence of her clothes,
her identification. I believe her COVID identification guard was found
in one of the dumpsterstates. There's a lot, there's.
Speaker 7 (17:39):
So much just you know, I think that. You know,
the sad part of this is there are three orphans
and he'll go to jail. She's gone. I hope they
live good lives in Europe with her mother, but you know,
they might have been in massive juss for the rest
(18:01):
of their life. And think about this, the horror of that.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (18:05):
Again, I mean I feel terrible for the for the
for her family and her friends. Uh. He is an
evil person. I think he has a criminal mind. He
already had been convicted of some sort of theft in
the federal court. I think he had other case bounced checks,
(18:28):
this type of thing. He's not an He doesn't have
a cent of one percent of sympathy from the public.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
He surely carries himself, which which the jury easy. The
jury may not know.
Speaker 7 (18:45):
The language is big. He has terrible, terrible wide language
in court he looks obnoxious. He looks like this is
a big joke, and he may have made it into
a big joke by forcing his lawyers to provolt this
irrational story.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
When we get back, I want to go to phone calls,
but I also want to You made the observation that Tifton,
the lawyer who's handling this case, sat behind him, removed
from him as the plea was put in, and there
might signal something. We'll get to that, but we'll also
(19:26):
get the phone call. So stay right there. Phil Tracy,
Attorney Phil Tracy is with me. We're talking about the
Brian Walsh murder case. The defense that I arrested without
calling a single witness, despite having I think suggested pretty
strongly in their opening remarks that this jury would hear
from the defendant himself, Brian Walsh, and if not from him,
at least from medical experts from defense medical experts, which
(19:50):
would make the case for an unexplained death, sudden death,
which is really their last line of defense. If you'd
like to ask a question or make a comment, six
one seven two thirty six one seven nine thirty Back
on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
It's night Side with Dan ray On Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
Back with Phil Tracy here talking about this well, extraordinary
decision by the defense today. It came across to me
philis being a last minute decision. But let's do this.
Let's get some callers involved here as well. If you're
ready to take a couple of phone calls, Phil All said, sure, right,
let's go. Okay, gonna go to Steve in North End Over.
(20:35):
Steve you first, this hour with Phil Tracy and Nightside
talking about the Brian Walsh murder case. They rested today
without calling a witness, including either Brian Walsh himself or
an expert witness to argue in the case of unexpected,
unexplained sudden death.
Speaker 6 (20:54):
Oh Dan, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
You're welcome. Say hey, do Phil Tracy go right ahead. Steve.
What's your comment question?
Speaker 6 (20:59):
I thought you. I know you're a seasoned veteran. I
hear you on here all the time, so I wanted
to get your opinion. I know you mentioned you mentioned
kind of the Karen Reid case here and a relationship here.
But it's interesting because you've got all the evidence in
the world here against Brian Walsh with no body and
(21:19):
in the Karen Reid case, you had basically no evidence
by design with a body that had evidence on it,
and you had some of the same mass State Police
officers that were testifying and on the witness stand in
the same case that treated the case and the collection
(21:40):
of evidence differently in both cases. And I just want
to get your take on that. I think it's you know,
mass Jusetts is in the spotlight right now. And I've
used this term before when I talked to Dan. We're
a laughing stock right now based on what happened in
that Karen Reid case, And just want to get your
take on that.
Speaker 7 (21:58):
Well. I think that one of the problems for the
state police is a ten to fifteen year downward spiral
in professionalism and problems with the state police. But in
this case, I believe a cohacit detective and they don't
(22:19):
have any murders in go Acid. He took the bow
by the horns and was assisted by state police. But
the evidence gathering was fantastic from the police side. They
got to the dumpsters, they got the video cameras, and
now you turn that over to a season prosecutor, Greg Connor,
(22:44):
and he did a fabulous job of concisely putting the
case together. As I mentioned before, sometimes a case goes
on too long, the prosecution loses the jury because they
you know, they get tired, and they might be a
whimsical about, you know, convicting somebody. I don't think this
(23:06):
is going to happen here. I think that they put
a tight case in. Then the defense, Now the Jews
would be thinking this too. They were probably thinking, well,
didn't you get up and say at the beginning that
Walsh was going to testify, and that would make them
feel strange about the whole thing. Maybe they will now
(23:30):
assume that the evidence was so overwhelming that he and
his lawyer said, I can't get on the stand because
the prosecutional be handing me hatchet. Do you recognize this item?
(23:55):
He could say no, He could say yes, I did
buy it, but I never used it, something like that.
But what I'm saying is they would put if I
was protesting, I would take the hacksaw, I would take
the clothes that were found it, and I would show
the video and I'd say is this you? And of
(24:16):
course he'd have to say yes. So cross examination would
have been of prosecutor's dream dream come true in this case.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
I believe also it came out in the trial that
all of these supplies, the cleanup supplies that he bought,
as well as maybe some of the tools that dismembered her.
He used her credit card.
Speaker 7 (24:44):
I think he used a rewards card, which is like,
I guess my wife gets them all the time, drop
and rewards guys.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
Yeah, but I believe it was in the name of
his wife somehow.
Speaker 7 (24:59):
Yeah, it was in the name absolutely.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (25:02):
So what do you what do you what do you
make of the fact that the officers involved in the investigation,
in the collection of evidence behaved totally differently in that
case versus the Karen Reid case, where it appears that
they were either you know, at as at best, they
(25:23):
were sloppy. At worst, they were taking direction from somebody
from the top, maybe even Morrissey or others in the
mass State Police on how to do a sloppy investigation.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
Yeah, there was, Steve, I understand what you're saying here,
But there was no indication entered that anyone was taking directions.
