December 18, 2025 • 34 mins
Brian Walshe claims he dismembered his wife, Ana, and disposed of her body, but he did not kill her. On trial for the first-degree murder of his wife, Brian Walshe now claims Ana died of "sudden adult death syndrome" and he dismembered and disposed of her body to protect his children. Joseph Scott Morgan and Dave Mack discuss the vile case of dismemberment and the new defense Walshe uses at trial.
Transcribe Highlights
00:00.44 Introduction, Nothing from Nothing
02:06.62 Evidence is "incompatible with life"
05:46.90 With no body, investigators have to used scene evidence to make a case
10:25.70 The children were 2, 4, and 6 at the time of the murder
15:29.24 Ana's boss reports her missing, not her husband
19:57.56 Walshe trying to determine destruction of teeth
25:05.05 Walshe admits dismembering and disposing of Ana
30:12.41 Defense does not put up any witnesses
34:44.70 Conclusion
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):
Body times, but Joseph's gotten more. There's an old song
from the sixties, maybe it's the early seventies. Maybe Dave
can help us with that. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.
When you're working a case, you have to have something right.
(00:21):
And in my world, in the world of death, investigation
that generally starts with a body, doesn't it, Because without
the body, what purpose do we actually serve? Why should
we even be there? Today we're going to talk about
a case that has been puzzling people now for years,
(00:42):
and I'm happy to say that we finally have a
resolution in said case. It's a case that I don't
know that we'll ever find what's referred to as the
Corpus Delecti, but what we do know is that the
war world is absent a mother and a wife and
(01:07):
a daughter. We're talking about the death, the homicide, the
dismemberment and subsequent disposal of Anna Walsh. I'm Josephcott Morgan
and this is Bodybacks, Dave. I got to tell you,
(01:30):
I think some time ago we did initially do a
show about this case, and it was puzzling then and
even though we we finally do have some kind of
conclusion here I think in one sense, I don't know
that this thing will ever be concluded to anyone satisfactor satisfaction.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
I've always wondered how difficult it is. Now you mentioned
nothing from nothing by Billy Preston, number one, October nineteen
seventy four, just.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
Talking, So y'all see, I told you, Dave, here we go.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
I always wonder about a case where you don't have
the body of the purported victim. Now you have said
many times on this show and others that evidence left
behind is inconsistible, incompatible with life, and that is enough
to actually point the investigation in a certain way. Well, Joe,
(02:27):
we worked the case like that in terms of coverage
from the moment we started covering because she was a
missing person, and it was a very slick missing person.
Whenever the significant other does not report their loved one
as missing, but the boss does from work, you got
a problem, friends, and that's I think any of us
(02:48):
would understand. And that's what happened here. Brian Walsh did
not report his wife missing. His story made no sense,
you know. His initial story was that they had friends over,
unto your zeb Joe, and went to bed and she
got called away had to get up and catch an
early morning flight to head back to d C for
her job. And he said she used a ride share,
(03:12):
you know, uber or somebody came to picture up and
that's the last time he saw, you know. And just
so you know, if you volunteered that type of information,
it's all verifiable, every bit of it is. And even
though that story fell apart fairly quickly, his story, they
didn't have the body. They had evidence, they had plenty
(03:35):
of evidence, but they didn't have a body. And Brian
Walsh was arrested fairly early on in the investigation because
some of the evidence left behind, blood and whatnot was
incompatible with life. So, Joe, if you start a case
like that, a missing person case, where you're an investigator
(03:58):
and you're looking over this going there's no way this
person is alive, how can you truly say that when
you don't have the body?
Speaker 1 (04:05):
Very difficult, very difficult. And I got to tell you
one of the things that it seems like a daunting
uphill task in this particular case, because this thing has
now gone to court and we do have a conclusion
that we'll talk about in a few moments. But one
of the things that was kind of you know, itching
(04:26):
in the back of my brain throughout this whole thing,
is how would the jury respond to this? Because I
got to tell you if you're if you TESTI find
a case and some of the stuff, as you can imagine,
gets dryest toast that you're having to listen to if
you're on a jury, all right, and just just follow
(04:46):
what I'm saying here. You know, you might have somebody
that's involved in financial dealings and you know, cooking the
books and all those sort of things. Forensic acounting, no
insult to my friends and forensic a County. You guys
do find fine work or even electronics DNA. I think
we saw that happen in multiple cases where you know,
(05:08):
the science gets way above everyone's head and the scientists
included myself included many times. But David, once you start
talking about dead bodies, it's like Yef Hutton. Everybody's on
the edge of their seat. They're leaning in every glory
picture everything that you have there. People want to know.
They want to know what you saw, what was the
(05:31):
status of what you saw when you saw it. They
want to know what happened to bring this person to
this end. They want to know what became of the person.
You know, you know, you picked them up from the
from the scene and went back to the Morga and
you did an autopsy and at the autopsy we found
this at the scene. But hey, this was verified in
(05:52):
the autopsy room. We've got all of this data right here.
Oh wow, look at these photographs, Look at these x rays.
Oh look, here's the bullet that we pulled out of
the body, or here's the fractured knife blade that we
pulled out of the body. You don't have that in
this case. You just don't. Essentially, what you have is
at the scene. You have some of the most ghastly
(06:14):
instruments that you can possibly think of that would make
the Marquis de Sad blush probably when you begin to
think about the tools that this man, Brian Walsh, apparently
brought to bear in this case. And I'll go ahead
and plainly say it, it's a case of dismemberment.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Well, Joe, okay, when we started this and it was
missing person case with a lot of evidence that she
was dead, and all of the investigation and everything that
led to his arrest was very quickly done by using
electronic data by a digital footprint that they were able
to actually find. They started with well verifying that there
(06:57):
was no ridecar service that picked her, uphair service showed
up to pick her up at you know, five thirty
in the morning or whatever. She never called for one,
never ordered one. She never boarded an airplane at Boston
to head to Washington, DC. All the things that would
have happened if what Brian Walsh was saying was true.
So police know from the first hours of the investigation
that he's lying. And yet we don't know where she is.
(07:21):
But we know she's been gone for a couple of
days because Brian Walsh doesn't report her missing, her boss does,
and that's a couple of days after she was last
seen on New Year's Eve. So backing up to him saying, well, yeah,
she left early five point thirty, you know, and they
proved that didn't happen. So now are they thinking that
(07:42):
between the time she was last seen New Year's Eve
until the time he says she got into a card
that never was there, that she didn't get into, that
she he did something to her in that time period.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Yeah, yeah, they have to, Dave. I mean, they're sitting
around reflectively I still have memories of us years and
years ago, myself and homicide detectives done in New Orleans.
