December 9, 2025 • 20 mins
It was a complicated, technical day of blood evidence highly important to the prosecution’s case, but the problem was, it was difficult for anyone other than a forensic scientist to absorb and understand the testimony. Walshe’s attorneys were able to keep things simple on cross examination though, getting the state’s witnesses to admit two very important things to the jury. First, that there was no blood found in the Walshe’s bedroom or bathrooms, and second, while there was blood found on the basement floor, no crime lab test could reveal how or when that blood got there.
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 (00:02):
Hey, folks, it is Tuesday, December ninth, and how in
the world can a murder trial in which a man
is accused of killing his wife and cutting her up
and disposing of her body. How is it possible that
trial got boring today? And with that, welcome to this
episode of Amy and TJ Robes. This isn't We don't
(00:22):
need the trial, is what it is. We don't need
to be entertained necessarily. But this might be an issue
for the prosecution. This might be an issue for this jury.
Today was a slow and frankly confusing day in.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
A lot of ways.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
But unfortunately for the prosecution, it was an important day
because they are trying to establish DNA and yes, I
know that can get technical, but it got more technical than.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
It seemed like it needed to.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
But they're trying to link Brian Walsh's DNA with Anna's
DNA on some specific ItemSpace.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Okay, they lived together, they were married, they're in the
same house. I'm saying there are points they were trying
to make that I didn't get, and I didn't I
didn't get rogue. Look, we have legal folks who are
helping us. We are not legal experts, but ros we
watch a lot of trials. We were like, what is
she talking about? What are they talking about?
Speaker 2 (01:19):
What is happening? Right?
Speaker 3 (01:20):
I know that they were able to establish although I
only know this because reading later how it was described,
because listening to the testimony as the jurors did.
Speaker 4 (01:31):
We listened to it. It was confusing.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
But they were trying to put together that Tivex suit
that was found in the trash can that had blood
on it. They were able to say that both Brian's
DNA and Anna's DNA were both on that Tivex suit.
Speaker 4 (01:47):
But but they didn't.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
Actually say it like that. No, when the forensic scientists
were testifying, they were using terms like non oavilion times
more likely to be Anna's than not. But a third
parties could be a gazillion, trillion, quadruple.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
What did she say? There was like a there was
a number I've never heard of before.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
There was anillion and a sex tillion. Then neillion was
the one followed by thirty zeros and there you all look,
I'm look.
Speaker 4 (02:17):
How many zeros was that?
Speaker 2 (02:19):
This was? It was bizarre.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
I cannot wait till we talked to Alison again, triesl
our attorney. We've been talking to a criminal defense attorney
about this. She has been very critical of the prosecution
and saying they are not hitting the points they need
to hit. And you're, yes, I know it's legal in
this law, but you got twelve everyday people there that
you were talking to about sex tillions. A man killed
(02:44):
his wife chopped her up, and you're talking to me
about I'm trying to understand sex tillions and inclusion and
all this stuff. Okay, let me go back a little
Bit's day seven of the testimony. Yeah, let me go back.
It's day seven, right, ropes, But to your point, this
was quite frankly, it could have been one of or
maybe it should be one of the biggest days we
talk about DNA evidence.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
Correct, that is linking blood from an A Walsh and
blood from Brian Walsh on things he threw away, like
a tie x suit, like slippers of hers. Uh, there
was another item that they were able to Then, yes,
the blood commingled, but it wasn't that obvious.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
The way they were.
Speaker 3 (03:24):
Testifying it was confusing. I was like, wait, there's a
third unknown party.
Speaker 4 (03:28):
Wait what?
Speaker 3 (03:29):
And then they didn't even say it's statistically overwhelmingly.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
On a Walsh's blood. Yes, that would have made sense.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Robes, you just hit it, didn't Okay, we have seen
so many attorneys do that. So they're telling this jury
that this DNA there is a one and one nanillion
chance that it would be something other than this, and
it's exclusionary and that all these terms. What they're trying
to say is there is no chance in hell that
(03:57):
this is anybody's DNA other than on a Wae And
we never hear that.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Yes, could they say it is astronomically in favor of
this being on A Walsh's blood, Like astronomically as in,
there's almost zero chance that this is anyone else's DNA.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
But an A Walsh's. Why can't they say that?
Speaker 3 (04:16):
And by the way, fine, the scientist is going to
speak the way scientists speak. But as then the prosecutor,
can you not follow up and say, so, is it
fair to say that it would be astronomically unlikely for
this to be anyone else's DNA but an A Walsh's.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
That's correct?
