December 12, 2025 • 23 mins
The prosecution spent a little more than half an hour trying to convince the jury to use their common sense and convict Brian Walshe of First Degree murder for what they call the “violent death” of his wife Ana on New Year’s Day three years ago. Just after noon ET, the jury began their deliberations and were given three options for their verdict: Guilty of first-degree murder, guilty of second-degree murder, or not guilty.
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 are folks. It is Friday, December twelfth and
we are officially on verdict watch in the Brian Walsh trial.
We talked to you earlier about the defense it's closing argument.
We want to talk to you now about the prosecutions
closing argument. With that, Welcome to this episode of Amy
and TJ. We talked so much robed about how Larry Tipton,
the defense lawyer, was very performative and some of his
(00:25):
antics and he made you sit up and watch. It
seemed like the prosecution was trying to pick up some
of those tricks to a certain degree.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Yes, we saw the lead prosecutor, the female prosecutor, be
more dramatic. She was not monotone, that's for sure. But unfortunately,
and I say unfortunately, because she went too far in
the other direction. She went from whispering at times to
feeling sarcastic in others to yelling and I'm not exaggerating
almost I jumped up and I said, why is she
(00:56):
yelling at the jury. So it was an attempt to
be more performative, to be more theatrical, which I think
was needed. She just it didn't feel like it's in
her wheelhouse.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
It didn't feel natural, it didn't feel normal. It felt
like it really like she was feigning every emotion she
was trying to deliver. I don't know this woman. I
hate to be don't want to criticize the job they
have done, but we are sitting there as casual observers,
and this is how things are coming across to us. Yes,
she was more animated. Yes, it did seem intentional. It
(01:29):
seemed like almost on her page where she was reading something,
it was said in parentheses, yell this line, yeahs for
this line.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
I feel like she practiced this at home. And look,
you know what, it may not matter what she said
and how she said it might not matter as much
as what she said to the jury and what they're
going to believe in what they're not going to believe.
But it is interesting observing it how important it is,
or it seemed to us, how you say something, yes,
(02:00):
and when you say something and it matters. The information
is important, of course, actually it should be the only
thing that really matters. But we're all human beings and
how we receive it and how we see it delivered
to us absolutely impacts the weight we give the information.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
We're receiving that is that.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Is the best way to put it, and the way
I'm receiving her message. It didn't. Again, we've been keeping
ourselves in that lane and being the jurors. But yeah,
she only went. She didn't go as long as Tipton,
I don't think.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
No, only thirty four thirty five minutes.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Okay, So now let's get into the meat and potatoes
of what she had to say and rope she started out,
and it We've been waiting to hear them say how
she met this violent end, and I thought maybe we
were getting close to that, but she wrapped up and
sent that jury into that jury room to deliberate, and
(02:56):
none of us still have any idea what their theory
is about how she died.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
No her, they just stuck with the violent end and
common sense. Those were the two big themes that they
were pointing out, that yes, she was murdered, she met violence,
that Brian Walsh was cool and calculated, because she could
point to that in the surveillance video, and certainly she
kept bringing in some of.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
His interrogation by police where he just.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Seems so casual and so cool and nonchalant.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
So she was doing that. But again, there was no
and actually we were surprised.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
She pointed out, Basically, we don't have the body, and
so we can't tell you how she died without an autopsy.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
We don't know.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
I stopped. I don't know if I heard the next
two or three sentences because I was stuck on that sentence.
She said, the medical examiner, it's impossible for the medical
examiner to determine how she died.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
Probably don't want to reiterate that to the jury.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Wait what yeah, hey, wait what you're telling me that
it's impossible. So you're telling me you don't know, right,
is how I took that line. Now, she tried to
land it by saying, the reason we don't know it's
because he was calculated making sure we couldn't find the body.