There was a Denny's restaurant that we always gathered at
and we would go do brief at this big table
they had in the back of the restaurant, a big,
huge round table, and you can imagine us all sitting there.
(08:14):
I was the youngest among everybody, and we'd have our
notes all spread out on the table and we would
begin to formulate things, you know, and we'd spend hours,
you know, just chatting. Back there, they're doing the same thing.
They're having a cup of coffee over this, and you know,
you can imagine when all of these folks that are
investigators in this case are getting together, they're probably back
(08:34):
to the office or maybe at one of their favorite haunts,
and they're sitting down and said, we've got to work
this out in our brain because everything that we're being
told and everything that we are witnessing or not witnessing,
just does not marry up here. And we've got one
common denominator in this whole thing, and this is the husband.
And these people are seasoned enough, Dave to know that,
(08:56):
you know, all roads lead back most of the time
to the person that you're sleeping with, that you're in
bed with. And I mean that from the sense of
those within you know, your circle, your familial circle, and
right then and there, you know, look that there's nowhere
let me see, let me think about this real quick.
I don't want to get in trouble with Keimmy. I
(09:19):
think that there's My wife knows where I am pretty
much all the time. She knows if I'm back here
taping doing an only her pearance on some television show,
or if I'm teaching, or if I'm doing a dissection,
or if I'm i don't know, somewhere else promoting the
university or whatever. She knows because she kind of keeps
my schedule. This is you know, not every relationship is
(09:43):
like that. Obviously, you know people are just ships passing
the night and most of them, but you still have
to ask that basic question because you know, Dave, they're
correct me if I'm wrong. There's three kids involved.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
In this, yeah, and jo at the time. Okay, And
this is one of the things that we have to
very careful with, is, especially when you're dealing with children.
How old were they not today? But we're three years
past this now. This happened three years ago when Anna
Walsh was thirty nine and her husband was forty six,
and they had chill three boy children, ages two, four
(10:18):
and six years old home on the oldest was six
when this happened. They're now nine, seven and five. So
there's a big difference in those ages, you know.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
Yeah, yeah there is. But you know those ages that
you mentioned initially when this event went down, My lord,
I know I'm preaching the choir here, but that's what
you would considered to be the handful age. Yeah, not
that they're not now, but this requires around the clock
monitoring of these children. How are they going to be
handed off? How are they going to be taken care of?
(10:48):
Who's minding the store if you will? And I know
that Ron Walsh was essentially out of work, yeah at
this point in time. Yeah, he's a criminal sin it's.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
Not an art fraud.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
The guy.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
The thing is Joe. You know who he swindled out
of art friends? People who was friends. He swindled friends,
That's who. It was crazy, the non friends that he
tried to swindle. He was selling fake, fake pick fake paintings,
you know, and the fraud. The forgeries were so bad
(11:19):
that this one and a museum buying a painting on
you know, eBay, kind of pushes my limit for who's
running the store here. You know, you're talking thousands of
eight hundred thousand dollars and you're gonna use eBay. I
gotta have eyes on that first. But this one museum
that actually ordered a piece from him, when it arrived,
(11:40):
they were like, this is a fraud, diggabag And that
was one of the ones that he didn't know.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
But well, you know, the thing about it, it sounds like
he's pushing primitive folk are has originated out of Mississippi
or Alabama or northern Louisiana or something. No and sault.
I love primitive folkal part. I'd love to see the
vibrance of it and everything Dave. He's trying to he's
trying to pawn off war war halls. Yeah, okay, which
to me, you know, I don't know if you're going
(12:04):
to go big, I guess go yeah, yeah, yeah, go big,
or go home or go to go to federal prison
one of the two.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Which that's what he was doing when he's waiting at
home to be sentenced on the fraud. He's a scammer.
The guy he's enough, you know what, and you know
what his wife was to think about. He grew up
in the lap of luxury. Just so you know, Brian
Walsh born and raised by rich family, rich heritage and
all that. I mean, the country clubs and the brand
new cars and the chauffeurs and all that. Anna was
an immigrant who actually began working as a chambermaid in
(12:37):
a hotel, you know, tournie, getting sheets, making beds. That's
how she started. And when she met Brian, she saw
him and by the way, she's not an idiot. She
immediately starts working man's She even changed careers. Okay, this
is a woman who was building herself up in the
hotel industry, builds herself up, builds herself up, then goes
(12:58):
gets the real estate license, continues building and she just
I mean, in ten years, she went from being an
immigrant changing bed sheets to being an executive worth hundreds
of thousands of dollars a year. Right, and she marries
this guy. She meets him early on where he's a
real catch. She's an immigrant chambermaid and he's the rich
(13:21):
country club guy. But she surpasses him and finds out
he's a fraud. Yeah, he was raised rich, but he's
not a rich himself. He hasn't made anything. He's in nothing.
He's a criminal. And by the time she realizes what
she has married and realized that he's a fraud. Do
you remember when Renes Elwiger sued that country music singer
(13:41):
for fraud. Yeah, in the divorce, that's what I was
thinking that Anna probably wanted to do. Anna had had
her fill of this guy.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Yeah, no kidding, because she understood I think probably the
work that you have to put in to be successful.
And you know, it's I think that that kind of
success is all the more sweeter as opposed to these
things that have been handed us throughout our lives. But
this is what I know. I know that her life
changed in one second on the day that he realized
(14:12):
that his wife had now surpassed him in this life.
So the big mystery, Dave, I think, is where's Anna.
(14:35):
That's a question that early on was being asked. I mean,
that's that's the whole purpose of this. You know, we've
already got a scumbag that's waiting to be sentenced, you know,
for for art fraud. And we know that they're married.
But here's the thing, we don't know. We don't know
(14:57):
where she is.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
January Coore. Her boss reports are missing. Okay, Joe if Jacksonville,
if let's say Kim worked at the grocery store, Yeah,
you're a Jsu. Her boss from the grocery store calls
the Jacksonville Police department. Hey, man, I can't find one
of our employees. She's not home, she's not here. We
(15:20):
don't know where she is. Can you help them, you know,
put a missing person's out. Oh sure. And the first
call they make is to you, Hey Joe, mister Jsu,
your wife's missing and her boss did you know about this?
Oh yeah, I mean to tell you that's what happened.
And so the day she's reported missing by her boss,
(15:42):
police call him in for an interview and he gives
him his spiel. You know that she copped a plane.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Well it's almost it's almost like improvisation, isn't it. I mean, somebody,
somebody gives you a bit of data and you take
that and you kind of begin to lead with it.