Speaker 3 (04:33):
Like I needed the prosecutor to sum it up and
make it very clear and hit it home that this
was Anna Walsh's DNA, but she didn't follow up.
Speaker 4 (04:44):
She would just move on and.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Say, how do you collect all the cells? Where do
the cells come from?
Speaker 4 (04:49):
What?
Speaker 3 (04:50):
I don't need to know that. I don't actually need
to know the scientific process by which you do it.
I just want to know what the results are in
Layman's term.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
See, I don't want to argue with these legal minds. Right,
there's some things they have to cover and the process
to prove that, yes, this is done correctly and this
is how it's done. Fine, I understand, we'll sit through that.
But to your point, Robes, nobody ever put it in
context for the juror, and so as a juror and
(05:18):
as the observer you and I are, we are left
to put it in context for ourselves. And if you
leave me to understand what an inclusionary an exclusionary result
is based on a sex tillion DNA sample you got
that has three different different mixtures that you didn't tell
me what the other two were, What the actual hell
am I supposed to do?
Speaker 3 (05:37):
You know what exactly? And I will say this, you
and I were listening to it as journalists. It's interesting
because yes we are not we're not legal experts. However,
we know what it's like to question someone, and when
someone over explains or under explains or makes a complicated statement,
it's our job then to follow up and get clarity
(06:01):
so that the people at home, our audience, can understand
what they just said. So we actually, although we're not lawyers,
we still have experience in getting to the point and
making things clear. And even if people speak in very
complicated scientific terms, it was our job to make it
simple for the people listening, and that often is in
(06:22):
a follow up question.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
And the follow up sometimes can only has to be
So what you're saying is that's.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
The way, and just make it, make it simple, and
then that scientist will say yes correct. In fact, the
defense has been brilliant at that. The defense, oh yeah,
has absolutely used prosecution witnesses and their complicated ways of
saying things. But what you're saying is that there's a
chance basically this and then the answer will just be correct.
(06:52):
So basically, now the lawyer gets to frame what the
juror hears, and the expert can just say yes or.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
No to oh my god, robes that point.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
He did this with a witness today, Larry Tipton, God
love him, he's got a stinker of a case. But
he is turning himself into a magician right now.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
To your point. The same woman who.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
Was up there from the State Crime Lab talking about
all these none million whatever it was sex Still he
got up there and said, plain as day to her,
so you can't say how or when any of this
DNA got on there. Despite the blah blah blah. She said,
that's correct.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
And you know what, And if I didn't understand all
the things she was saying to the prosecution, I won't
remember them.
Speaker 4 (07:41):
You know, Like, think about it.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
If you are hearing something complicated, you will not remember it.
If it doesn't land, if it doesn't make you feel something,
or if it doesn't connect with something in your brain,
you will forget it.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
But you will remember the.
Speaker 3 (07:53):
Exchange with Larry Tipton and her because it was simple
and easy to understand.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
That's simple. Okay.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
You all think we are okay, we're not going overboard here.
We actually were listening closely and we were kept turning
to each other screaming like what is she talking about?
Speaker 4 (08:11):
Is this a joke?
Speaker 1 (08:12):
Right now?
Speaker 2 (08:12):
It was really that.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
So they had several folks from the State Crime Lab.
They came up and talked about the evidence that they
they were assigned and how they went about reviewing and
storing and the even the process of extracting DNA and how.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Fine you have to go through it. But this is
what we're talking about, folks.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
She was the last witness of the day, right, court lady, Okay,
she was from the State Crime Lab, the boss really
of the other guys from the State Crime Lab. I'm
just reading the quote. I'm not giving the other context.
Her quote was this, The DNA profile from this item
is at least one hundred and ten sex tillion times
more likely if it originated from Anna Walsh and an
unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown, unrelated individuals,
(08:54):
and this provides support for an inclusion.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
That is how she was speaking, and okay, entire time, Okay, fine,
that's how she speaks.
Speaker 4 (09:03):
She's scientifically correct.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Now, as the prosecutors say, so, what you're saying is
it is almost overwhelmingly assuredly on a Walsh's DNA.
Speaker 4 (09:14):
On that item. And then she would have said, correct, Okay.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
We are not.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Look, I just needed that. We're just making sure we
are not. These are career prosecutors. They know what they're doing.