That's what she was trying today.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
I feel like though she could have taken it so
much further and said, you know, we don't know if
he strangled her, if he stabbed her with that knife,
if he you know, if he suffocated her with the pillow.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
We don't know.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
But what we do know is he made damn sure
we weren't going to find out because he got rid
of that body like I.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Was thinking in my mind.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Granted I don't know what she could have said that
could have painted that picture using the evidence she had,
that he did make sure that no one got their
hands on her body. He did make sure there was
no evidence left behind. That's because he murdered her.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
Maybe the jurors aren't like us, right, we've been in television.
Speaker 4 (04:55):
Maybe maybe we want that and they don't need it. Yeah,
that's true, and you shouldn't need it. But this isn't us.
This is Every lawyer out there will tell you this
stuff matters. They will tell you how you deliver, who
the messenger is, they will tell you it all matters
and robes the closing. For me, I wrote it down.
(05:18):
You and I wrote the same thing down.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
The themes common sense and context. She sent them in
there saying, use your common sense. She didn't send them
in necessarily. Look at this evidence, look at this, remember this.
Remember that she said common sense, common sense, common sense,
and kept relying on this idea that yes, this happened,
and this happened. Yeah, it doesn't prove anything, but you
(05:41):
have to remember context. Wink wink not. It was almost
like she was saying, come on, y'all y'all know this
dude killed his wife. That is how the entire closing
sounded to me. It was really a real big come on, y'all,
come on, come on, we know he did it.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
I actually thought it was interesting because yes, that was
the gist of it, like that is a very good
way to sum it up. And I do think it
was the first time she even gave the jury. She
connected some dots that she did not connect while the
testimony was happening, which we were complaining about. But she
finally then in her closing arguments, pointed out that she
(06:25):
felt like Brian misplacing his phone was calculated and he
misplaced his phone early in the night on New Year's Eve,
but she said that was all a ploy so that
he could explain why he didn't know or he hadn't
been in contact with his wife for so long because
he had misplaced his phone, and also then he could
go do some of the stuff he needed to do
without his phone tracking him. So now she points that out.
(06:47):
Then she points out just even like he was putting
on a show basically for the friend who was over
a gem because he knew what he was going to do,
the fact that he.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Because that Frank, I don't understand, was convincing.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
It was a happy, joyful occasion. So that is what
she claims. The prosecution claims Brian wanted to happen. They
also claimed these searches for the Porsche and the diamonds
and all of that was just all to throw Anna
off his tracks. That really he had also searched divorce,
best ways to divorce if you're a man, So he
was figuring out what his options were and at some point,
(07:20):
according to the prosecution, he landed on murder. He had
to kill her, and so all of this, they say,
was because he was angry about her missing Thanksgiving. They
claimed that he apps, well Thanksgiving, she was going to
her mother's at Serbia, but they claim he knew because
they shared the same bank account, that she actually went
to Dublin with her boyfriend.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
She missed both of those.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
Yes, she missed Thanksgiving.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
And was the mom. She just said the mom was sick.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
I believe she did ultimately go, but I actually cannot
tell you, babe.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
I don't know, but I know that.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
So they were claiming, hey, look, he knew about something
else on the bank account. He knew she came back
through Frankfurt. So come on, of course she he knew
that she was in Dublin overnight on Thanksgiving.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
So listen to what you just said. Of course, come on,
come on, that is what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
So she's connecting these dots and saying and all of
it is very plausible, and I would say likely even,
but they didn't prove it. They're actually just saying, of
course he knew, of course he he And so he
was angry since then, and then she misses Christmas, even
Christmas Day. Now he's livid. So now he's sitting there
plotting how he's going to get rid of her on
New Year's Eve. And he's got a whole plan in place.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
You know, I they laid out I think Rose forgive
me if I missed it during the testimony, but they
laid out this, this reasoning, this logic for why he
killed her that seemed to go. It seemed to be
a little different from the other motive, meaning he had
to take care of the kids. He had to, like
as a condition of him not going to jail. He
(08:49):
needed the kids. And if his wife is now possibly
going to leave him for another man and the kids
go away, then he has no money, and he has