Oh yeah, yeah, Well this is actually what happened. Based
upon the earlier premise, that's.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Remember the lying guy on Saturday Night Line. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah,
Morgan Child.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
Yeah, John Lovets, Yeah, absolutely so. And man, you talk
about a uh, you know, a proverbial liar, that's what
you're talking about. You know. She was reported missing on
January the fourth. The police interview him same day. He's
interviewed again on the eighth, and he's arrested later that day.
(16:33):
Because you know, you can tell, you can kind of
sniff this out along the way that you know, what
he is putting out is stacked higher and deeper.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
On January fourth, he gave him, he gave him a timetable,
he gave him a story, and they went and verified it.
They go back to January first. Okay, we've got we
were watching Walsh buying cleaning tools at Low's January third.
We catch him on video disposing of trash bags January
fourth and has reported missing. And he tells that first
story that we now have verified he didn't do any
of the Now he'd never reported her missing. He's buying
(17:07):
cleaning stuff and trash bags and we got on video
dumping stuff. So they bring it back in on the eighth.
So what about all this, dude? Why were you buying
so much cleaning stuff? And that's when he can't answer
anything and they lock him up. That's when you and
I started covering the case.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
Yeah, and you know, because the big the big question
then is still the big question. Now, where's where is she?
You know, what what became of her at this point
in time? And they know that, you know, trash bags
and some of her belongings are actually found at this
Peabody recycling center, you know. And these these are items
(17:43):
that are uniquely hers that you know, she has physical
ownership of, and so you can tie them back to her. Well,
why would she be separated from these items? And then
you begin to understand that he's he has bought these
tools all the way back. This was like on New
Year's Day, I think when he actually bought these tools.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
Yeah, and he said she left.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
Yeah, and they're rather peculiar set of tools, I got
to tell you, you know, so what what was it that
made you want to pick up a hack saw and
a hatchet? And Joe?
Speaker 2 (18:16):
They also found searches on the computer, you know, and
he's he's searching out things like how long before a
dead body starts to stink? The best ways to dismember
a body. I mean things that, to be honest with you, Joe,
if I googled them for a story, would look bad
if that happened to my wife. But he didn't have that.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
Can yeah, let me let me address one point along
the way. One of the searches that really disturbed me
down to my core. One of those elements I can't
believe I'm actually going to say this, and I'm not
going to get it right. I know that I'm not.
Maybe you can correct me. But one of the things
he searched for was can a body be identified with
(18:59):
the teeth being you know, destroyed essentially? And I'm thinking,
in what universe are you operating that that would even
be something that you would be searching out. It's dumbfounding
because let me and just give me a little rope here,
because I got to tell you, please, when you think
(19:22):
about somebody that would exact just based upon the search,
the search history, those kinds of level of violence on
a body, the body of perhaps the mother of his
own children, the person he is shared a bed with,
(19:43):
person he has shared finances with, they've gone on family vacations.
Just imagine, if you will, what type of individual would
sit there and stand over a body and think, you
know this mouth that probably told me, you know that
she loved me. At one point time, those words issued
out from I shared a meal with Maybe I dipped
(20:06):
up a little food off of my plate in those
early days fed her. You saw those teeth, and you're thinking, okay,
what if I took what if I took a hatchet
or a chisel and I began to crack this teeth?
What kind of person does this and break the teeth off?
I want to know, Hey, can the people in the
(20:27):
forensic science division, it's a state you think they could
still take this teeth and identify her if I did
one by one, assuming she's got all of her teeth day, Okay,
let's just assume that that would be thirty two individual
teeth that he would have to shatter. What are you
going to do do to shatter them? Are you going
to extract them first and then shatter them? Are you
going to leave them in place and then brutalize her mouth? What?
(20:49):
You know? Just just paint us a picture here, Bry,
you know, to let us know what you're thinking about.
And you know, I got to say, Dave, that sick. Yeah,
it really is sick. And you know when I read that, initially,
I was thinking this guy is working on and operating
on a different plane right than everybody else. You know,
(21:10):
there are serial killers out there that probably are more
mannerly than this. Wow, because when you think about this,
he's literally trying to completely deconstruct her on every level.
This isn't just like about taking a handoff or taking
an arm off its shoulder, or the leg off at
(21:30):
the knee or something like. That's not what we're talking
about here. We're talking about total and complete destruction of
a body. Eradication if you will. You know, this get's
really dark.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
With having all of that evidence show, Okay, with all
of the searches and these thoughts and things. And again
now you've got interview number one, January fourth, hating you
report your wife missing and telling a story that they
then can verify. And on January eight, four days later,
they verified everything he told them was a lie and
they now believe he has killed his wife, arrest him.
(22:01):
Brian Walsh has arrested on January eighth. From there on,
he's locked into his story that she left, right, that's
his story, and he's sticking to it because can't change it.
You gave your official story to cops. A defense attorney
comes into play. The defense attorney has what's called discovery.
They can find out everything the prosecution has. And after
they find out all of this information, you've got to
(22:23):
change your story because that story I told can be
proved wrong. Day one, what story can I tell? And Joe,
what story is believable? Well, no, not believable. The story
he came up with to explain everything. I'm not gonna
(22:46):
say it's brilliant because it's evil. But this is the
reason that some of the defense attorneys get a bad
rep because it takes a really twisted, messed up mind
to create something like this as a defense.
Speaker 1 (23:02):
Yeah, when Dave I got to tell you, I was
sitting there and my phone went off. I guess it
was let's see today, thinking back, trying to get my
day straight. Last week, the day of opening of openings
when they did the opening arguments, actually my phone actually
(23:22):
rang and it was a friend of mine that's a broadcaster,
and they said, are you watching the opening statements of washing?
It's like, I don't even have time to figure out
what time of day it is. Right now, I'm not
sitting here watching, said you need to tune in and
listen to this. And friends, I got to tell you,
when I heard what the defense attorney was putting up
(23:47):
and trying to sell to this court, to these members
of the jury, it really gave me pause because I'm thinking,
not only are we not going to have a body,
but now we're going to have an explanation that cannot
be proven or disproven about what actually happened. So Dave,
(24:23):
I get this phone call, you know, earlier in the
week or last week when they were doing the opening
statements relative to the Wash case, and his friend of
mine said, are you you know, are you paying attention
to this? And I was like, no, well, what's going on?
I got tons of other stuff that's going on at
that moment in Tom said you need to tune in
a watch, and there before my eyes, the defense attorney
(24:47):
for Walsh is actually presenting this story and it kind
of sent a chill up my spine because I'm thinking,
my lord, there's no way to prove or disprove this.
This this man may have found the perfect get out
of jail card free, you know kind of thing going on.
And what he was proposing. It's weird. You can reinforce
(25:09):
a fallacy, I think by stating a little bit of truth.