In talking about the Michael Procter case, those were Proctor's
own emails in the Karen Reid case, which were misogynistic
and distasteful, and it might have been that in this case.
(25:59):
If believe me, if if the if the defense in
the Walsh case had discovered any inappropriate actions or activity, uh,
they would have brought that to the attention and might
have been able to argue with the the prosecutor in
the case that we're going to put Procter back on
the stand and we're gonna we're gonna go after him
(26:22):
just as we did, as as others did in the
in the Read case. I think it's conceivable that that
Proctor might have might might have handled this case properly.
Maybe the state police handled this properly. Maybe there was
nothing there for the defense to work with. Is that possible, phil.
Speaker 7 (26:39):
Well? I don't think the or any of the other
people played a very big part in this case. And
I think that uh, you know, whether they were handling
things sloppily, sloppy, Uh, that came to the fruition for
(27:03):
the defense to say, you know, they watched and what
they would have tried to do. Would you say this
is a pattern of bad, bad police work, whereas in
this case, I think not so much to say police,
(27:23):
but the Cohasset police got the case right. It's what's
had about this case is, if you think about it,
they had to find the dumpsters, they had to get
the videos. They really thoroughly. Whoever was the lead proscal
(27:44):
with his team, they did a great job.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
They had to get those dumpsters before the dumpsters were
said to a landfill.
Speaker 7 (27:52):
And the probably probably right, you'd be going to the
landfill instead of the dumpsters.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Which obviously is a much more difficult. Yeah, the area
it was difficult to search, and they may have ended
up in a lamdfill, but they had to make sure
that they knew where the truck that would have picked
up this material. Yeah, Steve has dropped off. He wasn't
cut off, but I think that he was trying to
link the two cases, and I guess Procter.
Speaker 7 (28:15):
And I was, I don't see the link at all.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
Yeah, that's what I mean.
Speaker 7 (28:19):
He's a smart man. He knows that there's been what
I said at the beginning, I mean the four State Police,
the good state police officers are being tarnished by some
renegade rogues. Think of the guy that Yeah.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
I got to take a quick break here, focus and
pass my break. We got Bob and Cambridge Laurier and
IHO's coming up. We got roove. You'd like to talk
with Phil Tracy six one seven four ten thirty six
one seven nine ten thirty Back on night Side after
this brief commercial break.
Speaker 1 (28:53):
It's night Side with Dan Ray Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
We're talking with Phil Tracy here about the murder case
that rested today, the Brian Walsh case. Let me go
to Bob and Cambridge. Bob, you're next time Nightsiger, right.
Speaker 8 (29:10):
Ahead, Hello Dan, Hello, mister Tracy, thank you for you're welcome.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
What's your question to comment? Go right hit Bob.
Speaker 8 (29:19):
Well, I don't want to be disrespectful to you or
mister Tracy on the justice system, but you know what,
his trial is a bunch of foolishness. Okay, what should
happen to mister whatever his name is, I forget his name,
the guy that just muddled his white Welsh by a Walsh.
Speaker 7 (29:34):
They just give him a.
Speaker 8 (29:35):
Ride up to Shirley, Massachusetts. Welcome home, brother, and you
know when he goes when he goes in, it's not
going to be nothing like he gets stabbed. We're not
detam He's gonna go down and he'll be peace. But
you know what. The whole thing here is those children.
You know it's gonna be terrible for them.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Yeah, well, we do go through the justice system here,
we don't. We don't put people in in pitsmack lions
or anything like that, as to despicable as they might be.
Let's see what happens with the jury. If he gets convicted,
it's not going to be a pleasant, pleasant life for
him under any circumstances. Right, Thank you, Bob. I think
(30:12):
a lot of people feel that way, and I understand
what he's saying. Self help is we got to go
through the jury system. It's as simple as that, Laurie.
Is that Idaho, Laurie, you're with Phil Tracy. Go right ahead, Laurie.
Speaker 9 (30:25):
Good evening attorneys. Hi, So I also shocked today. Is
anybody to hear this this thing with them? I'm guessing
the judge, having probably spent a few hours preparing for
the defendant to be on the stand, probably wasn't pleased.
But I heard something else today. It surprised me, and
I don't know if this is a usual thing or not,
and I wanted your comments on it. I heard for
the first time today that the jury does not know
(30:47):
about the too guilty please, So what's up with that?
Speaker 2 (30:51):
Well, they're not going to know in the context of
this trial. They may know about it.
Speaker 7 (30:56):
They may know just conversation or whatever. The judge was
careful to say, don't look at the news, don't listen
to Phil Tracy and Dan Ray, because that could have
fact about only the evidence that was placed before you
(31:18):
through testimony and physical evidence. And if therever was one
case where physical evidence, forensic evidence was important, it's this
case with the hatchet and the tool and the stuff
to clean up. And you know, I've watched television and
(31:40):
been a lawyer for fifty years, and there's one thing.
They always can find blood. They have special tools like
a flashlight that picks up the blood. So this seems
to happen all the time.
Speaker 9 (31:57):
M In a case like that, they can't use anything.
They can't use, they can't use anything in the two
earlier guilty fleet that they can they can you know,
use to make the decision they that.