no woman. They built a case for a motive that
I didn't necessarily hear built throughout.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Desperation, is what it sounded like.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Here's a man who's about to go to prison for
a year or two, whose children are now going to
be living with his wife, who's now going to move
full time into this town home who she bought from
her now boyfriend, And in his mind he could be thinking,
and the boyfriend's just going to move in, I'm going
to be replaced while I'm in prison, and I'm going
to come back to no money and no family. That
(09:27):
is what they were suggesting at the end in closing.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
I didn't hear necessarily that pieced together during this.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
I did not hear that through the line at all
during And that was what we have been complaining about,
because when they had moments with witnesses where they could
have woven the story, and it did require the prosecutor
to provide the context to weave the story, to get
the witnesses to fill in the blanks for the story
they were creating. It's almost as if they came up
(09:54):
with that to wrap it all up. In addition to
he was jealous and he needed the money, but it
was more about desperation and no options. If he were
to divorce her, he would lose, and so he needed
to find a way when he came back from serving
his time where he would have all the money because
everything was in her name because of his financial issues
(10:17):
in his federal case against him, he put all of
their assets in her name. So now he's like, I
just screwed myself. But I don't feel like they did
that good of a job during the trial explaining that
through testimony.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
Where did she nail it? I'm looking at some of
my notes here, Where did you you really think she
did make some good points that the jury may remember
when they go in there. I'm looking at my notes here,
and I don't she had this line. I mean, it
was that impactful. He cut up Anna's body and threw
(10:49):
her in the dumpster. Now, the way I just said it,
she was screaming that line. She was screaming that line,
and that were pauses in between, is that it was
a moment I remember for being a little awkward, not impactful.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
What she was saying was impactful. How she was saying
it was detracting from what she was saying. It was
a sentence actually funny enough that didn't need any louder.
And actually that might have been one where I would
have gone slower and softer for people to really let
that sink in. When she shouted it, it felt aggressive
(11:23):
and like it was too much.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
It didn't work.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
Well, you're a performer, you are, no, I'm serious. What
I'm saying is these things you're talking about, how that
think when something is when the words themselves here, you
go rope. This is a very good example. You've been
talking about it, all those searches and writing that he had.
When something is that impactful, you don't have to shout right,
(11:48):
you just repeat it, folks. He cut up the woman
he loves, he said he loves, and he put pieces
of her in different dumpsters, like saying that, and she
shouted it in a different type of way. And again,
we were sitting here and we're being acting coaches or
something and being critical of performance. But this is how
(12:09):
we received the closing arguments in a trial we have
watched every second.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
Do you know what's interesting?
Speaker 2 (12:13):
She could have even played off of Larry Tipton, the
defense attorney, saying that the only evidence shows that there
was love. I would have taken that and said, if
that's love is chopping up you know, I would have
taken his last line about that and just twisted it.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
You know, we know some attorneys that that would have
been the first line in their closing. They would have
played off that Larry Tipton said, the only thing there is,
the only thing there's evidence of is love. That's the
next thing.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
He right, he just gave you gold to work off
of when you have those searches. I would have said,
is this love and then how to cut like, you know,
up my wife's body whatever, you know.
Speaker 3 (12:59):
All all of those searches.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
Just wow, just go. I mean that's a very good point.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
And we yes, yeah, I missed out fortinday.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
In fact, I just thought about that as you were
saying what you were, when you were describing how she
was saying things. I started thinking about what Tipton said,
and I thought, wait, she totally could have viscerated that
line with the evidence that she does have, because there
is evidence. Yes, they are lacking very important evidence akaa body,
but there is so much evidence pointing to his guilt,
(13:31):
maybe even his guilty conscience. You could have taken that
murder work, because so much was made of why did
he use the word murder in his searches? Six hours afterwards?
She could have pushed this guilty conscience idea. She could
have pushed so many other explanations other than the one
the defense gave.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
Okay, you're going to have to help me here, bab
you just made me remember it. She made a very
good point about a search, and I hadn't heard anybody
say it before, and I said, oh, yeah, that's true.