And fine, I am nothing but a lay person, and
that is who's sitting in that jury.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
And I am listening to this. I've been through.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
I've listened to more trials than these folks have, I
assure you. And I'm listening and going, wow, wow, Wow,
what are we doing This guy who says he chopped
up his wife but didn't kill her, who has all
these searches to say how to get rid of a
body after a murder, and you're making me question his
(09:53):
guilt or innocence.
Speaker 4 (09:55):
I know it was. We kept we actually so that
what you just read, you all trust us.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
It was that going on and on and on to
the point where like, look, if you had one or
two answers like that, fine, no the answer.
Speaker 4 (10:12):
She was answering all questions.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
In that exact type of way for like thirty minutes
at least. We kept looking to the going oh my gosh,
I don't even know what's happening right now.
Speaker 4 (10:22):
We were so confused.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Can I give you another doozy? Yes, this is from
our witness from the State crime lab. When we do
these calculations for the likelihood rick ratio, we're relying on
the DNA profile observed and that evidence item. The more
data we have there, that means more of these twenty
six locations where we observe the DNA profile, the higher
the statistic will be for an inclusion because there is
more support and data observe. When there is limited support
(10:44):
for inclusion, that means the data for that contributes and
that mixture. So it doesn't mean everyone in that mixture
had less DNA, just that one had less for comparison,
so the statistic is lower because of it.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
That is a direct quote.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
I just that sounds like a fever dream I had
last night. What is that?
Speaker 3 (11:00):
So?
Speaker 4 (11:01):
Yes, that is our point. Everyone.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
She's smart, that's well, oh brilliant, beautifully.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
I would almost argue for this trial, too smart, I
need you to simplify.
Speaker 4 (11:11):
I just wanted to actually.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
In fact, there was one time when the prosecutor said,
so what does that mean? And I thought, oh, fine,
But when she answered what she meant, it was even
more so I was like, Okay, that's not working, prosecutor.
You need to actually say what she meant and ask
her if am I right? And that's the only way
because that scientist could only speak.
Speaker 4 (11:36):
Like a scientist.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
All right, Well, folks.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
A lot of the action today happened with the jury
out of the room. There was a lot of sidebars today.
There was a delayed start to the day. The day
ended early as well, and we're getting word that tomorrow
they're going to have a delayed start as well. Why
what's going on? Stay here, we'll explain and.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
Welcome back everyone.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
We are talking about day seven of the Brian wallsh trial,
and I feel like maybe this is the most animated
we've been because we were so annoyed by how unnecessarily
confusing most of today was. And yes, the prosecution I
think technically laid out the points it needed to, but
our takeaway was the defense kept it simple and brought
(12:33):
a couple of things home that really landed. First of all,
can't prove how or when any of that DNA got
on any of these items. And number two, where's the
blood they used? Incredibly sensitive and he dumped it down,
didn't get all specific about how sensitive these blood tests are.
(12:55):
And the fact that there were no there was no
evidence of blood in their bedroom, in their bathroom, in
any of the bathrooms near the bedroom. The only place
that police found evidence of blood was on the basement floor.
I thought that was see, that's what I remember, remember
it because it was simple and I could understand.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
And you know, okay, we go back and we just
I'm not going to ask us to do this here live,
but I'm thinking back to this trial in the moments
that mattered, And another one of them that mattered was
when he got the prosecution and witness up there from
the state crime like one of those guys, and Tipton
from the defense got to him admit, yep, there was
nothing forensically significant in that bedroom. I remember that moment
(13:41):
like that is what the jury is going to go
in there with.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
I love a.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
Look that we are not making any kind of determination
about guilt or in it in the least bit. But
we are watching this thing play out and talking to
legal minds who are watching and are confused, who started
at the beginning like I wouldn't want this case. Now
they're looking at what Tipton is and how the prosecution
has handled this, and they're going, wait a minute, yeah,
(14:05):
wait a minute. How are we saying wait a minute? Right?
Speaker 3 (14:08):
Because it's significant because Brian Walsh's story is that Anna
Walsh died while she was in bed they were going
to bed after their New Year's Eve party. He went
back down to clean up, and when he came back,
she had she was dead in the bed. So the
fact that there's no forensic evidence in the bedroom, in
(14:28):
the bathroom, you know, it supports his version of events
bottom line.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
At least a little. At least a little.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
I mean, what would the prosecution theory have to be
that all of the violence took place in the basement.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
Yes, yes, or that he strangled her that would be
the only other perhaps, But he did Why did he
remove rugs?
Speaker 4 (14:53):
Why did he purchase new rugs?