Speaker 7 (32:14):
That's an excellent question because what you're saying, you're asking
is they can hear uh stuff about the dismemberment and
the misleading of the police. They can hear testimony, they
can see testimony, but they can't say to the jury,
(32:38):
either the prosecutor or the defense in this case, they
can't say, like, I already played guilty to the dismembment
of the body, and they can't hear that. But as
Dan said, it's almost impossible. In today's world with all
(32:59):
of the stuff that's on TV, radio, on the phones,
on the internet, they probably know about it.
Speaker 2 (33:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
The principle to do with the.
Speaker 7 (33:11):
Beginning is to say I will keep an open mind
until all the evidence is in. Now, that's where the
defense is questionable, because if you've brought that up at
the beginning in the opening and you didn't deliver that,
they're going to be saying, what's this all about? I mean,
(33:33):
it's it seems to be a face of a defense.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Yeah. The principle that we're talking about here is that
the prosecution cannot bring in in front of the jury
during the context of the trial, the fact that this
guy has pled out to two crimes, so serious crimes
associated with the crime for which you stand the trial,
because that would be considered to be so prejudicial that
(33:59):
you couldn't have a fair look. There are trials like
the Boston Bamba trial where I kind of imagined that
you could find the jury of twelve people who had
not heard about the Boston Bamba trial. And probably the
question is, Phil says Laurie, is that the lawyers for
both the prosecution and the defense, as well as the
judge need to be convinced that the jurors who have
(34:19):
been chosen through the voor Deer are coming to that
case with an open mind. Laurie, I got one more.
I'm going to try to sneak in here. Thanks so much.
Speaker 9 (34:27):
Now, thank you guys so much. That answers a lot
of questions.
Speaker 6 (34:30):
Thank you, No thanks, Laurie.
Speaker 2 (34:31):
Thank you soon, Thank you soon. Let me go to
Carol and Randolph Carroll your next time. NIC's that with
Phil Tracy.
Speaker 9 (34:37):
Go right ahead, Carol, Hi, Dan and Phil.
Speaker 6 (34:40):
I mean, I'm.
Speaker 10 (34:43):
Just so looking forward to tomorrow and what the defense
puts on is their argument. And Phil, I mean, you're
an attorney.
Speaker 6 (34:53):
What is she going to say?
Speaker 10 (34:54):
I thought she died and then I decided.
Speaker 6 (34:57):
To chop her up.
Speaker 10 (34:59):
I mean there was no one, there was nothing.
Speaker 7 (35:05):
Yeah, I think that. God'm sorry. I didn't mean to
cut you off. Go ahead, you're right on track. It's
an excellent question. What can you say now that you
said something in the opening that you haven't been able
to produce. It's a very difficult. I think they'll have
to do the best they can in saying there is
(35:28):
two things. There is nobody and sudden depth can occur.
People drop dead, they call it, or they die in
their sleep, and it can happen. But the expert for
the Commonwealth said, it's very rare that this would ever happen,
(35:48):
and again reasonable doubt doesn't. It's not beyond any doubt,
it's beyond reasonable doubt. So it's reasonable.
Speaker 10 (35:58):
Somebody you left passes away in their sleep, you're gonna
try and revive them, if you love them, if you're
gonna call nine to one one and be personally.
Speaker 2 (36:11):
The jurors are going to think the same way.
Speaker 7 (36:14):
That's a bad decide, Carol.
Speaker 2 (36:17):
Look, the jurors are going to think exactly like you think.
The defense lawyer, and I mentioned earlier, the defense lawyer
was not sitting at the defense table when he took
those two pleas. Phil you mentioned that after that was completed,
only then did he go up and and to present
himself as a defense lawyer. He probably did not agree
with that theory. Uh, and the theory I think it's
(36:40):
come back to bite the defendant.
Speaker 10 (36:43):
I mean, you guys are both attorneys. I mean, how
do you sit there with a with a guy like
this and try and defend him the same the same.
Speaker 2 (36:53):
Way, the same way, Phil, let me answer that real quickly,
the same way that when when when a doctor's on
duty and they bring a guy in who's been suffering
from a bulletproof wound. He was in a fight, we
killed a couple of police officers and he's wounded. The
doctor will provide medical treatment. Everybody.
Speaker 7 (37:10):
Everybody is right, unless the defendant tells you he's lying
and is going to testify and lie, then you back
away from the case. That's the ethics of it.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
Yes, yes, but everyone deserves to be to have their
day in court and to have you know, as best
representation within you. As Phil just said, But it's the
same principle as you know, when someone goes into a
confessional and confesses to a priest a horrible crime, that
confession is theoretically sealed under the priest penitent exception. So
(37:48):
same way here you might feel your guy is guilty
or your gall is guilty, but your job is to
make the prosecution prove all the elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt. I get it, all right, but
it's tough to understand. I get it, Carol. We're way
past our break, so I gotta let you run. Okay,
Thank you much. I talked to and Phil is always
(38:11):
thanks very much. Might have you on here quickly tomorrow
and keep us on speaking.
Speaker 7 (38:16):
Yeah, I'll be around all right, all right, thank you.
Speaker 2 (38:22):
Good night, all right, serious case. We will follow it
tomorrow for you, and we could potentially have a verdict
tomorrow night. And if you don't have a verdict tomorrow,
it's going to really raise some questions about that jury.
I we think we'll sing we're gonna change topics on
the other side at the ten o'clock news. Be right
back right after that.
It's Nightside with Dan Ray on WBS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Well, today, the defense rested in the case of Brian Walsh.
That is the case in which he is charged with
murdering and dismembering and taking the body parts of his
wife Anna and distributing them in dumpsters around the Greater
(00:32):
Boston area. This is a horrific case. It dates back
to New Year's Day of twenty twenty three. They celebrate.