It was. She made a very good point. I've said
that is a winning like. She made me sit up
(14:07):
and think about a search he had, and she said, well,
why would he say? Ah, this is what it was.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
I wish I could help you. I don't know which
one you're talking.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
This was it, she said. If he's desperate and his
wife just died, the first thing you're looking for is
not to chop up a body. The first thing you're
thinking is sudden death. What possibly happened brain aneurysm. That
would have been your.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
Deep van thrombosis whatever it is.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
Thing but she made when she said that, I.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
Said, Babe, that you're right.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
When she said that, I remember thinking, now you just
spoke to me, and when she talks about common sense,
that's exactly that moment when you say, right, if I
walked in on the person I loved dead, and I'm
even if I'm thinking, oh no, they're going to think
that I had something to do with it for whatever
reason in my past, I would be immediately considered guilty.
(15:09):
I'd still the first thing would be mouth to mouth.
You'd want to see if you could resuscitate.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
Somebody, how to check a pulse.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
You'd want to yes, And if I'm going to start
searching stuff, I'm going to start trying to figure out
what happened?
Speaker 3 (15:20):
How can I help?
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Is there any remedy for what does alcohol poisoning look like?
Whatever I think could have happened. But honestly, more importantly, babe,
you just would call nine one one because you'd want
that person to have a shot. Maybe they could be resuscitated,
maybe something could be given to them that could alter
the the current state of their bow.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
That was the one. I mean, let me give the
prosecution credit on that one. Yep, you're right, they made
that point and that was common now that's used in
common sense absolutely like wait, and he had a lot
of hours to do anything related to resuscitating or first
aid and whatever. Maybe, but folks, stay here, we'll tell
you now how could change a verdict because the jury
(16:04):
doesn't have just one option for finding him guilty. And
Roosees and I, who have watched every moment of this trial,
will give you our predictions for what this jury is
going to do.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Stay here, Welcome back everyone, as we await the jury's
verdict in the Brian Walsh trial. The jury was handed
the opportunity to start deliberating earlier this afternoon, after we
(16:36):
heard from both the prosecution and the defense give their
closing arguments. The judge gave instructions. But the big difference
from the charges Brian wash is facing versus what the
jury can consider to convict him of has changed. At first,
we just we were told, hey, he is being charged
with first degree murder premeditated murder, and he had already
(16:58):
pled guilty to the lesser charge that involve dismembering his
wife's body and misleading investigators, so we knew he was
already guilty on those and the only other charge that
they were considering or pursuing was that first degree murder charge. Well,
they decided to give the jury more than just two options,
not guilty or guilty as charged. So now they can
(17:21):
come back with a not guilty verdict. They can come
back as guilty as charged murder in the first degree,
or the jury can come back with guilty of murder
in the second degree.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
MM, which, Kay, I don't know. If you have it
in front of you, we can look it up right quickly.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
I was just going to do that.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
What was sentence that possibly carries and the distinction as well?
There are distinctions of course, Uh was stavery target of
one one I put? In Massachusetts yep, first and second
degree murder. There is a difference, certainly time difference, and
the premeditation wouldn't necessarily be there, so correct.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
So in Massachusetts, second degree murder is an unlawful killing
committed with malice afterthought, so the intent to kill or
cost various harm or extreme atrocity or cruelty, but without
the deliberate premeditation required for first degree murder. A sentence
conviction carries a life sentence with parole eligibility often after
(18:14):
fifteen years.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
Court sets the exact minimum.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Yes, that'd be a big difference to get second degree
versus first degree murder.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
They have options. Now, what do you think you want
to tell us? Yes, you know, what do you think?
Speaker 2 (18:30):
I believe after everything I've seen and heard, I believe
the jury is going to come back with a second
degree murder conviction. Why Because I think that using common
sense and seeing the evidence from the searches, the use
(18:51):
of the word murder, his inability to be trusted in
terms of what he says, and the unbelievable, tiny, small
minute chance that she died of something other than murder
that would all weigh to me.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
There.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
I feel like he absolutely caused her death. I don't
know how he did it, and I don't know that
he premeditated it. I don't believe necessarily. I think it's
very possible and maybe even probable that he did. I
do think he saw text messages, he did google William
Fasteau's name. I do think that he knew so, but
(19:31):
I don't think that the state proved premeditation.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
There you go. So I have opinions, But as a juror,
am I supposed to I'm supposed to go with what
you showed. I am convinced of something because of what
you proved to me, and I'm just not there on it.