Speaker 3 (14:55):
Which we saw the surveillance video that was also eerie
of him and Home Goods buying. Yeah, we saw that
surveillance video and they had some folks from Home Goods. Again,
all I can think of is we love that store.
When we were there all the time, and they were
asking what is home Goods? Well, it's a store where
you buy goods for your home, I believe, is what
he answered, which did make me laugh. But pretty much
(15:16):
everyone knows who what Home Goods is, and I just
can't imagine they're excited about being a part of this truck.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
Yeah, didn't we plan on going.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
No, that was we're going to Marshall's well, same family.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
Yes, same family TJX.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
He went into a description about how it is a
whole family, the series of stores and these.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Videos are they are? We kept saying, eerie to watch.
We have seen now.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
We talked about all these items he went and he bought.
We had video of him behind them. We see him
putting together. By his own admission, was a that's the
better way to put it. It was a body disposal kit,
if you will.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
All the items he.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Clean up after a murder kit is basically what it was.
Or he says after a sudden, unexplained death that he
didn't want to be responsible.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Isn't that crazy that we don't know if right?
Speaker 1 (16:02):
There's some debate about the death of Anna Walsh, the
murder of Anna Walsh, the disappearance of Ana Walsh. I've
seen it put these several different ways, like what should
we be saying we don't know if she was.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Murdered, the unexplained death of Anna Walsh? I guess right now,
that's all we can say with certainty.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
Well, today got off to a slow start. I say slow,
but a delayed start. The jury didn't get in there too,
well past half hour past when they were supposed to.
But there have been a lot of things ropes that
the judge and the attorneys have been going over.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
Like a lot.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
There's been a lot of sidebars in this and I
guess the next ropes is this not? And you please
explain to me. I didn't pick up on this. But
they are starting tomorrow. She told the jury they don't
have to come in until ten o'clock tomorrow normally start
at nine until ten because she has work to do
with these attorneys and some of that work has to
do I suppose robes. We talk about fast how the
(16:56):
lover of Anna Walsh taking the stand being the most
important witness.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
This next guy, Yeah, so this is I believe Anna
Walsh's former boss but considered a friend to both Anna
and Brian.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
His name is Jem.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
I don't know how to say his last night Muttloo, mootlu,
but his first name is Jem and he is significant
because he was the only person outside of the Walsh family.
He was the last person to see Anna alive, and
he watched the two of them interact all evening. So look,
(17:30):
if the prosecution's theory is and we do know because
William fast out testified to this that he did. They
texted each other at midnight, Anna and William saying Happy
New Year, Happy New Year. I would think that the
prosecution might try to say that that's when he saw
the texts, or that's when he could have snapped in
that moment and went crazy, But it would be obviously
(17:52):
such a window into what led up to the New
Year and what happened afterwards with Jem's testimony. So the
judge said that he needs to be questioned first without
the jury present. I don't know why, but they said
that that needs to happen without the jury. So that's
(18:13):
why he was supposed to testify today and they pushed
it to tomorrow so they can do this without the jury.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
So they're going to question him. So right what he
as he's being questioned? This is not an official part
of the trial because the jury's not in the room.
So are we essentially deciding whether or not I say
we the judge deciding whether or not what she hears
is going to be okay for.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
The jury then to hear, yeah, there must be some
concern critical yes, about what he's going to say, and
I don't know who's more concerned about what he's going
to say, the prosecution or the defense.
Speaker 4 (18:43):
I don't know, but it's.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
He he saw them interacting that entire evening. If there
were if there was tension, if they were fighting, if
they seemed risk with one another, all of that will
really be super important.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
Right. But what if he says they were loving and
having a good time.
Speaker 3 (19:01):
Because if the prosecution says, if it happened the way
they might say it happened that once Jem left after
the New year, maybe he saw the phone and everything changed.
Who knows. But he can say how much they were drinking.
He can say how much Like all of that will matter, Folks.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
Again, one of the certainly one of the most boring
and confusing days turns out to be one of the
most important and fascinating.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
That's leading into the next day. This case.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
I mean, we knew it was going to be a doozy,
but this is a fascinating one to watch. We're keeping
a close eye.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
Again.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
They don't start until ten a m. Tomorrow at least
for as the jury goes, but we will be able
to see what's happening.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
I believe so. At nine am so we are on
it for you, folks. Stay here again.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Top right corner of that Apple podcast app where you
see our show page. A little button this has follow you.