I think everybody knows the story. They had a small
gathering at their home in Cohact with just one other person.
(00:54):
They had dinner and ended and something happened. I think
all of you have some maliarity with the case. But
the development today is astonishing in that the defense they
was their turn to to mount their defense and present
(01:15):
their case to the jury, and the defense rested without
calling one witness. Now, the lawyers for Brian Walsh in
their opening statements had implied pretty clearly that that Walsh
was going to get on the witness stand. And if
(01:37):
you don't believe me, let's listen to a couple of
sound bites. I'm also joined by Phil Tracy who's listening
Willhouse as well. Hey, Phil, how are you welcome. I
didn't didn't want to ignore you, but I want you
to hear what we're going to talk about, which is
which includes a couple of sound bites here from the
opening statements by the defense attorney, Attorney Larry Tifton on this.
(02:00):
So I think this is going to weigh the foundation
for what we're going to focus on tonight. This is
cut number thirty one. Please, Rob, you'll hear.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Evidence in now he is hannay and he doesn't understand
what has happened and.
Speaker 4 (02:14):
What is happening. It didn't make any sense.
Speaker 5 (02:21):
It didn't make sense that somebody that he had just
been with and enjoyed New Year's e into New Year's
Day would suddenly be dead.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Oh and then there's two other bites here there a
little longer, But listen carefully, because he talks about He
says to the jury, you will hear evidence of unexplained deaths.
And the implication to me is that the defendant who
has pled guilty in a surprise move before the trial
(03:00):
in chief started, he pled guilty to misleading police and
also disposing of body parts his wife's Swati. Cut number
thirty two, Rob.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
You will hear evidence that it is written.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
You will hear evidence that it happens in young people
and old You will hear evidence it happens in male
and feeding.
Speaker 4 (03:24):
You will hear evidence it happens during.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
The day and during the night, that it happens.
Speaker 4 (03:31):
Be trained evidence. You will hear evidence that it can
be the result of both.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Mechanical and are electrical problems within the body.
Speaker 4 (03:40):
You will hear evidence that it.
Speaker 5 (03:41):
Might be carnivascueler, pulmonary, neurological, are other reasons.
Speaker 4 (03:48):
You will hear evidence.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
That it occurs in people who have never manifested a
symptom that something might be wrong.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
And in fact, you will hear evidence.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Yeah, sometimes the first manifestation that something is or was
wrong with someone.
Speaker 4 (04:07):
Is the sudden undersluming. That's the end of here.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Is now the roadmap that the defense attorney presented in
his opening argument is opening statement of the jury is
not evidence. He's talking about evidence that would come in
in testimony. And the implication to me was pretty clear.
Brian Walsh was going to go on and talk about
going upstairs and finding his wife and not knowing what
(04:33):
to do. One more SoundBite, then we're gonna go to
attorney Tracy cut thirty three, rob.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
Mine Wallas upstairs. He went back down to the kitchen
about an hour later to clean it up, and then impossible,
the unimaginably.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Yeah, it didn't make sense to Brian Wall.
Speaker 4 (04:59):
It was confused. He never thought anybody would.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
Believe that Anna Walsh was alive one minute and dead
the next.
Speaker 4 (05:12):
Well he could think about it were those three boys.
Speaker 5 (05:15):
What would happen to their three boys now that An
is no longer here.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
What will happen if they think he did something bad
to end?
Speaker 4 (05:24):
Where will those three boys go?
Speaker 6 (05:28):
And so.
Speaker 7 (05:31):
He lock.
Speaker 4 (05:37):
He's trying to hope so he could hang on to
those boys.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Pretty dramatic. But in the words of a nineteen eighties
television commercial, where's the beef, Phil Tracy, where's the beef?
Speaker 7 (05:54):
Well, you know, we were shocked at the beginning of
the case, and we were shocked day and I'm talking
about the court of public opinion and everyday citizens, lawyers, doctors, plumbers, whatever,
if they're following this case, they have to say to
themselves what is going on? Because at least they should
(06:19):
have called a doctor forensic evidence that yes, people can
die in their sleep, or they can just drop dead.
But the reality is they use the government's medical examiner
to say, can this happen? And he said, yes, it
(06:42):
can happen, but not to a young, vibrant, healthy, a
person was working out all the time. Traveling just doesn't
happen to those type of people. A thirty nine year
old woman, Yeah, thirty nine, the prime in the prime
of life. Uh.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
That witness was obviously a prosecution witness. It was on
cross examination, Yeah, prosecution witness. He's uh, you know, Tifton
is questioning the prosecution witness and the prosecution witness is
not giving him what he wants, and the prosecution witness
can it says yes, but it's rare.
Speaker 6 (07:24):
He could.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
I Uh, I believe that there was every suggestion up
until yesterday that Walsh, you know, very rarely would would
you ever put a defendant on the witness stand in
a murder case, never mind a defendant with against whom
so much compelling, circumstantial evidence existed. Videotapes, videotapes of him
(07:53):
pushing a market card with with equipment that that he bought,
and uh, and tools and and that that you know.
The point they're going to make is that these were
the tools that he used to to dismember the wife.
And do you think who's calling the shots in this case?
(08:14):
Phil is the defensive.