So I, while I was talking to you earlier, if
the first degree murder, I said, this is gonna be
a hunger. I'm gonna miss her do this all over again. Right,
(19:55):
But they gave them an option. They gave them. Anybody
who's having some doubts, with some questions like you and
I and listening to the prosecution now has an option
of going, Okay, my common sense tells me this dude
probably did this, but they didn't prove it. But now
this gives me an option to go, eh, a little
win for you, a little win for you. Maybe he
(20:16):
still gets punished because it seems like you do want
to punish him, right, don't you feel that, like just
there's about him? No, you don't see anything about him
that makes you root for this guy in the trial.
There's not just right, he's accused of something contructious. But yeah,
I think they've given them an option now that.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
They could say, okay, so what do you think the
jury is going to come back second?
Speaker 1 (20:39):
Agree?
Speaker 2 (20:39):
And you know what, that's a win for Brian Walsh
because they were not the prosecution was not willing to
offer him any lesser charge. And he tried because he
pleaded guilty to the dismemberment charges and the misleading police charges,
and the hope was that he could get a lesser
charge for murder. The prosecution was like, absolutely so they
(21:00):
had to take their chances at trial and this for him,
other than obviously not guilty, would be the best case scenario.
But if he gets a second degree murder conviction, that's
a win for him and a win for his attorney.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
And like we say, we only need one on that jury, right,
that could be one that's so overwhelmingly convinced that there
is no way, given what the prosecution gave me, that
you just need one.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
And what's so hard to know is how long you know, yes,
you just need one. So how long is it going
to take?
Speaker 1 (21:32):
You know?
Speaker 2 (21:32):
Are they all on the same page now that they
have this other lesser charge as an option, or are
there going to be die hard folks there who think.
Speaker 3 (21:40):
He premeditated this, he did this? I want first degree?
Speaker 2 (21:43):
Will that complicate the negotiations that go on in a
jurors room now that you have multiple options, you.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
Know that if I'm voting, the thing that would shock
me is a first degree murderer.
Speaker 3 (21:56):
That would shock me.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
So you think either second degree murder or not guilty,
you think you don't think they're going to come back
with the first degree murder Charch.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
Now that's the only one that would absolutely shock me.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
I actually agree with you, babe. I would be shocked
if they get their first degree murder charge after everything
we saw and the quality of his defense team.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
Well, folks, this has been fascinating, but as we sit here,
we are officially on verdict watch. I believe she's going
to let them go home tonight and they'll have the weekend. So, man,
can you imagine going home and sitting on this over
the weekend.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
Come back on Monday, and you know, we'll see how
quickly they can because they will have deliberated essentially for
at least three hours, three or four hours today, so
maybe they will have made some headway.
Speaker 3 (22:45):
Maybe we'll have some questions.
Speaker 2 (22:46):
On Monday, we can kind of get a sense of
where they are in their deliberation process, but we will
stay on top of it. Everyone, So thank you for
listening to us. We always appreciate that. I'm Amy Roboch
alongside TJ.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
Holmes. We'll talk to you soon. The catch and Taken
Hey, there are folks. It is Friday, December twelfth and
we are officially on verdict watch in the Brian Walsh trial.
We talked to you earlier about the defense it's closing argument.
