December 11, 2025 • 22 mins
A somewhat shocking day in the Brian Walshe trial with the defense announcing not only will Brian Walshe not testify, no one else will either. It’s a decision based on strategic confidence or avoidance of risk, but either way, the defense surprised a number of legal experts who were anticipating at least a few witnesses to take the stand in defense of Walshe. Today’s decision suggests Walshe’s defense team feels good about their ability to sew reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors through their cross examination of the state’s witnesses. Closing arguments are set for tomorrow!
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 there, folks. It is Thursday, December the eleventh, and
the defense rests in the case of Brian Walsh. And no,
he did not take the stand. And with that, welcome
to this episode of Amy and TJ Roads. Does it
sound weird to say that I was I was really
hoping he was going to testify.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Oh, it would have been beyond fascinating from a from
a just a personal preference.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Oh my gosh. Yes, I don't want to hear from
him to be disappointed. Yes, but you know what, what
he is claiming is so out there that I want
to hear him.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
I mean, as a juror. If he here's the deal.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
I hate to say this, but if he is innocent
of the charges I and he is saying that he
found his wife debt, I want to hear how he
found her, where he found her, at what time he
found her, what condition she was in, what his thoughts
were in the moment. You want to believe someone. It
(01:07):
would be so nice to believe that he didn't actually
kill his wife.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
I didn't think about that. The way you put it
now is that I would give him more of a
shot if he would tell me his story. That makes sense.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
In this case, what the defense is claiming that he
walked in and found his wife dead and he panicked.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
I could get behind even.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
The gruesomeness of what he did afterwards in the panic
of trying to protect his children from losing both parents.
I could maybe get behind it. I would want to
hear him and hear his story. It's important for me
(01:50):
to buy what he's selling to believe what his attorneys
are suggesting. It would go a long way to hear
him explain.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
It, because it doesn't have an explanation right.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Now, because first question from the prosecutor is what where's
the body? Yes, and that is why he can't get
on the stand. What did you do with her body?
Speaker 3 (02:15):
Which implies to me that he is guilty, Because if
finding her body didn't support your claims, then I understand
why you don't want them to find the body.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Yeah, you're on fire. Now here's the thing. Can't you
prove how she died? Why don't y'all go dig her up?
You'll see that I didn't do anything to her. Damn robes.
You don't fight her.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
That's a good point, correct, So, yes, there's nothing in
her system that showed I poisoned her. There's no marks
on what's left of her body that shows I strangle.
And if you have that level of confidence that you
know you did not murder her, and when they do
the autopsy and they can't find how she died, or
(03:02):
perhaps they can look at her heart or look at
something that could suggest natural causes, then I would be
all for that. But for you not wanting them to
find the body, and for you not wanting to testify
how you found her body, that throws a huge, huge
question mark.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
And that is a huge question that I wonder will
come up if it'll come up in the jury room
twelve individuals. I bet it will. But this is where
we are now, folks, and we're giving you a They're
putting up this update earlier than we normally would because
this is the day that they had in court today.
As soon as they got in, the jury was in
and out of there because they started the day by
(03:43):
the defense putting on their case, which happens to be
no case robes, and first things first, they had to
find out whether or not Brian Walsh was going to
testify and look for whatever reason, legal experts thought that
there was still a chance there was still some chance
(04:04):
didn't make sense, but sure not. They confirmed it for
us this morn.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
Yeah, I was reading everywhere. I was reading legal experts
saying they thought he needed.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
To testify or had to testify.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Obviously, we talked to our gal, Alison Treesel, who is
a criminal defense attorney, and she made it very clear,
and we know this historically from covering plenty of murder trials,
that no defense attorney wants their client to be cross examined, period.
So I get it from a criminal defense attorney's standpoint,
But it was interesting to see a lot of articles
and a lot of legal analysts saying kind of maybe
(04:36):
what I was just feeling when I heard he wasn't
going to testify. As a juror, that this would be
a case if you were innocent, that you would actually
want or even maybe need your client to explain.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
There is no one who can tell the story. He
is the only person on planet Earth who actually knows
what happened to Don Walsh.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
As a juror, are you allowed then, I say, allowed
legally to consider it, but as a human you of
course are going to consider why then wouldn't he testify?
Speaker 1 (05:11):
You can tell us, maman, we're here now, you can
actually get it all out. You know, it's as sitting
here with you now in that manner, not thinking as
a legal matter, this was the right move, of course,
as a juror, and sitting here talking to you, it
just doesn't you have to tell us the story. You
want us to believe you, but you won't talk to us.