And what he's saying is that Walsh actually actually admits
that he, you know, that he dismembered his wife's body,
and that yes, he did dispose of his wife's body,
but he had nothing to do with her her homicide
or her death. He's not saying homicide as a matter
of fact, Jesse, the opposite. He's actually implying that his
(25:32):
wife died of something that we refer to in forensic
circles as sudden adult death syndrome. It's kind of akin
to SIDS, if you will. There's no real rhyme or
reason why it happens. My old friend, doctor Parker, that
I used to work with, the old pathologist, he would say,
you know, simply God called. And that's what he's trying
(25:53):
to say here. And here's kind of the underpinning relative
to the logic here. Walsh, through his attorney, is essentially saying,
I wanted to spare my kids the horror of their
mother's death. So what I thought I'd do is, I
don't know, chop up into bits, throw away in various
garbage receptacles, and they would just think, I guess that
(26:15):
mommy just disappeared. She was taken away by the angels,
or she vanished and she's living another life. But I'm
not going to tell them that she died. And the
problem is it goes back to the earlier issue. You
don't have a body, so you can't say that this
is specifically the cause of death. All right, I will
(26:39):
tell you this. What's really interesting about that scene is
that there was blood at the scene, but the blood
that you had had seen. They did very thorough searches there.
They didn't really they couldn't find any blood scene that
had a lot of dynamicism to it, you know, like
it sprayed or cast off or anything like that. Know,
(27:00):
the blood I think that they were seeing there was
kind of transfer blood, maybe leakage, you know, from areas
where she had been dismembered. And of course, you know
with kind of cast off blood or this blood that
has some velocity to it, you're thinking, okay, this is
a weapon induced kind of event. All right, they didn't
have that. It allows you know, for me, when I'm
(27:23):
thinking about this, she's not a real robust woman. It
would take nothing to suffocate her, to smother her, or
to strangle her. And guess what with those methodologies you
ain't know leaving no blood behind, dude, there's not gonna
be anything there. And so it's I'm not saying it's
(27:43):
the perfect crime, but what I'm saying is if you
try to go down this road of logic with the
attorney and I think, look, I mean, I'm not blaming
the attorney. The attorneys are going to attorney as they
say this is he's doing his job. As much as
you might dislike it. That's what they do. And they're
trying to come up with something else, some other explanation,
(28:04):
because at the end of the day, they've jurors. They
want to see images of dead bodies, not because they're grules,
but they want to see proof because what they're being
asked to do is they're being asked to send this
guy away for life, and if they're going to pull
the trigger on that, no pun intended, they want to
make sure that what they're going to come up with
(28:24):
is going to be valid, all right, So they want
to understand. They want to have the guy with all
the letters after his name sit up there and say
this is definitively what killed her. They don't have that
in this case, man.
Speaker 2 (28:35):
And that's the part that from a defense standpoint, it
really did raise the hairs on the back of my
neck when you told me, because he changes his plea.
You know, his original story was, of course that she
got in the car and left. You know, once he
finds out all the evidence, then he changes his plea
admitting that, yeah, I searched all that stuff, but with
(28:57):
good reason because as a convicted felon who is awaiting
sentencing on the art forgery, I'm going to lose custody
of my children and they aren't going to have a
mother now, They're going to be parentless. You know what's
going to happen to these three children now that their
mother is dead? And I'm going to go to prison.
So that's that's the crazy idea behind it. Is It
(29:20):
sounded legitimate if you if you take your brain out
of your head and all the common sense you gather
over a lifetime, you throw all that away and you
just start with a blank sheet of paper and no history,
no future, and just write it down and say, Okay,
I guess that could happen. But thankfully thankfully. Yeah, I
(29:46):
don't know how. I don't know how you can just
come up with sudden adult death syndrome at this stage
of the game.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
I don't either, you know what I was kind of
hoping for, David. I got to tell you when I
heard this, you know, my brainiac portion kind of kicked in.
I was like, Oh, this is gonna be cool, because
if he says this, this means that the defense attorney,
the defense is probably going to get a cardio pulmonary person,
maybe a forensic pathologist, but probably a cardiopulmonary person, and
(30:17):
they're going to put them up on the stand and
we're going to hear all about you know, sudden adult
death syndrome and how it can just you know, it
can just happen, and they're going to try to explain
to the jury. Dave, they didn't put up one damn
witness for the defense in this case. I was I
was shocked, I really was. I mean, they just they
kind of clipped it off right there, and that was it,
(30:40):
you know, I guess because and listen, I have to
say this, the prosecution of state actually put the put
a forensic pathologist up there and ask them questions. But still,
you know, what are you going to ask this person?
You know, is that blood? Is that consistent with someone
having been killed or dismembered? Well, dismembered. Maybe I can't
(31:01):
say killed, but yes, I suspect the.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
Guy, the guy sitting at the table admitted it. Yeah,
I got her up. I did it. I destroyed her body.
I did, but with good reason. I was protecting my
children precisely.
Speaker 1 (31:12):
And I guess that they were really going to try
to lean into this idea with the jury. You know,
he's you know, he's seeing the errors of his ways.
He's trying to correct this thing right now. And oh,
the poor man. Now he's staring down a federal you know,
federal sentencing and these children are going to be motherless,
and what he's got a black cloud hanging over his head,
(31:33):
and she just you know, again, the angels took her
away in the middle of the night. Wow. And they're
going to try to lean into that to convince the
jury to say, get this guy off the hook. He's
got enough on him already. And Dave, they had two
choices here, I got to tell you, Kim, and Kim
was really into this case. My wife, and for good reason,
she's a mother, you know, and she's you know, of
(31:54):
course she's like anybody that's a true crime fan. Uh.
You know, it's kind of a I hate say joke,
but it's kind of a running joke. You know, they've
got T shirts at crime con that says I think
it says the husband did it, or that sort of thing.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
And those are probably the Oxygen Network or Lifetime Network
t shirts, you know, precisely. Heck, you know, every time
I watch one of those movies, I call the cops
locally and say, I did it come again?
Speaker 1 (32:19):
And you know, she's saying, that's come back. He's got
little kids, you know, and that sort of thing, and
I know that he did it. And you know what's
really interesting is that they had a they've the jury
had a choice in this case between murder one and
murder two. Brother, I got to tell you. I'll let
you talk about sentencing, but I got to tell you,
(32:40):
I just got to say it. They found this guy
guilty of murder one, which is the stiffest thing that
you can get for this jurisdiction. And the fact that
they found murder one, those bits of evidence that were
there at that particular time that they saw there so
compel them to reach this conclusion that he in fact
(33:05):
did kill his wife, and that he did, in fact,
as he has stated, chop her up, dismember her body,
take her and place her in trash receptacles all over
that community, had trash trucks come by and haul her
body away. He admitted that, and they believed. They believed
(33:30):
that that, coupled with her passing, was one of the
most horrific things from their perspective, because you know, if
a man will do that to his wife in death,
how much more so would he do in life. I'm
(33:52):
Joseph Scott Morgan, and this is bodybags
Body times, but Joseph's gotten more. There's an old song
from the sixties, maybe it's the early seventies. Maybe Dave
can help us with that. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.