We want to talk to you now about the prosecutions
closing argument. With that, Welcome to this episode of Amy
and TJ. We talked so much robed about how Larry Tipton,
the defense lawyer, was very performative and some of his
(00:25):
antics and he made you sit up and watch. It
seemed like the prosecution was trying to pick up some
of those tricks to a certain degree.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Yes, we saw the lead prosecutor, the female prosecutor, be
more dramatic. She was not monotone, that's for sure. But unfortunately,
and I say unfortunately, because she went too far in
the other direction. She went from whispering at times to
feeling sarcastic in others to yelling and I'm not exaggerating
almost I jumped up and I said, why is she
(00:56):
yelling at the jury. So it was an attempt to
be more performative, to be more theatrical, which I think
was needed. She just it didn't feel like it's in
her wheelhouse.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
It didn't feel natural, it didn't feel normal. It felt
like it really like she was feigning every emotion she
was trying to deliver. I don't know this woman. I
hate to be don't want to criticize the job they
have done, but we are sitting there as casual observers,
and this is how things are coming across to us. Yes,
she was more animated. Yes, it did seem intentional. It
(01:29):
seemed like almost on her page where she was reading something,
it was said in parentheses, yell this line, yeahs for
this line.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
I feel like she practiced this at home. And look,
you know what, it may not matter what she said
and how she said it might not matter as much
as what she said to the jury and what they're
going to believe in what they're not going to believe.
But it is interesting observing it how important it is,
or it seemed to us, how you say something, yes,
(02:00):
and when you say something and it matters. The information
is important, of course, actually it should be the only
thing that really matters. But we're all human beings and
how we receive it and how we see it delivered
to us absolutely impacts the weight we give the information.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
We're receiving that is that.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Is the best way to put it, and the way
I'm receiving her message. It didn't. Again, we've been keeping
ourselves in that lane and being the jurors. But yeah,
she only went. She didn't go as long as Tipton,
I don't think.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
No, only thirty four thirty five minutes.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Okay, So now let's get into the meat and potatoes
of what she had to say and rope she started out,
and it We've been waiting to hear them say how
she met this violent end, and I thought maybe we
were getting close to that, but she wrapped up and
sent that jury into that jury room to deliberate, and
(02:56):
none of us still have any idea what their theory
is about how she died.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
No her, they just stuck with the violent end and
common sense. Those were the two big themes that they
were pointing out, that yes, she was murdered, she met violence,
that Brian Walsh was cool and calculated, because she could
point to that in the surveillance video, and certainly she
kept bringing in some of.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
His interrogation by police where he just.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Seems so casual and so cool and nonchalant.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
So she was doing that. But again, there was no
and actually we were surprised.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
She pointed out, Basically, we don't have the body, and
so we can't tell you how she died without an autopsy.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
We don't know.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
I stopped. I don't know if I heard the next
two or three sentences because I was stuck on that sentence.
She said, the medical examiner, it's impossible for the medical
examiner to determine how she died.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
Probably don't want to reiterate that to the jury.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Wait what yeah, hey, wait what you're telling me that
it's impossible. So you're telling me you don't know, right,
is how I took that line. Now, she tried to
land it by saying, the reason we don't know it's
because he was calculated making sure we couldn't find the body.
That's what she was trying today.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
I feel like though she could have taken it so
much further and said, you know, we don't know if
he strangled her, if he stabbed her with that knife,
if he you know, if he suffocated her with the pillow.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
We don't know.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
But what we do know is he made damn sure
we weren't going to find out because he got rid
of that body like I.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Was thinking in my mind.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Granted I don't know what she could have said that
could have painted that picture using the evidence she had,
that he did make sure that no one got their
hands on her body. He did make sure there was
no evidence left behind. That's because he murdered her.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
Maybe the jurors aren't like us, right, we've been in television.
Speaker 4 (04:55):
Maybe maybe we want that and they don't need it. Yeah,
that's true, and you shouldn't need it. But this isn't us.
This is Every lawyer out there will tell you this
stuff matters. They will tell you how you deliver, who
the messenger is, they will tell you it all matters
and robes the closing. For me, I wrote it down.
(05:18):
You and I wrote the same thing down.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
The themes common sense and context. She sent them in
there saying, use your common sense. She didn't send them
in necessarily. Look at this evidence, look at this, remember this.