(05:32):
I get that, but I don't know if a juror
will they say, okay, I get it, it's a legal thing.
He couldn't or will they hold it against him?
Speaker 3 (05:39):
And you know what that is why what we've been
kind of listening to all morning, the very specific conversations, arguments,
discussions about the jury instructions going on right now with
the jury not present, because it matters so much as
a juror, common sense and as a human Yeah, if
(06:00):
no one else can tell the story, and you're claiming
you walked in on her and you didn't kill her,
that she was just dead, why wouldn't you tell us?
So perhaps what the judge instructs the jury to consider
and what she instructs them not to consider, will have
a huge legal impact, because yeah, common sense, human being,
(06:23):
this is a case where you'd be like, I kind
of need to hear what you say happened.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
And now we think robes the jury. They got to
go home, They got the day today, maybe get some
Christmas shopping done.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
She was saying, rest up she is, because who knows
how the jury deliberations are gonna go.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
But we thought, okay, the plan was the final closing
arguments were supposed to be tomorrow. But as we sit
in as of this recording, we're seeing jury them argue
over jury instructions and this is very specific stuff. Look,
every little word matters, and they go into that jury
room what they can and can't consider. So this is
(07:03):
it's actually fascinating to watch. Most people might call it boring,
and it is fascinating to watch them. Mark, you said
it about Tipton. These are them. This is where you
don't even realize how good an attorney is.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Right. So we were listening to Brian Walsh's lead attorney,
who we've been talking very highly of Larry Tipton today,
but just even specifically asking whether or not they can
even recognize or instruct the jury about a potential weapon.
And his point was, if you're even going to use
(07:33):
the word weapon, you're insinuating there was a murder and
we're saying there wasn't a murder, and a knife or
a hacksaw.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Or whatever it was, those were all.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Posthumous tools used to dismember, which we've already copped to.
So if you you even use the word weapon, that
can sway the jury. And I thought, wow, we don't. Look,
that's not the salacious headlines that we click on or
that we talk about, or that jurors are instruct But
what's happening behind the scenes and what the jury ultimately
(08:06):
gets to hear or consider is so important when it
comes to how they decide things, and those are what
make like this.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
These are the moments that I think.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
Are what distinguishes between good lawyers and mediocre lawyers. I'm curious,
were you surprised when they said the defense rests without
calling any witnesses.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Because I'd read so much that they were going to
call that they had a plan to call witnesses. Witnesses, right,
that's been the case, so from the very beginning, I
thought they were going to put someone on. The question
only was whether or not he was going to get
up there. Now, I there is a level of confidence
they clearly have. They think that either the prosecution hasn't
(08:48):
made its case or the defense feels like they made
their case through the prosecution witness you which one was
it that you said? Yeah, they turned the defense turned
it into a defense witness a couple, which.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Yeah, one of the medical examiner for sure, Yes, and
maybe you could even argue jem from yesterday and perhaps
even her best friend, who were both forced to admit
that Anna Walsh had told them privately that her husband
was not a jealous man, and that they told each
(09:27):
other everything, that they didn't keep any secrets, that he
was aware that she had a crush on the guy.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Who she was having an affair with.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
All of that takes away from this motive that the
prosecution is trying to push for the jury.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
So yes, but.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
It's interesting when you don't call the I Obviously, most
notably and recently Diddy in Shawn Commb's trial, we saw
Mark Agnefello and team decide not to call any witnesses
to rest its case based on what they were able
to do in cross examination with the prosecution's witnesses. But
it's interesting because this strategy is either a strategic confidence
(10:09):
where you're actually signaling to the jury. Yeah, we don't
even have to put up any witnesses because we feel good.
It's also about avoiding risk. So who could they put
up that would make Brian Walsh look or appear to
be innocent, that wouldn't cause them some sort of risk.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
From cross You know, when if they were going to
put witnesses together, I think they would have called Fast out.
They would have called Jim the friend who was there,
because these folks ended up saying things or giving testimony
that helped them to your point, a medical except they
went through and what they need somebody to come up
(10:51):
and say good things and what a great man he was.
No the people they needed to say, this was a
solid relationship from a guy who was not jealous. Now
what what's your motive? Money? No, look at this, this
is what they did for their kid. That now what
they they took away money as a motive.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
He had just bought her a diamond ring that Jem
that Jem testified to seeing on New Year's Eve. The
clearly that I guess that was a Christmas gift or something.