Speaker 7 (08:15):
That's let me let me say this. I think that
the defendant had a lot to say about how he
wanted the case tried, and that would lead you to
believe that he said, let's plead on the two charges
of dismembering and line to the police and withholding evidence
(08:39):
from the police, and then try the case. And then
of course, uh excellently in an excellent fashion. The prosecution,
unlike other cases we've seen recently, they were able to
put the case together with evidence, and they were able
(09:02):
to use forensic evidence and circumstance of evidence that put
a great case together fast, which is sometimes is a
very good thing for the prosecution. The OJ Simpson case
was an example of the length of a prosecution's case
can destroy the case. Now he goes or that I
(09:28):
would be if I was his. Listen, you cannot get
on the stand. They'll rip you apart with this scientific evidence.
They'll show a picture of you again with your son
after you allegedly dismembered his mother's body. How they connect
get I mean, there aren't many cases that we've seen.
(09:52):
This isn't like two gang members shooting each other. It
isn't like drug dealers shooting each other. It isn't like
mobsters shooting each other. This is cold blooded, pre determined,
with malice of forethought. He was, you know, I think
(10:13):
they put in a great case. Now, can it happen
that one person can hold out like a dura a
rogue duror that can happen. But I think this will
be a decision of conviction and honor the woman that's
(10:36):
been gone now. I think her children are in Europe
with her mother. But what a sad case.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
I was surprised that the timing today of the defense resting.
I mean, the expectation I assumed that the judge had
was that the defense is going to use at least
a couple of days and the case would go over
to next Monday. I'm surprised that she is having the
(11:05):
closing arguments tomorrow, and unless there's an unexpected problem, the
jury likely will have this case sometime tomorrow in the
early afternoon.
Speaker 7 (11:20):
Yes, that's correct. And jurors in the old days, they
were sequested, you know, they were put in the hotel.
They don't do that anymore. But nevertheless, these jurors, like
the read case ures. You know, they've been through the
ringer here, they've gone through the process of elimination, and
(11:42):
they have come into the jury doing their civic duty.
But I think they want to go home. So based
on the evidence I've seen, and you've seen, and the
public has seen, which doesn't include what he said in
the opening or what he says in the closing, meaning
(12:04):
the defense counsel that's not evidence. Judge will tell them,
don't believe anything they said. Their job is to explain
to you what they think the evidence was, but it's
not to say that what they say is definitely the evidence.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Well, but they can in the close make an argument
to the jury which if they can persuade the jury
that this fact and this fact when connected with this fact,
takes the jury toward toward this type of verdict, they
had that ability to do that. Obviously, the prosecution has
(12:41):
a much easier time of it tomorrow with their closing
to say, think about this, think about this, Think about that.
You're a reasonable person. Everybody in the jury's reasonable. Is
this action's reasonable? You know? Checking being on a computer
trying to figure rug how to dispose of a body,
had a lot of planning, a lot of a lot
(13:03):
of thought. Here cool is a cucumber walking through that?
The Uh that that that strike? I guess it was
a low store. I'm not sure if it was Lows
or home depot. I think it was Lows picking out
pretty casually, like someone might on a spring day pick
out a bag of grass seed and maybe a.
Speaker 7 (13:24):
One case with one of the children with them. Yeah,
that that frosts is a line that I don't believe
anybody could stand can stand.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
Let's let me let me do this for let me,
I've gone long along with you. Let me take a
quick break. We'll come back. We'll invite callers to call
if they'd like to ask a question. I know at
this point, uh, some people probably have not even heard now.
The case is not gone to the jury yet. It
will get to the jury at some point tomorrow absent
you know, if a couple of juries call in sick
(13:59):
tomorrow or and there always can be a problem. But
assuming it goes as the judge has scheduled, this jury
should have the case sometime by one on one thirty.
We could have a verdict tomorrow night. We could be
talking this time tomorrow night about a verdict. I don't
think it will be an acquittal. And the best that
I think the defense can hope for at this point
(14:21):
is that, as you said, that one one juror wants
to basically engage in what's called jury nullification. Let's take
a break. It will invite people to call get their
impressions as well. If you want to ask Phil Tracy
a question six one seven, two, five, four, ten thirty
six one seven, nine three one ten thirty two five four,
ten thirty or nine three one, ten thirty six one
(14:44):
seven is the area code? UH? Love to know what
you thought when you heard today that the defense rested
and no witnesses were called, not even an expert witness,
UH to make the case U of what they were
calling sudden unexpected death. Back on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
You're on Night Side with Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Joined by attorney Phil Tracy, and we're talking about the
Brian Walsh case that I've never seen. Phil, you have
much more experience in this than I do in the courtroom.
I've never seen anything that is close to this. Is
there any case that comes to your mind?
Speaker 7 (15:34):
Well, I mean, there are cases in which there's no
body and that I'm remembered. I'm reminded of the Durst case.
That was the case from several years ago where he
eventually was convicted of some murder, but he was acquitted
of a murder in which he didn't in which they
(15:56):
didn't ever body. That's the only thing that's arguable about
this case is that there is no body.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Right, and the premise there is that, well, maybe somebody
just took off. But when you have this amount.
Speaker 7 (16:14):
Of DNA.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
It's available, I think it's a it's a strong case.
And I don't know if there I believe at some
point in common law, meaning going back to the English days,
that if there was nobody there could be no murder charge.
Speaker 7 (16:34):
That maybe so, I'm not familiar with it. But from
this perspective, again, the idea of the prosecution pushing a
case without a body is just ludicrous because it doesn't happen.