Click that and you can automatically get our updates coming
to you.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
Folks.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
We always appreciate you spending some time with us, and
I think you're right, Robes. I can't believe it. We
were wondering like, oh, this is gonna be a drab,
slow day. It's just DNA evidence, and now I'm well,
I don't know why it was it worked out, but folks,
we appreciate it. As always.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
For my dear Amy Robot, I'm d J. Holmes. We
will be talking to you all the very very soon
Hey, folks, it is Tuesday, December ninth, and how in
the world can a murder trial in which a man
is accused of killing his wife and cutting her up
and disposing of her body. How is it possible that
trial got boring today? And with that, welcome to this
episode of Amy and TJ Robes. This isn't We don't
(00:22):
need the trial, is what it is. We don't need
to be entertained necessarily. But this might be an issue
for the prosecution. This might be an issue for this jury.
Today was a slow and frankly confusing day in.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
A lot of ways.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
But unfortunately for the prosecution, it was an important day
because they are trying to establish DNA and yes, I
know that can get technical, but it got more technical than.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
It seemed like it needed to.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
But they're trying to link Brian Walsh's DNA with Anna's
DNA on some specific ItemSpace.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Okay, they lived together, they were married, they're in the
same house. I'm saying there are points they were trying
to make that I didn't get, and I didn't I
didn't get rogue. Look, we have legal folks who are
helping us. We are not legal experts, but ros we
watch a lot of trials. We were like, what is
she talking about? What are they talking about?
Speaker 2 (01:19):
What is happening? Right?
Speaker 3 (01:20):
I know that they were able to establish although I
only know this because reading later how it was described,
because listening to the testimony as the jurors did.
Speaker 4 (01:31):
We listened to it. It was confusing.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
But they were trying to put together that Tivex suit
that was found in the trash can that had blood
on it. They were able to say that both Brian's
DNA and Anna's DNA were both on that Tivex suit.
Speaker 4 (01:47):
But but they didn't.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
Actually say it like that. No, when the forensic scientists
were testifying, they were using terms like non oavilion times
more likely to be Anna's than not. But a third
parties could be a gazillion, trillion, quadruple.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
What did she say? There was like a there was
a number I've never heard of before.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
There was anillion and a sex tillion. Then neillion was
the one followed by thirty zeros and there you all look,
I'm look.
Speaker 4 (02:17):
How many zeros was that?
Speaker 2 (02:19):
This was? It was bizarre.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
I cannot wait till we talked to Alison again, triesl
our attorney. We've been talking to a criminal defense attorney
about this. She has been very critical of the prosecution
and saying they are not hitting the points they need
to hit. And you're, yes, I know it's legal in
this law, but you got twelve everyday people there that
you were talking to about sex tillions. A man killed
(02:44):
his wife chopped her up, and you're talking to me
about I'm trying to understand sex tillions and inclusion and
all this stuff. Okay, let me go back a little
Bit's day seven of the testimony. Yeah, let me go back.
It's day seven, right, ropes, But to your point, this
was quite frankly, it could have been one of or
maybe it should be one of the biggest days we
talk about DNA evidence.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
Correct, that is linking blood from an A Walsh and
blood from Brian Walsh on things he threw away, like
a tie x suit, like slippers of hers. Uh, there
was another item that they were able to Then, yes,
the blood commingled, but it wasn't that obvious.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
The way they were.
Speaker 3 (03:24):
Testifying it was confusing. I was like, wait, there's a
third unknown party.
Speaker 4 (03:28):
Wait what?
Speaker 3 (03:29):
And then they didn't even say it's statistically overwhelmingly.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
On a Walsh's blood. Yes, that would have made sense.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Robes, you just hit it, didn't Okay, we have seen
so many attorneys do that. So they're telling this jury
that this DNA there is a one and one nanillion
chance that it would be something other than this, and
it's exclusionary and that all these terms. What they're trying
to say is there is no chance in hell that
(03:57):
this is anybody's DNA other than on a Wae And
we never hear that.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Yes, could they say it is astronomically in favor of
this being on A Walsh's blood, Like astronomically as in,
there's almost zero chance that this is anyone else's DNA.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
But an A Walsh's. Why can't they say that?
Speaker 3 (04:16):
And by the way, fine, the scientist is going to
speak the way scientists speak. But as then the prosecutor,
can you not follow up and say, so, is it
fair to say that it would be astronomically unlikely for
this to be anyone else's DNA but an A Walsh's.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
That's correct?
Speaker 3 (04:33):
Like I needed the prosecutor to sum it up and
make it very clear and hit it home that this
was Anna Walsh's DNA, but she didn't follow up.