And we saw that he was searching Blue Nile. She's
got a big beautiful new diamond ring on her hand
on New Year's Eves?
Speaker 1 (11:25):
What's the motive? Money and jealousy? I got questions about
those two in listening to this trial.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
I have a reasonable enough doubt that those two things
were a motive. Now we got to go to what
circumstantial evidence.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
There's nobody.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
I actually don't have ropes? Did I sit here with you?
I don't have, as a juror a motive for why
this guy might have killed his wife. I would like one.
They don't have to prove one, but I sure would
like to know why.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
But you have an idea why?
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Sitting through this trial, what is your best guess about
what his motive would have been.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
My only theory is that he saw something that sent
him off on New Year's Eve that he we talked
about this, he saw something, say, wait a minute, on
this night that was so important to our family, which
was Christmas? Right, she missed Christmas morning because she was
with her lover.
Speaker 3 (12:26):
We now know she spent Christmas Eve with her lover,
William Fastaut Now.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
If I find that out on New Year's Eve about
to say this celebration is something like that? He could
have snapped. But as a juror, that's my theory, the
best I can come up with based on what you
all have given me.
Speaker 3 (12:44):
I wonder if in closing arguments, the prosecution is going
to finally wrap up this testimony because we have been
complaining throughout the trial that it didn't feel as though
there was a Perry Mason moment or an aha, or
let me put this all together for you jury, because
what you just heard there is exactly why Brian Walsh
(13:06):
killed his wife.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
Nope, some of the biggest Perry Mason moments happened during
opening arguments from the defense, like the moments where I
feel like things mic drops or things that it all
came from the defense, all came from the defense. You
one hundred percent right, So, folks, this seems in a
trial this high profile, with stakes this high, that the
(13:32):
defense wouldn't put on a defense if you will. But again,
we talked about a recent example. We're going to explain
why some say, including dear friends of ours, dear legal
friends of ours, say there's a sign here and it's
not a good one for the prosecution. Stay here, all right,
(14:02):
we continue Now. The Brian Walsh trial was supposed to
Robes go three plus weeks. We're at the end of
week two.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
They even said four and a half weeks. At one point.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
It seems like everybody wants to be home for Christmas.
But they are wrapping this up. Closing arguments are expected tomorrow.
Rose We followed, I can't imagine what we'd be doing.
We would just have to do a NonStop loop of podcasts.
If we had cameras in the courtroom for that Diddy trial,
Oh my god, I.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
Mean, I don't think we would have done anything this summer.
We wouldn't have gone anywhere, we wouldn't have seen friends.
We probably wouldn't have even gone out to lunch if.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
They had cameras, And we damn near still were locked
inside just reading through the people who were in the courtroom.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Do you remember we went to my parents' home.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Oh yeah, right when the Ddty trial was ending, and
we didn't know it at the time. When we booked
the flights, we were going to a Georgia and we're like, Mom, Dad,
so sorry, but we're literally going to be on our
computers all damn day.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
And we but it was exciting.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
We were watching basically our computers, reading through Yes, reading
through the reporters who were in the courtroom and then
reacting to it in real time. It was but yes,
if you had had cameras in the court, that would
have been a whole other level.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
So that's what we have. And we thought this was
going to be a longer trial. It is wrapping up
already now jury deliberations. Who knows how long those will go.
But this thing has absolutely gone quickly. And part of
that robes is that the defense decided not to put
on any witnesses. Now, I was shocked when that happened
(15:47):
at the Diddy trial, and this I was too recent
stuff now to where I get it. So in hearing this,
I'm not as shocked, But it sends a signal about
what the defense it feels about its case.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
It basically sends the signal that they're confident, especially that
before the trial started they suggested, or at least you
have to kind of put out what you think your
witness list may or may not be, so that the
other side can look and prepare. And they had eight
people potentially on their witness list, and when they decided
not to call anyone, certainly, I mean I have to
(16:23):
say I was shocked at that notion.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
And I also I wasn't shocked that he didn't testify.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
Though, because wait, which one we're talking about.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Well, in this case, in the Brian Walsh case, that's fair,
that's fair.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
I was in both cases. I was not shocked that
either one did not take the stand. And in Brian
Walsh's case, his biggest obstacle was that he has this
other conviction hanging over his head, and so you've got
a prior bad act first of all, that he has
to now be cross examined about, which would question his morality,
question his ethics, question, all of these things that would
(16:57):
play into whether or not a juror thought, this is
a good guy who just accidentally walked in on his
wife who unexplained death scared the hell out of him.