(16:54):
They had plenty of evidence, They had the evidence that
indicated uh, not only he had some motive, insurance policies,
problems in the marriage, the idea of a separate form
in Washington, and her situation of complaining too friends that
(17:18):
I'm not happy in the marriage and things aren't going well.
There's so much stuff collateral to the to the forensic evidence.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
Yeah, but it's also it's also the evidence of her clothes,
her identification. I believe her COVID identification guard was found
in one of the dumpsterstates. There's a lot, there's.
Speaker 7 (17:39):
So much just you know, I think that. You know,
the sad part of this is there are three orphans
and he'll go to jail. She's gone. I hope they
live good lives in Europe with her mother, but you know,
they might have been in massive juss for the rest
(18:01):
of their life. And think about this, the horror of that.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (18:05):
Again, I mean I feel terrible for the for the
for her family and her friends. Uh. He is an
evil person. I think he has a criminal mind. He
already had been convicted of some sort of theft in
the federal court. I think he had other case bounced checks,
(18:28):
this type of thing. He's not an He doesn't have
a cent of one percent of sympathy from the public.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
He surely carries himself, which which the jury easy. The
jury may not know.
Speaker 7 (18:45):
The language is big. He has terrible, terrible wide language
in court he looks obnoxious. He looks like this is
a big joke, and he may have made it into
a big joke by forcing his lawyers to provolt this
irrational story.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
When we get back, I want to go to phone calls,
but I also want to You made the observation that Tifton,
the lawyer who's handling this case, sat behind him, removed
from him as the plea was put in, and there
might signal something. We'll get to that, but we'll also
(19:26):
get the phone call. So stay right there. Phil Tracy,
Attorney Phil Tracy is with me. We're talking about the
Brian Walsh murder case. The defense that I arrested without
calling a single witness, despite having I think suggested pretty
strongly in their opening remarks that this jury would hear
from the defendant himself, Brian Walsh, and if not from him,
at least from medical experts from defense medical experts, which
(19:50):
would make the case for an unexplained death, sudden death,
which is really their last line of defense. If you'd
like to ask a question or make a comment, six
one seven two thirty six one seven nine thirty Back
on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
It's night Side with Dan ray On Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
Back with Phil Tracy here talking about this well, extraordinary
decision by the defense today. It came across to me
philis being a last minute decision. But let's do this.
Let's get some callers involved here as well. If you're
ready to take a couple of phone calls, Phil All said, sure, right,
let's go. Okay, gonna go to Steve in North End Over.
(20:35):
Steve you first, this hour with Phil Tracy and Nightside
talking about the Brian Walsh murder case. They rested today
without calling a witness, including either Brian Walsh himself or
an expert witness to argue in the case of unexpected,
unexplained sudden death.
Speaker 6 (20:54):
Oh Dan, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
You're welcome. Say hey, do Phil Tracy go right ahead. Steve.
What's your comment question?
Speaker 6 (20:59):
I thought you. I know you're a seasoned veteran. I
hear you on here all the time, so I wanted
to get your opinion. I know you mentioned you mentioned
kind of the Karen Reid case here and a relationship here.
But it's interesting because you've got all the evidence in
the world here against Brian Walsh with no body and
(21:19):
in the Karen Reid case, you had basically no evidence
by design with a body that had evidence on it,
and you had some of the same mass State Police
officers that were testifying and on the witness stand in
the same case that treated the case and the collection
(21:40):
of evidence differently in both cases. And I just want
to get your take on that. I think it's you know,
mass Jusetts is in the spotlight right now. And I've
used this term before when I talked to Dan. We're
a laughing stock right now based on what happened in
that Karen Reid case, And just want to get your
take on that.
Speaker 7 (21:58):
Well. I think that one of the problems for the
state police is a ten to fifteen year downward spiral
in professionalism and problems with the state police. But in
this case, I believe a cohacit detective and they don't
(22:19):
have any murders in go Acid. He took the bow
by the horns and was assisted by state police. But
the evidence gathering was fantastic from the police side. They
got to the dumpsters, they got the video cameras, and
now you turn that over to a season prosecutor, Greg Connor,
(22:44):
and he did a fabulous job of concisely putting the
case together. As I mentioned before, sometimes a case goes
on too long, the prosecution loses the jury because they
you know, they get tired, and they might be a
whimsical about, you know, convicting somebody. I don't think this
(23:06):
is going to happen here. I think that they put
a tight case in. Then the defense, Now the Jews
would be thinking this too. They were probably thinking, well,
didn't you get up and say at the beginning that
Walsh was going to testify, and that would make them
feel strange about the whole thing. Maybe they will now
(23:30):
assume that the evidence was so overwhelming that he and
his lawyer said, I can't get on the stand because
the prosecutional be handing me hatchet. Do you recognize this item?
(23:55):
He could say no, He could say yes, I did
buy it, but I never used it, something like that.
But what I'm saying is they would put if I
was protesting, I would take the hacksaw, I would take
the clothes that were found it, and I would show
the video and I'd say is this you? And of
(24:16):
course he'd have to say yes. So cross examination would
have been of prosecutor's dream dream come true in this case.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
I believe also it came out in the trial that
all of these supplies, the cleanup supplies that he bought,
as well as maybe some of the tools that dismembered her.
He used her credit card.
Speaker 7 (24:44):
I think he used a rewards card, which is like,
I guess my wife gets them all the time, drop
and rewards guys.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
Yeah, but I believe it was in the name of
his wife somehow.