Speaker 4 (04:44):
She would just move on and.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Say, how do you collect all the cells? Where do
the cells come from?
Speaker 4 (04:49):
What?
Speaker 3 (04:50):
I don't need to know that. I don't actually need
to know the scientific process by which you do it.
I just want to know what the results are in
Layman's term.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
See, I don't want to argue with these legal minds. Right,
there's some things they have to cover and the process
to prove that, yes, this is done correctly and this
is how it's done. Fine, I understand, we'll sit through that.
But to your point, Robes, nobody ever put it in
context for the juror, and so as a juror and
(05:18):
as the observer you and I are, we are left
to put it in context for ourselves. And if you
leave me to understand what an inclusionary an exclusionary result
is based on a sex tillion DNA sample you got
that has three different different mixtures that you didn't tell
me what the other two were, What the actual hell
am I supposed to do?
Speaker 3 (05:37):
You know what exactly? And I will say this, you
and I were listening to it as journalists. It's interesting
because yes we are not we're not legal experts. However,
we know what it's like to question someone, and when
someone over explains or under explains or makes a complicated statement,
it's our job then to follow up and get clarity
(06:01):
so that the people at home, our audience, can understand
what they just said. So we actually, although we're not lawyers,
we still have experience in getting to the point and
making things clear. And even if people speak in very
complicated scientific terms, it was our job to make it
simple for the people listening, and that often is in
(06:22):
a follow up question.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
And the follow up sometimes can only has to be
So what you're saying is that's.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
The way, and just make it, make it simple, and
then that scientist will say yes correct. In fact, the
defense has been brilliant at that. The defense, oh yeah,
has absolutely used prosecution witnesses and their complicated ways of
saying things. But what you're saying is that there's a
chance basically this and then the answer will just be correct.
(06:52):
So basically, now the lawyer gets to frame what the
juror hears, and the expert can just say yes or.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
No to oh my god, robes that point.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
He did this with a witness today, Larry Tipton, God
love him, he's got a stinker of a case. But
he is turning himself into a magician right now.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
To your point. The same woman who.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
Was up there from the State Crime Lab talking about
all these none million whatever it was sex Still he
got up there and said, plain as day to her,
so you can't say how or when any of this
DNA got on there. Despite the blah blah blah. She said,
that's correct.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
And you know what, And if I didn't understand all
the things she was saying to the prosecution, I won't
remember them.
Speaker 4 (07:41):
You know, Like, think about it.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
If you are hearing something complicated, you will not remember it.
If it doesn't land, if it doesn't make you feel something,
or if it doesn't connect with something in your brain,
you will forget it.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
But you will remember the.
Speaker 3 (07:53):
Exchange with Larry Tipton and her because it was simple
and easy to understand.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
That's simple. Okay.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
You all think we are okay, we're not going overboard here.
We actually were listening closely and we were kept turning
to each other screaming like what is she talking about?
Speaker 4 (08:11):
Is this a joke?
Speaker 1 (08:12):
Right now?
Speaker 2 (08:12):
It was really that.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
So they had several folks from the State Crime Lab.
They came up and talked about the evidence that they
they were assigned and how they went about reviewing and
storing and the even the process of extracting DNA and how.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Fine you have to go through it. But this is
what we're talking about, folks.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
She was the last witness of the day, right, court lady, Okay,
she was from the State Crime Lab, the boss really
of the other guys from the State Crime Lab. I'm
just reading the quote. I'm not giving the other context.
Her quote was this, The DNA profile from this item
is at least one hundred and ten sex tillion times
more likely if it originated from Anna Walsh and an
unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown, unrelated individuals,
(08:54):
and this provides support for an inclusion.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
That is how she was speaking, and okay, entire time, Okay, fine,
that's how she speaks.
Speaker 4 (09:03):
She's scientifically correct.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Now, as the prosecutors say, so, what you're saying is
it is almost overwhelmingly assuredly on a Walsh's DNA.
Speaker 4 (09:14):
On that item. And then she would have said, correct, Okay.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
We are not.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Look, I just needed that. We're just making sure we
are not. These are career prosecutors. They know what they're doing.
And fine, I am nothing but a lay person, and
that is who's sitting in that jury.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
And I am listening to this. I've been through.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
I've listened to more trials than these folks have, I
assure you. And I'm listening and going, wow, wow, Wow,
what are we doing This guy who says he chopped
up his wife but didn't kill her, who has all
these searches to say how to get rid of a
body after a murder, and you're making me question his
(09:53):
guilt or innocence.