But that wouldn't have been good. But obviously, more importantly,
it's the body issue. The first question that Brian Walsh
would have been asked under cross examination.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
Is where is your wife's body? What did you do
with her body? That's it, And there's going to be
a row of police officers in the back of that
courtroom waiting to hear and as soon as he reveals
it they're going to haul ass out of there, and
they're going to find that body immediately. They're going to
(17:37):
take it to a medical examiner's office and determine how
that woman died. And because of that robes it was impossible.
We were holding out hope. But because when Allison brought
that up to us, Okay.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
That's the first question that he's not going to be
willing to answer, which to me would signify guilt. But
I digress. I do think it's interesting. This surprised me.
I decided to google basically what the outcomes were of
defendants who decided to testify on their own behalf and
(18:12):
those who didn't. A Cornell Law review turns out it
doesn't probably even matter that much. Yeah, seventy seven percent
of defendants who testified on their own behalf were convicted.
Seventy two percent of those who did not testify on
their own behalf were convicted. So there's a five percent
difference between defending yourself on the stand or not.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
Generally speaking, most people that go to trial are guilty.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
So that is where we're starting from. Okay, that is true.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
For you to get to the level at which you
are now in trial, accused of murder, chances are, statistically speaking,
you're probably guilty. There obviously are innocent people who are
taken to trial and even convicted, for sure.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
We know that, we talk about it all the time.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
But yes, when you get to that point, it's likely
you are dealing with trying to say you're not guilty
when you actually are.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
All right, well, folks, as we wrap up here, we
are still watching as they continue with jury instructions. They're
arguing over jury instructions rooms. But as we wrap up here,
the longer this goes, this is going to push maybe
the schedule back. She says she wanted to give them
all afternoon right to work on their closing arguments, so
she wanted to not be doing this this afternoon. We'll
(19:35):
see how long this has to go.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
Now, Yes, because you know, it's curious. Obviously the defense knew.
I wonder at what point they made their decision not
to call any witnesses. I wonder at what point Brian
Walsh decided not to testify. It's interesting because did he
know it from the beginning. Was he basing it off
of how the trial went?
Speaker 2 (19:56):
That's curious.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
So have they had time to prepare their closing are
you I'm thinking, was the prosecution anticipating this?
Speaker 2 (20:03):
Did they have to.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
Say, you know, what could be that he doesn't testify,
they don't bring anyone up onto the witness stand, and
we got to be ready to go on Friday.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
I'm curious.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
I don't know how you had your best They have
been calling up their witnesses and having to be ready
for all of that testimony and all of that. Did
they even have the correct amount of time to get
ready for closing arguments? I don't know how it works,
but it seems like now, all of a sudden, it's like,
holy crap, we got to get our shit together by
(20:33):
tomorrow ret row. But maybe that's just me.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
You know what you said, if he knew ahead of time,
if Brian wash maybe knew, and I'll remind you of it.
This was always will stand out to me. At the
end of the Ditty trial, we text a friend of ours,
former federal prosecutor, and say, hey, what do you make
of it that Diddy's defense team didn't call any witnesses.
She immediately responded, because they think they've already won, so
(21:04):
if they are comfortable, they would do anything that they
think would help their case. They think they put on
the best case they have without calling a single witness.
I am, I am so curious to see what this
jury does.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
You know what's so interesting is that even when you
follow a trial like we have from start to finish,
there have still been plenty of shocking outcomes where you've
seen it and you think, oh, that person's so guilty,
and the jury comes back Yep, not guilty. It happens
(21:40):
all the time. I'm curious. I am so fascinated by
how long the jury will deliberate, especially with a Christmas
deadline hanging over their heads and Hanikah as well. So
it's like, you know, depending on who that we don't
even know. Do we even know what the Duram make up?
I haven't either, But it is one of those trials
(22:03):
where I actually can say, having sat through it, I
know what I feel, but I have no idea what
this jury is going to come back with.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
Do you have a sense of what you think may happen?
Speaker 1 (22:16):
No, I'm gonna give it some more thought and we'll
hop back on here and give you really our opinions
of what. And we have watched this very closely, almost
every single moment of testimony in this trial, so we
will talk about it more. But folks, we always appreciate
you spending some time here with us as we continue
to update you about this Brian Walsh trial. Again, Closing
arguments are scheduled now for Tomorrow Friday for my dear Amy.