When you're working a case, you have to have something right.
(00:21):
And in my world, in the world of death, investigation
that generally starts with a body, doesn't it, Because without
the body, what purpose do we actually serve? Why should
we even be there? Today we're going to talk about
a case that has been puzzling people now for years,
(00:42):
and I'm happy to say that we finally have a
resolution in said case. It's a case that I don't
know that we'll ever find what's referred to as the
Corpus Delecti, but what we do know is that the
war world is absent a mother and a wife and
(01:07):
a daughter. We're talking about the death, the homicide, the
dismemberment and subsequent disposal of Anna Walsh. I'm Josephcott Morgan
and this is Bodybacks, Dave. I got to tell you,
(01:30):
I think some time ago we did initially do a
show about this case, and it was puzzling then and
even though we we finally do have some kind of
conclusion here I think in one sense, I don't know
that this thing will ever be concluded to anyone satisfactor satisfaction.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
I've always wondered how difficult it is. Now you mentioned
nothing from nothing by Billy Preston, number one, October nineteen
seventy four, just.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
Talking, So y'all see, I told you, Dave, here we go.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
I always wonder about a case where you don't have
the body of the purported victim. Now you have said
many times on this show and others that evidence left
behind is inconsistible, incompatible with life, and that is enough
to actually point the investigation in a certain way. Well, Joe,
(02:27):
we worked the case like that in terms of coverage
from the moment we started covering because she was a
missing person, and it was a very slick missing person.
Whenever the significant other does not report their loved one
as missing, but the boss does from work, you got
a problem, friends, and that's I think any of us
(02:48):
would understand. And that's what happened here. Brian Walsh did
not report his wife missing. His story made no sense,
you know. His initial story was that they had friends over,
unto your zeb Joe, and went to bed and she
got called away had to get up and catch an
early morning flight to head back to d C for
her job. And he said she used a ride share,
(03:12):
you know, uber or somebody came to picture up and
that's the last time he saw, you know. And just
so you know, if you volunteered that type of information,
it's all verifiable, every bit of it is. And even
though that story fell apart fairly quickly, his story, they
didn't have the body. They had evidence, they had plenty
(03:35):
of evidence, but they didn't have a body. And Brian
Walsh was arrested fairly early on in the investigation because
some of the evidence left behind, blood and whatnot was
incompatible with life. So, Joe, if you start a case
like that, a missing person case, where you're an investigator
(03:58):
and you're looking over this going there's no way this
person is alive, how can you truly say that when
you don't have the body?
Speaker 1 (04:05):
Very difficult, very difficult. And I got to tell you
one of the things that it seems like a daunting
uphill task in this particular case, because this thing has
now gone to court and we do have a conclusion
that we'll talk about in a few moments. But one
of the things that was kind of you know, itching
(04:26):
in the back of my brain throughout this whole thing,
is how would the jury respond to this? Because I
got to tell you if you're if you TESTI find
a case and some of the stuff, as you can imagine,
gets dryest toast that you're having to listen to if
you're on a jury, all right, and just just follow
(04:46):
what I'm saying here. You know, you might have somebody
that's involved in financial dealings and you know, cooking the
books and all those sort of things. Forensic acounting, no
insult to my friends and forensic a County. You guys
do find fine work or even electronics DNA. I think
we saw that happen in multiple cases where you know,
(05:08):
the science gets way above everyone's head and the scientists
included myself included many times. But David, once you start
talking about dead bodies, it's like Yef Hutton. Everybody's on
the edge of their seat. They're leaning in every glory
picture everything that you have there. People want to know.
They want to know what you saw, what was the
(05:31):
status of what you saw when you saw it. They
want to know what happened to bring this person to
this end. They want to know what became of the person.
You know, you know, you picked them up from the
from the scene and went back to the Morga and
you did an autopsy and at the autopsy we found
this at the scene. But hey, this was verified in
(05:52):
the autopsy room. We've got all of this data right here.
Oh wow, look at these photographs, Look at these x rays.
Oh look, here's the bullet that we pulled out of
the body, or here's the fractured knife blade that we
pulled out of the body. You don't have that in
this case. You just don't. Essentially, what you have is
at the scene. You have some of the most ghastly
(06:14):
instruments that you can possibly think of that would make
the Marquis de Sad blush probably when you begin to
think about the tools that this man, Brian Walsh, apparently
brought to bear in this case. And I'll go ahead
and plainly say it, it's a case of dismemberment.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Well, Joe, okay, when we started this and it was
missing person case with a lot of evidence that she
was dead, and all of the investigation and everything that
led to his arrest was very quickly done by using
electronic data by a digital footprint that they were able
to actually find. They started with well verifying that there
(06:57):
was no ridecar service that picked her, uphair service showed
up to pick her up at you know, five thirty
in the morning or whatever. She never called for one,
never ordered one. She never boarded an airplane at Boston
to head to Washington, DC. All the things that would
have happened if what Brian Walsh was saying was true.
So police know from the first hours of the investigation
that he's lying. And yet we don't know where she is.
(07:21):
But we know she's been gone for a couple of
days because Brian Walsh doesn't report her missing, her boss does,
and that's a couple of days after she was last
seen on New Year's Eve. So backing up to him saying, well, yeah,
she left early five point thirty, you know, and they
proved that didn't happen. So now are they thinking that
(07:42):
between the time she was last seen New Year's Eve
until the time he says she got into a card
that never was there, that she didn't get into, that
she he did something to her in that time period.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Yeah, yeah, they have to, Dave. I mean, they're sitting
around reflectively I still have memories of us years and
years ago, myself and homicide detectives done in New Orleans.
There was a Denny's restaurant that we always gathered at
and we would go do brief at this big table
they had in the back of the restaurant, a big,
huge round table, and you can imagine us all sitting there.
(08:14):
I was the youngest among everybody, and we'd have our
notes all spread out on the table and we would
begin to formulate things, you know, and we'd spend hours,
you know, just chatting. Back there, they're doing the same thing.