Speaker 4 (09:55):
I know it was. We kept we actually so that
what you just read, you all trust us.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
It was that going on and on and on to
the point where like, look, if you had one or
two answers like that, fine, no the answer.
Speaker 4 (10:12):
She was answering all questions.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
In that exact type of way for like thirty minutes
at least. We kept looking to the going oh my gosh,
I don't even know what's happening right now.
Speaker 4 (10:22):
We were so confused.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Can I give you another doozy? Yes, this is from
our witness from the State crime lab. When we do
these calculations for the likelihood rick ratio, we're relying on
the DNA profile observed and that evidence item. The more
data we have there, that means more of these twenty
six locations where we observe the DNA profile, the higher
the statistic will be for an inclusion because there is
more support and data observe. When there is limited support
(10:44):
for inclusion, that means the data for that contributes and
that mixture. So it doesn't mean everyone in that mixture
had less DNA, just that one had less for comparison,
so the statistic is lower because of it.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
That is a direct quote.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
I just that sounds like a fever dream I had
last night. What is that?
Speaker 3 (11:00):
So?
Speaker 4 (11:01):
Yes, that is our point. Everyone.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
She's smart, that's well, oh brilliant, beautifully.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
I would almost argue for this trial, too smart, I
need you to simplify.
Speaker 4 (11:11):
I just wanted to actually.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
In fact, there was one time when the prosecutor said,
so what does that mean? And I thought, oh, fine,
But when she answered what she meant, it was even
more so I was like, Okay, that's not working, prosecutor.
You need to actually say what she meant and ask
her if am I right? And that's the only way
because that scientist could only speak.
Speaker 4 (11:36):
Like a scientist.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
All right, Well, folks.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
A lot of the action today happened with the jury
out of the room. There was a lot of sidebars today.
There was a delayed start to the day. The day
ended early as well, and we're getting word that tomorrow
they're going to have a delayed start as well. Why
what's going on? Stay here, we'll explain and.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
Welcome back everyone.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
We are talking about day seven of the Brian wallsh trial,
and I feel like maybe this is the most animated
we've been because we were so annoyed by how unnecessarily
confusing most of today was. And yes, the prosecution I
think technically laid out the points it needed to, but
our takeaway was the defense kept it simple and brought
(12:33):
a couple of things home that really landed. First of all,
can't prove how or when any of that DNA got
on any of these items. And number two, where's the
blood they used? Incredibly sensitive and he dumped it down,
didn't get all specific about how sensitive these blood tests are.
(12:55):
And the fact that there were no there was no
evidence of blood in their bedroom, in their bathroom, in
any of the bathrooms near the bedroom. The only place
that police found evidence of blood was on the basement floor.
I thought that was see, that's what I remember, remember
it because it was simple and I could understand.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
And you know, okay, we go back and we just
I'm not going to ask us to do this here live,
but I'm thinking back to this trial in the moments
that mattered, And another one of them that mattered was
when he got the prosecution and witness up there from
the state crime like one of those guys, and Tipton
from the defense got to him admit, yep, there was
nothing forensically significant in that bedroom. I remember that moment
(13:41):
like that is what the jury is going to go
in there with.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
I love a.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
Look that we are not making any kind of determination
about guilt or in it in the least bit. But
we are watching this thing play out and talking to
legal minds who are watching and are confused, who started
at the beginning like I wouldn't want this case. Now
they're looking at what Tipton is and how the prosecution
has handled this, and they're going, wait a minute, yeah,
(14:05):
wait a minute. How are we saying wait a minute? Right?
Speaker 3 (14:08):
Because it's significant because Brian Walsh's story is that Anna
Walsh died while she was in bed they were going
to bed after their New Year's Eve party. He went
back down to clean up, and when he came back,
she had she was dead in the bed. So the
fact that there's no forensic evidence in the bedroom, in
(14:28):
the bathroom, you know, it supports his version of events
bottom line.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
At least a little. At least a little.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
I mean, what would the prosecution theory have to be
that all of the violence took place in the basement.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
Yes, yes, or that he strangled her that would be
the only other perhaps, But he did Why did he
remove rugs?
Speaker 4 (14:53):
Why did he purchase new rugs?
Speaker 3 (14:55):
Which we saw the surveillance video that was also eerie
of him and Home Goods buying. Yeah, we saw that
surveillance video and they had some folks from Home Goods. Again,
all I can think of is we love that store.