(22:39):
We're welcome. TJ. Holmes talk to y'll soon
Hey there, folks. It is Thursday, December the eleventh, and
the defense rests in the case of Brian Walsh. And no,
he did not take the stand. And with that, welcome
to this episode of Amy and TJ Roads. Does it
sound weird to say that I was I was really
hoping he was going to testify.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Oh, it would have been beyond fascinating from a from
a just a personal preference.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Oh my gosh. Yes, I don't want to hear from
him to be disappointed. Yes, but you know what, what
he is claiming is so out there that I want
to hear him.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
I mean, as a juror. If he here's the deal.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
I hate to say this, but if he is innocent
of the charges I and he is saying that he
found his wife debt, I want to hear how he
found her, where he found her, at what time he
found her, what condition she was in, what his thoughts
were in the moment. You want to believe someone. It
(01:07):
would be so nice to believe that he didn't actually
kill his wife.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
I didn't think about that. The way you put it
now is that I would give him more of a
shot if he would tell me his story. That makes sense.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
In this case, what the defense is claiming that he
walked in and found his wife dead and he panicked.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
I could get behind even.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
The gruesomeness of what he did afterwards in the panic
of trying to protect his children from losing both parents.
I could maybe get behind it. I would want to
hear him and hear his story. It's important for me
(01:50):
to buy what he's selling to believe what his attorneys
are suggesting. It would go a long way to hear
him explain.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
It, because it doesn't have an explanation right.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Now, because first question from the prosecutor is what where's
the body? Yes, and that is why he can't get
on the stand. What did you do with her body?
Speaker 3 (02:15):
Which implies to me that he is guilty, Because if
finding her body didn't support your claims, then I understand
why you don't want them to find the body.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Yeah, you're on fire. Now here's the thing. Can't you
prove how she died? Why don't y'all go dig her up?
You'll see that I didn't do anything to her. Damn robes.
You don't fight her.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
That's a good point, correct, So, yes, there's nothing in
her system that showed I poisoned her. There's no marks
on what's left of her body that shows I strangle.
And if you have that level of confidence that you
know you did not murder her, and when they do
the autopsy and they can't find how she died, or
(03:02):
perhaps they can look at her heart or look at
something that could suggest natural causes, then I would be
all for that. But for you not wanting them to
find the body, and for you not wanting to testify
how you found her body, that throws a huge, huge
question mark.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
And that is a huge question that I wonder will
come up if it'll come up in the jury room
twelve individuals. I bet it will. But this is where
we are now, folks, and we're giving you a They're
putting up this update earlier than we normally would because
this is the day that they had in court today.
As soon as they got in, the jury was in
and out of there because they started the day by
(03:43):
the defense putting on their case, which happens to be
no case robes, and first things first, they had to
find out whether or not Brian Walsh was going to
testify and look for whatever reason, legal experts thought that
there was still a chance there was still some chance
(04:04):
didn't make sense, but sure not. They confirmed it for
us this morn.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
Yeah, I was reading everywhere. I was reading legal experts
saying they thought he needed.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
To testify or had to testify.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Obviously, we talked to our gal, Alison Treesel, who is
a criminal defense attorney, and she made it very clear,
and we know this historically from covering plenty of murder trials,
that no defense attorney wants their client to be cross examined, period.
So I get it from a criminal defense attorney's standpoint,
But it was interesting to see a lot of articles
and a lot of legal analysts saying kind of maybe
(04:36):
what I was just feeling when I heard he wasn't
going to testify. As a juror, that this would be
a case if you were innocent, that you would actually
want or even maybe need your client to explain.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
There is no one who can tell the story. He
is the only person on planet Earth who actually knows
what happened to Don Walsh.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
As a juror, are you allowed then, I say, allowed
legally to consider it, but as a human you of
course are going to consider why then wouldn't he testify?
Speaker 1 (05:11):
You can tell us, maman, we're here now, you can
actually get it all out. You know, it's as sitting
here with you now in that manner, not thinking as
a legal matter, this was the right move, of course,
as a juror, and sitting here talking to you, it
just doesn't you have to tell us the story. You
want us to believe you, but you won't talk to us.
(05:32):
I get that, but I don't know if a juror
will they say, okay, I get it, it's a legal thing.