Remember that she said common sense, common sense, common sense,
and kept relying on this idea that yes, this happened,
and this happened. Yeah, it doesn't prove anything, but you
(05:41):
have to remember context. Wink wink not. It was almost
like she was saying, come on, y'all y'all know this
dude killed his wife. That is how the entire closing
sounded to me. It was really a real big come on, y'all,
come on, come on, we know he did it.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
I actually thought it was interesting because yes, that was
the gist of it, like that is a very good
way to sum it up. And I do think it
was the first time she even gave the jury. She
connected some dots that she did not connect while the
testimony was happening, which we were complaining about. But she
finally then in her closing arguments, pointed out that she
(06:25):
felt like Brian misplacing his phone was calculated and he
misplaced his phone early in the night on New Year's Eve,
but she said that was all a ploy so that
he could explain why he didn't know or he hadn't
been in contact with his wife for so long because
he had misplaced his phone, and also then he could
go do some of the stuff he needed to do
without his phone tracking him. So now she points that out.
(06:47):
Then she points out just even like he was putting
on a show basically for the friend who was over
a gem because he knew what he was going to do,
the fact that he.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Because that Frank, I don't understand, was convincing.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
It was a happy, joyful occasion. So that is what
she claims. The prosecution claims Brian wanted to happen. They
also claimed these searches for the Porsche and the diamonds
and all of that was just all to throw Anna
off his tracks. That really he had also searched divorce,
best ways to divorce if you're a man, So he
was figuring out what his options were and at some point,
(07:20):
according to the prosecution, he landed on murder. He had
to kill her, and so all of this, they say,
was because he was angry about her missing Thanksgiving. They
claimed that he apps, well Thanksgiving, she was going to
her mother's at Serbia, but they claim he knew because
they shared the same bank account, that she actually went
to Dublin with her boyfriend.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
She missed both of those.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
Yes, she missed Thanksgiving.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
And was the mom. She just said the mom was sick.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
I believe she did ultimately go, but I actually cannot
tell you, babe.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
I don't know, but I know that.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
So they were claiming, hey, look, he knew about something
else on the bank account. He knew she came back
through Frankfurt. So come on, of course she he knew
that she was in Dublin overnight on Thanksgiving.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
So listen to what you just said. Of course, come on,
come on, that is what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
So she's connecting these dots and saying and all of
it is very plausible, and I would say likely even,
but they didn't prove it. They're actually just saying, of
course he knew, of course he he And so he
was angry since then, and then she misses Christmas, even
Christmas Day. Now he's livid. So now he's sitting there
plotting how he's going to get rid of her on
New Year's Eve. And he's got a whole plan in place.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
You know, I they laid out I think Rose forgive
me if I missed it during the testimony, but they
laid out this, this reasoning, this logic for why he
killed her that seemed to go. It seemed to be
a little different from the other motive, meaning he had
to take care of the kids. He had to, like
as a condition of him not going to jail. He
(08:49):
needed the kids. And if his wife is now possibly
going to leave him for another man and the kids
go away, then he has no money, and he has
no woman. They built a case for a motive that
I didn't necessarily hear built throughout.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Desperation, is what it sounded like.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Here's a man who's about to go to prison for
a year or two, whose children are now going to
be living with his wife, who's now going to move
full time into this town home who she bought from
her now boyfriend, And in his mind he could be thinking,
and the boyfriend's just going to move in, I'm going
to be replaced while I'm in prison, and I'm going
to come back to no money and no family. That
(09:27):
is what they were suggesting at the end in closing.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
I didn't hear necessarily that pieced together during this.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
I did not hear that through the line at all
during And that was what we have been complaining about,
because when they had moments with witnesses where they could
have woven the story, and it did require the prosecutor
to provide the context to weave the story, to get
the witnesses to fill in the blanks for the story
they were creating. It's almost as if they came up
(09:54):
with that to wrap it all up. In addition to
he was jealous and he needed the money, but it
was more about desperation and no options. If he were
to divorce her, he would lose, and so he needed
to find a way when he came back from serving
his time where he would have all the money because
everything was in her name because of his financial issues
(10:17):
in his federal case against him, he put all of
their assets in her name. So now he's like, I
just screwed myself. But I don't feel like they did
that good of a job during the trial explaining that
through testimony.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
Where did she nail it? I'm looking at some of
my notes here, Where did you you really think she
did make some good points that the jury may remember
when they go in there. I'm looking at my notes here,
and I don't she had this line. I mean, it
was that impactful. He cut up Anna's body and threw
(10:49):
her in the dumpster. Now, the way I just said it,
she was screaming that line. She was screaming that line,
and that were pauses in between, is that it was
a moment I remember for being a little awkward, not impactful.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
What she was saying was impactful. How she was saying
it was detracting from what she was saying. It was
a sentence actually funny enough that didn't need any louder.