They're having a cup of coffee over this, and you know,
you can imagine when all of these folks that are
investigators in this case are getting together, they're probably back
(08:34):
to the office or maybe at one of their favorite haunts,
and they're sitting down and said, we've got to work
this out in our brain because everything that we're being
told and everything that we are witnessing or not witnessing,
just does not marry up here. And we've got one
common denominator in this whole thing, and this is the husband.
And these people are seasoned enough, Dave to know that,
(08:56):
you know, all roads lead back most of the time
to the person that you're sleeping with, that you're in
bed with. And I mean that from the sense of
those within you know, your circle, your familial circle, and
right then and there, you know, look that there's nowhere
let me see, let me think about this real quick.
I don't want to get in trouble with Keimmy. I
(09:19):
think that there's My wife knows where I am pretty
much all the time. She knows if I'm back here
taping doing an only her pearance on some television show,
or if I'm teaching, or if I'm doing a dissection,
or if I'm i don't know, somewhere else promoting the
university or whatever. She knows because she kind of keeps
my schedule. This is you know, not every relationship is
(09:43):
like that. Obviously, you know people are just ships passing
the night and most of them, but you still have
to ask that basic question because you know, Dave, they're
correct me if I'm wrong. There's three kids involved.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
In this, yeah, and jo at the time. Okay, And
this is one of the things that we have to
very careful with, is, especially when you're dealing with children.
How old were they not today? But we're three years
past this now. This happened three years ago when Anna
Walsh was thirty nine and her husband was forty six,
and they had chill three boy children, ages two, four
(10:18):
and six years old home on the oldest was six
when this happened. They're now nine, seven and five. So
there's a big difference in those ages, you know.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
Yeah, yeah there is. But you know those ages that
you mentioned initially when this event went down, My lord,
I know I'm preaching the choir here, but that's what
you would considered to be the handful age. Yeah, not
that they're not now, but this requires around the clock
monitoring of these children. How are they going to be
handed off? How are they going to be taken care of?
(10:48):
Who's minding the store if you will? And I know
that Ron Walsh was essentially out of work, yeah at
this point in time. Yeah, he's a criminal sin it's.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
Not an art fraud.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
The guy.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
The thing is Joe. You know who he swindled out
of art friends? People who was friends. He swindled friends,
That's who. It was crazy, the non friends that he
tried to swindle. He was selling fake, fake pick fake paintings,
you know, and the fraud. The forgeries were so bad
(11:19):
that this one and a museum buying a painting on
you know, eBay, kind of pushes my limit for who's
running the store here. You know, you're talking thousands of
eight hundred thousand dollars and you're gonna use eBay. I
gotta have eyes on that first. But this one museum
that actually ordered a piece from him, when it arrived,
(11:40):
they were like, this is a fraud, diggabag And that
was one of the ones that he didn't know.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
But well, you know, the thing about it, it sounds like
he's pushing primitive folk are has originated out of Mississippi
or Alabama or northern Louisiana or something. No and sault.
I love primitive folkal part. I'd love to see the
vibrance of it and everything Dave. He's trying to he's
trying to pawn off war war halls. Yeah, okay, which
to me, you know, I don't know if you're going
(12:04):
to go big, I guess go yeah, yeah, yeah, go big,
or go home or go to go to federal prison
one of the two.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Which that's what he was doing when he's waiting at
home to be sentenced on the fraud. He's a scammer.
The guy he's enough, you know what, and you know
what his wife was to think about. He grew up
in the lap of luxury. Just so you know, Brian
Walsh born and raised by rich family, rich heritage and
all that. I mean, the country clubs and the brand
new cars and the chauffeurs and all that. Anna was
an immigrant who actually began working as a chambermaid in
(12:37):
a hotel, you know, tournie, getting sheets, making beds. That's
how she started. And when she met Brian, she saw
him and by the way, she's not an idiot. She
immediately starts working man's She even changed careers. Okay, this
is a woman who was building herself up in the
hotel industry, builds herself up, builds herself up, then goes
(12:58):
gets the real estate license, continues building and she just
I mean, in ten years, she went from being an
immigrant changing bed sheets to being an executive worth hundreds
of thousands of dollars a year. Right, and she marries
this guy. She meets him early on where he's a
real catch. She's an immigrant chambermaid and he's the rich
(13:21):
country club guy. But she surpasses him and finds out
he's a fraud. Yeah, he was raised rich, but he's
not a rich himself. He hasn't made anything. He's in nothing.
He's a criminal. And by the time she realizes what
she has married and realized that he's a fraud. Do
you remember when Renes Elwiger sued that country music singer
(13:41):
for fraud. Yeah, in the divorce, that's what I was
thinking that Anna probably wanted to do. Anna had had
her fill of this guy.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Yeah, no kidding, because she understood I think probably the
work that you have to put in to be successful.
And you know, it's I think that that kind of
success is all the more sweeter as opposed to these
things that have been handed us throughout our lives. But
this is what I know. I know that her life
changed in one second on the day that he realized
(14:12):
that his wife had now surpassed him in this life.
So the big mystery, Dave, I think, is where's Anna.
(14:35):
That's a question that early on was being asked. I mean,
that's that's the whole purpose of this. You know, we've
already got a scumbag that's waiting to be sentenced, you know,
for for art fraud. And we know that they're married.
But here's the thing, we don't know. We don't know
(14:57):
where she is.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
January Coore. Her boss reports are missing. Okay, Joe if Jacksonville,
if let's say Kim worked at the grocery store, Yeah,
you're a Jsu. Her boss from the grocery store calls
the Jacksonville Police department. Hey, man, I can't find one
of our employees. She's not home, she's not here. We
(15:20):
don't know where she is. Can you help them, you know,
put a missing person's out. Oh sure. And the first
call they make is to you, Hey Joe, mister Jsu,
your wife's missing and her boss did you know about this?
Oh yeah, I mean to tell you that's what happened.
And so the day she's reported missing by her boss,
(15:42):
police call him in for an interview and he gives
him his spiel. You know that she copped a plane.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Well it's almost it's almost like improvisation, isn't it. I mean, somebody,
somebody gives you a bit of data and you take
that and you kind of begin to lead with it.
Oh yeah, yeah, Well this is actually what happened. Based
upon the earlier premise, that's.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Remember the lying guy on Saturday Night Line. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah,
Morgan Child.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
Yeah, John Lovets, Yeah, absolutely so. And man, you talk
about a uh, you know, a proverbial liar, that's what
you're talking about. You know. She was reported missing on
January the fourth. The police interview him same day. He's
interviewed again on the eighth, and he's arrested later that day.
(16:33):
Because you know, you can tell, you can kind of
sniff this out along the way that you know, what
he is putting out is stacked higher and deeper.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
On January fourth, he gave him, he gave him a timetable,
he gave him a story, and they went and verified it.