He couldn't or will they hold it against him?
Speaker 3 (05:39):
And you know what that is why what we've been
kind of listening to all morning, the very specific conversations, arguments,
discussions about the jury instructions going on right now with
the jury not present, because it matters so much as
a juror, common sense and as a human Yeah, if
(06:00):
no one else can tell the story, and you're claiming
you walked in on her and you didn't kill her,
that she was just dead, why wouldn't you tell us?
So perhaps what the judge instructs the jury to consider
and what she instructs them not to consider, will have
a huge legal impact, because yeah, common sense, human being,
(06:23):
this is a case where you'd be like, I kind
of need to hear what you say happened.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
And now we think robes the jury. They got to
go home, They got the day today, maybe get some
Christmas shopping done.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
She was saying, rest up she is, because who knows
how the jury deliberations are gonna go.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
But we thought, okay, the plan was the final closing
arguments were supposed to be tomorrow. But as we sit
in as of this recording, we're seeing jury them argue
over jury instructions and this is very specific stuff. Look,
every little word matters, and they go into that jury
room what they can and can't consider. So this is
(07:03):
it's actually fascinating to watch. Most people might call it boring,
and it is fascinating to watch them. Mark, you said
it about Tipton. These are them. This is where you
don't even realize how good an attorney is.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Right. So we were listening to Brian Walsh's lead attorney,
who we've been talking very highly of Larry Tipton today,
but just even specifically asking whether or not they can
even recognize or instruct the jury about a potential weapon.
And his point was, if you're even going to use
(07:33):
the word weapon, you're insinuating there was a murder and
we're saying there wasn't a murder, and a knife or
a hacksaw.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Or whatever it was, those were all.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Posthumous tools used to dismember, which we've already copped to.
So if you you even use the word weapon, that
can sway the jury. And I thought, wow, we don't. Look,
that's not the salacious headlines that we click on or
that we talk about, or that jurors are instruct But
what's happening behind the scenes and what the jury ultimately
(08:06):
gets to hear or consider is so important when it
comes to how they decide things, and those are what
make like this.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
These are the moments that I think.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
Are what distinguishes between good lawyers and mediocre lawyers. I'm curious,
were you surprised when they said the defense rests without
calling any witnesses.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Because I'd read so much that they were going to
call that they had a plan to call witnesses. Witnesses, right,
that's been the case, so from the very beginning, I
thought they were going to put someone on. The question
only was whether or not he was going to get
up there. Now, I there is a level of confidence
they clearly have. They think that either the prosecution hasn't
(08:48):
made its case or the defense feels like they made
their case through the prosecution witness you which one was
it that you said? Yeah, they turned the defense turned
it into a defense witness a couple, which.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Yeah, one of the medical examiner for sure, Yes, and
maybe you could even argue jem from yesterday and perhaps
even her best friend, who were both forced to admit
that Anna Walsh had told them privately that her husband
was not a jealous man, and that they told each
(09:27):
other everything, that they didn't keep any secrets, that he
was aware that she had a crush on the guy.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Who she was having an affair with.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
All of that takes away from this motive that the
prosecution is trying to push for the jury.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
So yes, but.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
It's interesting when you don't call the I Obviously, most
notably and recently Diddy in Shawn Commb's trial, we saw
Mark Agnefello and team decide not to call any witnesses
to rest its case based on what they were able
to do in cross examination with the prosecution's witnesses. But
it's interesting because this strategy is either a strategic confidence
(10:09):
where you're actually signaling to the jury. Yeah, we don't
even have to put up any witnesses because we feel good.
It's also about avoiding risk. So who could they put
up that would make Brian Walsh look or appear to
be innocent, that wouldn't cause them some sort of risk.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
From cross You know, when if they were going to
put witnesses together, I think they would have called Fast out.
They would have called Jim the friend who was there,
because these folks ended up saying things or giving testimony
that helped them to your point, a medical except they
went through and what they need somebody to come up
(10:51):
and say good things and what a great man he was.
No the people they needed to say, this was a
solid relationship from a guy who was not jealous. Now
what what's your motive? Money? No, look at this, this
is what they did for their kid. That now what
they they took away money as a motive.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
He had just bought her a diamond ring that Jem
that Jem testified to seeing on New Year's Eve. The
clearly that I guess that was a Christmas gift or something.
And we saw that he was searching Blue Nile. She's
got a big beautiful new diamond ring on her hand
on New Year's Eves?