When we were there all the time, and they were
asking what is home Goods? Well, it's a store where
you buy goods for your home, I believe, is what
he answered, which did make me laugh. But pretty much
(15:16):
everyone knows who what Home Goods is, and I just
can't imagine they're excited about being a part of this truck.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
Yeah, didn't we plan on going.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
No, that was we're going to Marshall's well, same family.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
Yes, same family TJX.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
He went into a description about how it is a
whole family, the series of stores and these.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Videos are they are? We kept saying, eerie to watch.
We have seen now.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
We talked about all these items he went and he bought.
We had video of him behind them. We see him
putting together. By his own admission, was a that's the
better way to put it. It was a body disposal kit,
if you will.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
All the items he.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Clean up after a murder kit is basically what it was.
Or he says after a sudden, unexplained death that he
didn't want to be responsible.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Isn't that crazy that we don't know if right?
Speaker 1 (16:02):
There's some debate about the death of Anna Walsh, the
murder of Anna Walsh, the disappearance of Ana Walsh. I've
seen it put these several different ways, like what should
we be saying we don't know if she was.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Murdered, the unexplained death of Anna Walsh? I guess right now,
that's all we can say with certainty.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
Well, today got off to a slow start. I say slow,
but a delayed start. The jury didn't get in there too,
well past half hour past when they were supposed to.
But there have been a lot of things ropes that
the judge and the attorneys have been going over.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
Like a lot.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
There's been a lot of sidebars in this and I
guess the next ropes is this not? And you please
explain to me. I didn't pick up on this. But
they are starting tomorrow. She told the jury they don't
have to come in until ten o'clock tomorrow normally start
at nine until ten because she has work to do
with these attorneys and some of that work has to
do I suppose robes. We talk about fast how the
(16:56):
lover of Anna Walsh taking the stand being the most
important witness.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
This next guy, Yeah, so this is I believe Anna
Walsh's former boss but considered a friend to both Anna
and Brian.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
His name is Jem.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
I don't know how to say his last night Muttloo, mootlu,
but his first name is Jem and he is significant
because he was the only person outside of the Walsh family.
He was the last person to see Anna alive, and
he watched the two of them interact all evening. So look,
(17:30):
if the prosecution's theory is and we do know because
William fast out testified to this that he did. They
texted each other at midnight, Anna and William saying Happy
New Year, Happy New Year. I would think that the
prosecution might try to say that that's when he saw
the texts, or that's when he could have snapped in
that moment and went crazy, But it would be obviously
(17:52):
such a window into what led up to the New
Year and what happened afterwards with Jem's testimony. So the
judge said that he needs to be questioned first without
the jury present. I don't know why, but they said
that that needs to happen without the jury. So that's
(18:13):
why he was supposed to testify today and they pushed
it to tomorrow so they can do this without the jury.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
So they're going to question him. So right what he
as he's being questioned? This is not an official part
of the trial because the jury's not in the room.
So are we essentially deciding whether or not I say
we the judge deciding whether or not what she hears
is going to be okay for.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
The jury then to hear, yeah, there must be some
concern critical yes, about what he's going to say, and
I don't know who's more concerned about what he's going
to say, the prosecution or the defense.
Speaker 4 (18:43):
I don't know, but it's.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
He he saw them interacting that entire evening. If there
were if there was tension, if they were fighting, if
they seemed risk with one another, all of that will
really be super important.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
Right. But what if he says they were loving and
having a good time.
Speaker 3 (19:01):
Because if the prosecution says, if it happened the way
they might say it happened that once Jem left after
the New year, maybe he saw the phone and everything changed.
Who knows. But he can say how much they were drinking.
He can say how much Like all of that will matter, Folks.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
Again, one of the certainly one of the most boring
and confusing days turns out to be one of the
most important and fascinating.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
That's leading into the next day. This case.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
I mean, we knew it was going to be a doozy,
but this is a fascinating one to watch. We're keeping
a close eye.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
Again.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
They don't start until ten a m. Tomorrow at least
for as the jury goes, but we will be able
to see what's happening.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
I believe so. At nine am so we are on
it for you, folks. Stay here again.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Top right corner of that Apple podcast app where you
see our show page. A little button this has follow you.
Click that and you can automatically get our updates coming
to you.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
Folks.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
We always appreciate you spending some time with us, and
I think you're right, Robes. I can't believe it. We
were wondering like, oh, this is gonna be a drab,
slow day. It's just DNA evidence, and now I'm well,
I don't know why it was it worked out, but folks,
we appreciate it. As always.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
For my dear Amy Robot, I'm d J. Holmes. We
will be talking to you all the very very soon
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.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
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