Speaker 7 (24:59):
Yeah, it was in the name absolutely.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (25:02):
So what do you what do you what do you
make of the fact that the officers involved in the investigation,
in the collection of evidence behaved totally differently in that
case versus the Karen Reid case, where it appears that
they were either you know, at as at best, they
(25:23):
were sloppy. At worst, they were taking direction from somebody
from the top, maybe even Morrissey or others in the
mass State Police on how to do a sloppy investigation.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
Yeah, there was, Steve, I understand what you're saying here,
But there was no indication entered that anyone was taking directions.
In talking about the Michael Procter case, those were Proctor's
own emails in the Karen Reid case, which were misogynistic
and distasteful, and it might have been that in this case.
(25:59):
If believe me, if if the if the defense in
the Walsh case had discovered any inappropriate actions or activity, uh,
they would have brought that to the attention and might
have been able to argue with the the prosecutor in
the case that we're going to put Procter back on
the stand and we're gonna we're gonna go after him
(26:22):
just as we did, as as others did in the
in the Read case. I think it's conceivable that that
Proctor might have might might have handled this case properly.
Maybe the state police handled this properly. Maybe there was
nothing there for the defense to work with. Is that possible, phil.
Speaker 7 (26:39):
Well? I don't think the or any of the other
people played a very big part in this case. And
I think that uh, you know, whether they were handling
things sloppily, sloppy, Uh, that came to the fruition for
(27:03):
the defense to say, you know, they watched and what
they would have tried to do. Would you say this
is a pattern of bad, bad police work, whereas in
this case, I think not so much to say police,
(27:23):
but the Cohasset police got the case right. It's what's
had about this case is, if you think about it,
they had to find the dumpsters, they had to get
the videos. They really thoroughly. Whoever was the lead proscal
(27:44):
with his team, they did a great job.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
They had to get those dumpsters before the dumpsters were
said to a landfill.
Speaker 7 (27:52):
And the probably probably right, you'd be going to the
landfill instead of the dumpsters.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Which obviously is a much more difficult. Yeah, the area
it was difficult to search, and they may have ended
up in a lamdfill, but they had to make sure
that they knew where the truck that would have picked
up this material. Yeah, Steve has dropped off. He wasn't
cut off, but I think that he was trying to
link the two cases, and I guess Procter.
Speaker 7 (28:15):
And I was, I don't see the link at all.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
Yeah, that's what I mean.
Speaker 7 (28:19):
He's a smart man. He knows that there's been what
I said at the beginning, I mean the four State Police,
the good state police officers are being tarnished by some
renegade rogues. Think of the guy that Yeah.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
I got to take a quick break here, focus and
pass my break. We got Bob and Cambridge Laurier and
IHO's coming up. We got roove. You'd like to talk
with Phil Tracy six one seven four ten thirty six
one seven nine ten thirty Back on night Side after
this brief commercial break.
Speaker 1 (28:53):
It's night Side with Dan Ray Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
We're talking with Phil Tracy here about the murder case
that rested today, the Brian Walsh case. Let me go
to Bob and Cambridge. Bob, you're next time Nightsiger, right.
Speaker 8 (29:10):
Ahead, Hello Dan, Hello, mister Tracy, thank you for you're welcome.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
What's your question to comment? Go right hit Bob.
Speaker 8 (29:19):
Well, I don't want to be disrespectful to you or
mister Tracy on the justice system, but you know what,
his trial is a bunch of foolishness. Okay, what should
happen to mister whatever his name is, I forget his name,
the guy that just muddled his white Welsh by a Walsh.
Speaker 7 (29:34):
They just give him a.
Speaker 8 (29:35):
Ride up to Shirley, Massachusetts. Welcome home, brother, and you
know when he goes when he goes in, it's not
going to be nothing like he gets stabbed. We're not
detam He's gonna go down and he'll be peace. But
you know what. The whole thing here is those children.
You know it's gonna be terrible for them.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Yeah, well, we do go through the justice system here,
we don't. We don't put people in in pitsmack lions
or anything like that, as to despicable as they might be.
Let's see what happens with the jury. If he gets convicted,
it's not going to be a pleasant, pleasant life for
him under any circumstances. Right, Thank you, Bob. I think
(30:12):
a lot of people feel that way, and I understand
what he's saying. Self help is we got to go
through the jury system. It's as simple as that, Laurie.
Is that Idaho, Laurie, you're with Phil Tracy. Go right ahead, Laurie.
Speaker 9 (30:25):
Good evening attorneys. Hi, So I also shocked today. Is
anybody to hear this this thing with them? I'm guessing
the judge, having probably spent a few hours preparing for
the defendant to be on the stand, probably wasn't pleased.
But I heard something else today. It surprised me, and
I don't know if this is a usual thing or not,
and I wanted your comments on it. I heard for
the first time today that the jury does not know
(30:47):
about the too guilty please, So what's up with that?
Speaker 2 (30:51):
Well, they're not going to know in the context of
this trial. They may know about it.
Speaker 7 (30:56):
They may know just conversation or whatever. The judge was
careful to say, don't look at the news, don't listen
to Phil Tracy and Dan Ray, because that could have
fact about only the evidence that was placed before you
(31:18):
through testimony and physical evidence. And if therever was one
case where physical evidence, forensic evidence was important, it's this
case with the hatchet and the tool and the stuff
to clean up. And you know, I've watched television and
(31:40):
been a lawyer for fifty years, and there's one thing.
They always can find blood. They have special tools like
a flashlight that picks up the blood. So this seems
to happen all the time.
Speaker 9 (31:57):
M In a case like that, they can't use anything.