They go back to January first. Okay, we've got we
were watching Walsh buying cleaning tools at Low's January third.
We catch him on video disposing of trash bags January
fourth and has reported missing. And he tells that first
story that we now have verified he didn't do any
of the Now he'd never reported her missing. He's buying
(17:07):
cleaning stuff and trash bags and we got on video
dumping stuff. So they bring it back in on the eighth.
So what about all this, dude? Why were you buying
so much cleaning stuff? And that's when he can't answer
anything and they lock him up. That's when you and
I started covering the case.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
Yeah, and you know, because the big the big question
then is still the big question. Now, where's where is she?
You know, what what became of her at this point
in time? And they know that, you know, trash bags
and some of her belongings are actually found at this
Peabody recycling center, you know. And these these are items
(17:43):
that are uniquely hers that you know, she has physical
ownership of, and so you can tie them back to her. Well,
why would she be separated from these items? And then
you begin to understand that he's he has bought these
tools all the way back. This was like on New
Year's Day, I think when he actually bought these tools.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
Yeah, and he said she left.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
Yeah, and they're rather peculiar set of tools, I got
to tell you, you know, so what what was it that
made you want to pick up a hack saw and
a hatchet? And Joe?
Speaker 2 (18:16):
They also found searches on the computer, you know, and
he's he's searching out things like how long before a
dead body starts to stink? The best ways to dismember
a body. I mean things that, to be honest with you, Joe,
if I googled them for a story, would look bad
if that happened to my wife. But he didn't have that.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
Can yeah, let me let me address one point along
the way. One of the searches that really disturbed me
down to my core. One of those elements I can't
believe I'm actually going to say this, and I'm not
going to get it right. I know that I'm not.
Maybe you can correct me. But one of the things
he searched for was can a body be identified with
(18:59):
the teeth being you know, destroyed essentially? And I'm thinking,
in what universe are you operating that that would even
be something that you would be searching out. It's dumbfounding
because let me and just give me a little rope here,
because I got to tell you, please, when you think
(19:22):
about somebody that would exact just based upon the search,
the search history, those kinds of level of violence on
a body, the body of perhaps the mother of his
own children, the person he is shared a bed with,
(19:43):
person he has shared finances with, they've gone on family vacations.
Just imagine, if you will, what type of individual would
sit there and stand over a body and think, you
know this mouth that probably told me, you know that
she loved me. At one point time, those words issued
out from I shared a meal with Maybe I dipped
(20:06):
up a little food off of my plate in those
early days fed her. You saw those teeth, and you're thinking, okay,
what if I took what if I took a hatchet
or a chisel and I began to crack this teeth?
What kind of person does this and break the teeth off?
I want to know, Hey, can the people in the
(20:27):
forensic science division, it's a state you think they could
still take this teeth and identify her if I did
one by one, assuming she's got all of her teeth day, Okay,
let's just assume that that would be thirty two individual
teeth that he would have to shatter. What are you
going to do do to shatter them? Are you going
to extract them first and then shatter them? Are you
going to leave them in place and then brutalize her mouth? What?
(20:49):
You know? Just just paint us a picture here, Bry,
you know, to let us know what you're thinking about.
And you know, I got to say, Dave, that sick. Yeah,
it really is sick. And you know when I read that, initially,
I was thinking this guy is working on and operating
on a different plane right than everybody else. You know,
(21:10):
there are serial killers out there that probably are more
mannerly than this. Wow, because when you think about this,
he's literally trying to completely deconstruct her on every level.
This isn't just like about taking a handoff or taking
an arm off its shoulder, or the leg off at
(21:30):
the knee or something like. That's not what we're talking
about here. We're talking about total and complete destruction of
a body. Eradication if you will. You know, this get's
really dark.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
With having all of that evidence show, Okay, with all
of the searches and these thoughts and things. And again
now you've got interview number one, January fourth, hating you
report your wife missing and telling a story that they
then can verify. And on January eight, four days later,
they verified everything he told them was a lie and
they now believe he has killed his wife, arrest him.
(22:01):
Brian Walsh has arrested on January eighth. From there on,
he's locked into his story that she left, right, that's
his story, and he's sticking to it because can't change it.
You gave your official story to cops. A defense attorney
comes into play. The defense attorney has what's called discovery.
They can find out everything the prosecution has. And after
they find out all of this information, you've got to
(22:23):
change your story because that story I told can be
proved wrong. Day one, what story can I tell? And Joe,
what story is believable? Well, no, not believable. The story
he came up with to explain everything. I'm not gonna
(22:46):
say it's brilliant because it's evil. But this is the
reason that some of the defense attorneys get a bad
rep because it takes a really twisted, messed up mind
to create something like this as a defense.
Speaker 1 (23:02):
Yeah, when Dave I got to tell you, I was
sitting there and my phone went off. I guess it
was let's see today, thinking back, trying to get my
day straight. Last week, the day of opening of openings
when they did the opening arguments, actually my phone actually
(23:22):
rang and it was a friend of mine that's a broadcaster,
and they said, are you watching the opening statements of washing?
It's like, I don't even have time to figure out
what time of day it is. Right now, I'm not
sitting here watching, said you need to tune in and
listen to this. And friends, I got to tell you,
when I heard what the defense attorney was putting up
(23:47):
and trying to sell to this court, to these members
of the jury, it really gave me pause because I'm thinking,
not only are we not going to have a body,
but now we're going to have an explanation that cannot
be proven or disproven about what actually happened. So Dave,
(24:23):
I get this phone call, you know, earlier in the
week or last week when they were doing the opening
statements relative to the Wash case, and his friend of
mine said, are you you know, are you paying attention
to this? And I was like, no, well, what's going on?
I got tons of other stuff that's going on at
that moment in Tom said you need to tune in
a watch, and there before my eyes, the defense attorney
(24:47):
for Walsh is actually presenting this story and it kind
of sent a chill up my spine because I'm thinking,
my lord, there's no way to prove or disprove this.
This this man may have found the perfect get out
of jail card free, you know kind of thing going on.
And what he was proposing. It's weird. You can reinforce
(25:09):
a fallacy, I think by stating a little bit of truth.