Speaker 1 (11:25):
What's the motive? Money and jealousy? I got questions about
those two in listening to this trial.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
I have a reasonable enough doubt that those two things
were a motive. Now we got to go to what
circumstantial evidence.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
There's nobody.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
I actually don't have ropes? Did I sit here with you?
I don't have, as a juror a motive for why
this guy might have killed his wife. I would like one.
They don't have to prove one, but I sure would
like to know why.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
But you have an idea why?
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Sitting through this trial, what is your best guess about
what his motive would have been.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
My only theory is that he saw something that sent
him off on New Year's Eve that he we talked
about this, he saw something, say, wait a minute, on
this night that was so important to our family, which
was Christmas? Right, she missed Christmas morning because she was
with her lover.
Speaker 3 (12:26):
We now know she spent Christmas Eve with her lover,
William Fastaut Now.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
If I find that out on New Year's Eve about
to say this celebration is something like that? He could
have snapped. But as a juror, that's my theory, the
best I can come up with based on what you
all have given me.
Speaker 3 (12:44):
I wonder if in closing arguments, the prosecution is going
to finally wrap up this testimony because we have been
complaining throughout the trial that it didn't feel as though
there was a Perry Mason moment or an aha, or
let me put this all together for you jury, because
what you just heard there is exactly why Brian Walsh
(13:06):
killed his wife.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
Nope, some of the biggest Perry Mason moments happened during
opening arguments from the defense, like the moments where I
feel like things mic drops or things that it all
came from the defense, all came from the defense. You
one hundred percent right, So, folks, this seems in a
trial this high profile, with stakes this high, that the
(13:32):
defense wouldn't put on a defense if you will. But again,
we talked about a recent example. We're going to explain
why some say, including dear friends of ours, dear legal
friends of ours, say there's a sign here and it's
not a good one for the prosecution. Stay here, all right,
(14:02):
we continue Now. The Brian Walsh trial was supposed to
Robes go three plus weeks. We're at the end of
week two.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
They even said four and a half weeks. At one point.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
It seems like everybody wants to be home for Christmas.
But they are wrapping this up. Closing arguments are expected tomorrow.
Rose We followed, I can't imagine what we'd be doing.
We would just have to do a NonStop loop of podcasts.
If we had cameras in the courtroom for that Diddy trial,
Oh my god, I.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
Mean, I don't think we would have done anything this summer.
We wouldn't have gone anywhere, we wouldn't have seen friends.
We probably wouldn't have even gone out to lunch if.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
They had cameras, And we damn near still were locked
inside just reading through the people who were in the courtroom.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Do you remember we went to my parents' home.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Oh yeah, right when the Ddty trial was ending, and
we didn't know it at the time. When we booked
the flights, we were going to a Georgia and we're like, Mom, Dad,
so sorry, but we're literally going to be on our
computers all damn day.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
And we but it was exciting.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
We were watching basically our computers, reading through Yes, reading
through the reporters who were in the courtroom and then
reacting to it in real time. It was but yes,
if you had had cameras in the court, that would
have been a whole other level.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
So that's what we have. And we thought this was
going to be a longer trial. It is wrapping up
already now jury deliberations. Who knows how long those will go.
But this thing has absolutely gone quickly. And part of
that robes is that the defense decided not to put
on any witnesses. Now, I was shocked when that happened
(15:47):
at the Diddy trial, and this I was too recent
stuff now to where I get it. So in hearing this,
I'm not as shocked, But it sends a signal about
what the defense it feels about its case.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
It basically sends the signal that they're confident, especially that
before the trial started they suggested, or at least you
have to kind of put out what you think your
witness list may or may not be, so that the
other side can look and prepare. And they had eight
people potentially on their witness list, and when they decided
not to call anyone, certainly, I mean I have to
(16:23):
say I was shocked at that notion.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
And I also I wasn't shocked that he didn't testify.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
Though, because wait, which one we're talking about.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Well, in this case, in the Brian Walsh case, that's fair,
that's fair.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
I was in both cases. I was not shocked that
either one did not take the stand. And in Brian
Walsh's case, his biggest obstacle was that he has this
other conviction hanging over his head, and so you've got
a prior bad act first of all, that he has
to now be cross examined about, which would question his morality,
question his ethics, question, all of these things that would
(16:57):
play into whether or not a juror thought, this is
a good guy who just accidentally walked in on his
wife who unexplained death scared the hell out of him.