They can't use, they can't use anything in the two
earlier guilty fleet that they can they can you know,
use to make the decision they that.
Speaker 7 (32:14):
That's an excellent question because what you're saying, you're asking
is they can hear uh stuff about the dismemberment and
the misleading of the police. They can hear testimony, they
can see testimony, but they can't say to the jury,
(32:38):
either the prosecutor or the defense in this case, they
can't say, like, I already played guilty to the dismembment
of the body, and they can't hear that. But as
Dan said, it's almost impossible. In today's world with all
(32:59):
of the stuff that's on TV, radio, on the phones,
on the internet, they probably know about it.
Speaker 2 (33:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
The principle to do with the.
Speaker 7 (33:11):
Beginning is to say I will keep an open mind
until all the evidence is in. Now, that's where the
defense is questionable, because if you've brought that up at
the beginning in the opening and you didn't deliver that,
they're going to be saying, what's this all about? I mean,
(33:33):
it's it seems to be a face of a defense.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Yeah. The principle that we're talking about here is that
the prosecution cannot bring in in front of the jury
during the context of the trial, the fact that this
guy has pled out to two crimes, so serious crimes
associated with the crime for which you stand the trial,
because that would be considered to be so prejudicial that
(33:59):
you couldn't have a fair look. There are trials like
the Boston Bamba trial where I kind of imagined that
you could find the jury of twelve people who had
not heard about the Boston Bamba trial. And probably the
question is, Phil says Laurie, is that the lawyers for
both the prosecution and the defense, as well as the
judge need to be convinced that the jurors who have
(34:19):
been chosen through the voor Deer are coming to that
case with an open mind. Laurie, I got one more.
I'm going to try to sneak in here. Thanks so much.
Speaker 9 (34:27):
Now, thank you guys so much. That answers a lot
of questions.
Speaker 6 (34:30):
Thank you, No thanks, Laurie.
Speaker 2 (34:31):
Thank you soon, Thank you soon. Let me go to
Carol and Randolph Carroll your next time. NIC's that with
Phil Tracy.
Speaker 9 (34:37):
Go right ahead, Carol, Hi, Dan and Phil.
Speaker 6 (34:40):
I mean, I'm.
Speaker 10 (34:43):
Just so looking forward to tomorrow and what the defense
puts on is their argument. And Phil, I mean, you're
an attorney.
Speaker 6 (34:53):
What is she going to say?
Speaker 10 (34:54):
I thought she died and then I decided.
Speaker 6 (34:57):
To chop her up.
Speaker 10 (34:59):
I mean there was no one, there was nothing.
Speaker 7 (35:05):
Yeah, I think that. God'm sorry. I didn't mean to
cut you off. Go ahead, you're right on track. It's
an excellent question. What can you say now that you
said something in the opening that you haven't been able
to produce. It's a very difficult. I think they'll have
to do the best they can in saying there is
(35:28):
two things. There is nobody and sudden depth can occur.
People drop dead, they call it, or they die in
their sleep, and it can happen. But the expert for
the Commonwealth said, it's very rare that this would ever happen,
(35:48):
and again reasonable doubt doesn't. It's not beyond any doubt,
it's beyond reasonable doubt. So it's reasonable.
Speaker 10 (35:58):
Somebody you left passes away in their sleep, you're gonna
try and revive them, if you love them, if you're
gonna call nine to one one and be personally.
Speaker 2 (36:11):
The jurors are going to think the same way.
Speaker 7 (36:14):
That's a bad decide, Carol.
Speaker 2 (36:17):
Look, the jurors are going to think exactly like you think.
The defense lawyer, and I mentioned earlier, the defense lawyer
was not sitting at the defense table when he took
those two pleas. Phil you mentioned that after that was completed,
only then did he go up and and to present
himself as a defense lawyer. He probably did not agree
with that theory. Uh, and the theory I think it's
(36:40):
come back to bite the defendant.
Speaker 10 (36:43):
I mean, you guys are both attorneys. I mean, how
do you sit there with a with a guy like
this and try and defend him the same the same.
Speaker 2 (36:53):
Way, the same way, Phil, let me answer that real quickly,
the same way that when when when a doctor's on
duty and they bring a guy in who's been suffering
from a bulletproof wound. He was in a fight, we
killed a couple of police officers and he's wounded. The
doctor will provide medical treatment. Everybody.
Speaker 7 (37:10):
Everybody is right, unless the defendant tells you he's lying
and is going to testify and lie, then you back
away from the case. That's the ethics of it.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
Yes, yes, but everyone deserves to be to have their
day in court and to have you know, as best
representation within you. As Phil just said, But it's the
same principle as you know, when someone goes into a
confessional and confesses to a priest a horrible crime, that
confession is theoretically sealed under the priest penitent exception. So
(37:48):
same way here you might feel your guy is guilty
or your gall is guilty, but your job is to
make the prosecution prove all the elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt. I get it, all right, but
it's tough to understand. I get it, Carol. We're way
past our break, so I gotta let you run. Okay,
Thank you much. I talked to and Phil is always
(38:11):
thanks very much. Might have you on here quickly tomorrow
and keep us on speaking.
Speaker 7 (38:16):
Yeah, I'll be around all right, all right, thank you.
Speaker 2 (38:22):
Good night, all right, serious case. We will follow it
tomorrow for you, and we could potentially have a verdict
tomorrow night. And if you don't have a verdict tomorrow,
it's going to really raise some questions about that jury.
I we think we'll sing we're gonna change topics on
the other side at the ten o'clock news. Be right
back right after that.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.