And what he's saying is that Walsh actually actually admits
that he, you know, that he dismembered his wife's body,
and that yes, he did dispose of his wife's body,
but he had nothing to do with her her homicide
or her death. He's not saying homicide as a matter
of fact, Jesse, the opposite. He's actually implying that his
(25:32):
wife died of something that we refer to in forensic
circles as sudden adult death syndrome. It's kind of akin
to SIDS, if you will. There's no real rhyme or
reason why it happens. My old friend, doctor Parker, that
I used to work with, the old pathologist, he would say,
you know, simply God called. And that's what he's trying
(25:53):
to say here. And here's kind of the underpinning relative
to the logic here. Walsh, through his attorney, is essentially saying,
I wanted to spare my kids the horror of their
mother's death. So what I thought I'd do is, I
don't know, chop up into bits, throw away in various
garbage receptacles, and they would just think, I guess that
(26:15):
mommy just disappeared. She was taken away by the angels,
or she vanished and she's living another life. But I'm
not going to tell them that she died. And the
problem is it goes back to the earlier issue. You
don't have a body, so you can't say that this
is specifically the cause of death. All right, I will
(26:39):
tell you this. What's really interesting about that scene is
that there was blood at the scene, but the blood
that you had had seen. They did very thorough searches there.
They didn't really they couldn't find any blood scene that
had a lot of dynamicism to it, you know, like
it sprayed or cast off or anything like that. Know,
(27:00):
the blood I think that they were seeing there was
kind of transfer blood, maybe leakage, you know, from areas
where she had been dismembered. And of course, you know
with kind of cast off blood or this blood that
has some velocity to it, you're thinking, okay, this is
a weapon induced kind of event. All right, they didn't
have that. It allows you know, for me, when I'm
(27:23):
thinking about this, she's not a real robust woman. It
would take nothing to suffocate her, to smother her, or
to strangle her. And guess what with those methodologies you
ain't know leaving no blood behind, dude, there's not gonna
be anything there. And so it's I'm not saying it's
(27:43):
the perfect crime, but what I'm saying is if you
try to go down this road of logic with the
attorney and I think, look, I mean, I'm not blaming
the attorney. The attorneys are going to attorney as they
say this is he's doing his job. As much as
you might dislike it. That's what they do. And they're
trying to come up with something else, some other explanation,
(28:04):
because at the end of the day, they've jurors. They
want to see images of dead bodies, not because they're grules,
but they want to see proof because what they're being
asked to do is they're being asked to send this
guy away for life, and if they're going to pull
the trigger on that, no pun intended, they want to
make sure that what they're going to come up with
(28:24):
is going to be valid, all right, So they want
to understand. They want to have the guy with all
the letters after his name sit up there and say
this is definitively what killed her. They don't have that
in this case, man.
Speaker 2 (28:35):
And that's the part that from a defense standpoint, it
really did raise the hairs on the back of my
neck when you told me, because he changes his plea.
You know, his original story was, of course that she
got in the car and left. You know, once he
finds out all the evidence, then he changes his plea
admitting that, yeah, I searched all that stuff, but with
(28:57):
good reason because as a convicted felon who is awaiting
sentencing on the art forgery, I'm going to lose custody
of my children and they aren't going to have a
mother now, They're going to be parentless. You know what's
going to happen to these three children now that their
mother is dead? And I'm going to go to prison.
So that's that's the crazy idea behind it. Is It
(29:20):
sounded legitimate if you if you take your brain out
of your head and all the common sense you gather
over a lifetime, you throw all that away and you
just start with a blank sheet of paper and no history,
no future, and just write it down and say, Okay,
I guess that could happen. But thankfully thankfully. Yeah, I
(29:46):
don't know how. I don't know how you can just
come up with sudden adult death syndrome at this stage
of the game.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
I don't either, you know what I was kind of
hoping for, David. I got to tell you when I
heard this, you know, my brainiac portion kind of kicked in.
I was like, Oh, this is gonna be cool, because
if he says this, this means that the defense attorney,
the defense is probably going to get a cardio pulmonary person,
maybe a forensic pathologist, but probably a cardiopulmonary person, and
(30:17):
they're going to put them up on the stand and
we're going to hear all about you know, sudden adult
death syndrome and how it can just you know, it
can just happen, and they're going to try to explain
to the jury. Dave, they didn't put up one damn
witness for the defense in this case. I was I
was shocked, I really was. I mean, they just they
kind of clipped it off right there, and that was it,
(30:40):
you know, I guess because and listen, I have to
say this, the prosecution of state actually put the put
a forensic pathologist up there and ask them questions. But still,
you know, what are you going to ask this person?
You know, is that blood? Is that consistent with someone
having been killed or dismembered? Well, dismembered. Maybe I can't
(31:01):
say killed, but yes, I suspect the.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
Guy, the guy sitting at the table admitted it. Yeah,
I got her up. I did it. I destroyed her body.
I did, but with good reason. I was protecting my
children precisely.
Speaker 1 (31:12):
And I guess that they were really going to try
to lean into this idea with the jury. You know,
he's you know, he's seeing the errors of his ways.
He's trying to correct this thing right now. And oh,
the poor man. Now he's staring down a federal you know,
federal sentencing and these children are going to be motherless,
and what he's got a black cloud hanging over his head,
(31:33):
and she just you know, again, the angels took her
away in the middle of the night. Wow. And they're
going to try to lean into that to convince the
jury to say, get this guy off the hook. He's
got enough on him already. And Dave, they had two
choices here, I got to tell you, Kim, and Kim
was really into this case. My wife, and for good reason,
she's a mother, you know, and she's you know, of
(31:54):
course she's like anybody that's a true crime fan. Uh.
You know, it's kind of a I hate say joke,
but it's kind of a running joke. You know, they've
got T shirts at crime con that says I think
it says the husband did it, or that sort of thing.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
And those are probably the Oxygen Network or Lifetime Network
t shirts, you know, precisely. Heck, you know, every time
I watch one of those movies, I call the cops
locally and say, I did it come again?
Speaker 1 (32:19):
And you know, she's saying, that's come back. He's got
little kids, you know, and that sort of thing, and
I know that he did it. And you know what's
really interesting is that they had a they've the jury
had a choice in this case between murder one and
murder two. Brother, I got to tell you. I'll let
you talk about sentencing, but I got to tell you,
(32:40):
I just got to say it. They found this guy
guilty of murder one, which is the stiffest thing that
you can get for this jurisdiction. And the fact that
they found murder one, those bits of evidence that were
there at that particular time that they saw there so
compel them to reach this conclusion that he in fact
(33:05):
did kill his wife, and that he did, in fact,
as he has stated, chop her up, dismember her body,
take her and place her in trash receptacles all over
that community, had trash trucks come by and haul her
body away. He admitted that, and they believed. They believed
(33:30):
that that, coupled with her passing, was one of the
most horrific things from their perspective, because you know, if
a man will do that to his wife in death,
how much more so would he do in life. I'm
(33:52):
Joseph Scott Morgan, and this is bodybags
Host
Joseph Scott Morgan
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
Betrayal: Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a brand new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-4 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.