But that wouldn't have been good. But obviously, more importantly,
it's the body issue. The first question that Brian Walsh
would have been asked under cross examination.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
Is where is your wife's body? What did you do
with her body? That's it, And there's going to be
a row of police officers in the back of that
courtroom waiting to hear and as soon as he reveals
it they're going to haul ass out of there, and
they're going to find that body immediately. They're going to
(17:37):
take it to a medical examiner's office and determine how
that woman died. And because of that robes it was impossible.
We were holding out hope. But because when Allison brought
that up to us, Okay.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
That's the first question that he's not going to be
willing to answer, which to me would signify guilt. But
I digress. I do think it's interesting. This surprised me.
I decided to google basically what the outcomes were of
defendants who decided to testify on their own behalf and
(18:12):
those who didn't. A Cornell Law review turns out it
doesn't probably even matter that much. Yeah, seventy seven percent
of defendants who testified on their own behalf were convicted.
Seventy two percent of those who did not testify on
their own behalf were convicted. So there's a five percent
difference between defending yourself on the stand or not.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
Generally speaking, most people that go to trial are guilty.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
So that is where we're starting from. Okay, that is true.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
For you to get to the level at which you
are now in trial, accused of murder, chances are, statistically speaking,
you're probably guilty. There obviously are innocent people who are
taken to trial and even convicted, for sure.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
We know that, we talk about it all the time.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
But yes, when you get to that point, it's likely
you are dealing with trying to say you're not guilty
when you actually are.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
All right, well, folks, as we wrap up here, we
are still watching as they continue with jury instructions. They're
arguing over jury instructions rooms. But as we wrap up here,
the longer this goes, this is going to push maybe
the schedule back. She says she wanted to give them
all afternoon right to work on their closing arguments, so
she wanted to not be doing this this afternoon. We'll
(19:35):
see how long this has to go.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
Now, Yes, because you know, it's curious. Obviously the defense knew.
I wonder at what point they made their decision not
to call any witnesses. I wonder at what point Brian
Walsh decided not to testify. It's interesting because did he
know it from the beginning. Was he basing it off
of how the trial went?
Speaker 2 (19:56):
That's curious.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
So have they had time to prepare their closing are
you I'm thinking, was the prosecution anticipating this?
Speaker 2 (20:03):
Did they have to.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
Say, you know, what could be that he doesn't testify,
they don't bring anyone up onto the witness stand, and
we got to be ready to go on Friday.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
I'm curious.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
I don't know how you had your best They have
been calling up their witnesses and having to be ready
for all of that testimony and all of that. Did
they even have the correct amount of time to get
ready for closing arguments? I don't know how it works,
but it seems like now, all of a sudden, it's like,
holy crap, we got to get our shit together by
(20:33):
tomorrow ret row. But maybe that's just me.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
You know what you said, if he knew ahead of time,
if Brian wash maybe knew, and I'll remind you of it.
This was always will stand out to me. At the
end of the Ditty trial, we text a friend of ours,
former federal prosecutor, and say, hey, what do you make
of it that Diddy's defense team didn't call any witnesses.
She immediately responded, because they think they've already won, so
(21:04):
if they are comfortable, they would do anything that they
think would help their case. They think they put on
the best case they have without calling a single witness.
I am, I am so curious to see what this
jury does.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
You know what's so interesting is that even when you
follow a trial like we have from start to finish,
there have still been plenty of shocking outcomes where you've
seen it and you think, oh, that person's so guilty,
and the jury comes back Yep, not guilty. It happens
(21:40):
all the time. I'm curious. I am so fascinated by
how long the jury will deliberate, especially with a Christmas
deadline hanging over their heads and Hanikah as well. So
it's like, you know, depending on who that we don't
even know. Do we even know what the Duram make up?
I haven't either, But it is one of those trials
(22:03):
where I actually can say, having sat through it, I
know what I feel, but I have no idea what
this jury is going to come back with.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
Do you have a sense of what you think may happen?
Speaker 1 (22:16):
No, I'm gonna give it some more thought and we'll
hop back on here and give you really our opinions
of what. And we have watched this very closely, almost
every single moment of testimony in this trial, so we
will talk about it more. But folks, we always appreciate
you spending some time here with us as we continue
to update you about this Brian Walsh trial. Again, Closing
arguments are scheduled now for Tomorrow Friday for my dear Amy.
(22:39):
We're welcome. TJ. Holmes talk to y'll soon
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.