And actually that might have been one where I would
have gone slower and softer for people to really let
that sink in. When she shouted it, it felt aggressive
(11:23):
and like it was too much.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
It didn't work.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
Well, you're a performer, you are, no, I'm serious. What
I'm saying is these things you're talking about, how that
think when something is when the words themselves here, you
go rope. This is a very good example. You've been
talking about it, all those searches and writing that he had.
When something is that impactful, you don't have to shout right,
(11:48):
you just repeat it, folks. He cut up the woman
he loves, he said he loves, and he put pieces
of her in different dumpsters, like saying that, and she
shouted it in a different type of way. And again,
we were sitting here and we're being acting coaches or
something and being critical of performance. But this is how
(12:09):
we received the closing arguments in a trial we have
watched every second.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
Do you know what's interesting?
Speaker 2 (12:13):
She could have even played off of Larry Tipton, the
defense attorney, saying that the only evidence shows that there
was love. I would have taken that and said, if
that's love is chopping up you know, I would have
taken his last line about that and just twisted it.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
You know, we know some attorneys that that would have
been the first line in their closing. They would have
played off that Larry Tipton said, the only thing there is,
the only thing there's evidence of is love. That's the
next thing.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
He right, he just gave you gold to work off
of when you have those searches. I would have said,
is this love and then how to cut like, you know,
up my wife's body whatever, you know.
Speaker 3 (12:59):
All all of those searches.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
Just wow, just go. I mean that's a very good point.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
And we yes, yeah, I missed out fortinday.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
In fact, I just thought about that as you were
saying what you were, when you were describing how she
was saying things. I started thinking about what Tipton said,
and I thought, wait, she totally could have viscerated that
line with the evidence that she does have, because there
is evidence. Yes, they are lacking very important evidence akaa body,
but there is so much evidence pointing to his guilt,
(13:31):
maybe even his guilty conscience. You could have taken that
murder work, because so much was made of why did
he use the word murder in his searches? Six hours afterwards?
She could have pushed this guilty conscience idea. She could
have pushed so many other explanations other than the one
the defense gave.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
Okay, you're going to have to help me here, bab
you just made me remember it. She made a very
good point about a search, and I hadn't heard anybody
say it before, and I said, oh, yeah, that's true.
It was. She made a very good point. I've said
that is a winning like. She made me sit up
(14:07):
and think about a search he had, and she said, well,
why would he say? Ah, this is what it was.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
I wish I could help you. I don't know which
one you're talking.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
This was it, she said. If he's desperate and his
wife just died, the first thing you're looking for is
not to chop up a body. The first thing you're
thinking is sudden death. What possibly happened brain aneurysm. That
would have been your.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
Deep van thrombosis whatever it is.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
Thing but she made when she said that, I.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
Said, Babe, that you're right.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
When she said that, I remember thinking, now you just
spoke to me, and when she talks about common sense,
that's exactly that moment when you say, right, if I
walked in on the person I loved dead, and I'm
even if I'm thinking, oh no, they're going to think
that I had something to do with it for whatever
reason in my past, I would be immediately considered guilty.
(15:09):
I'd still the first thing would be mouth to mouth.
You'd want to see if you could resuscitate.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
Somebody, how to check a pulse.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
You'd want to yes, And if I'm going to start
searching stuff, I'm going to start trying to figure out
what happened?
Speaker 3 (15:20):
How can I help?
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Is there any remedy for what does alcohol poisoning look like?
Whatever I think could have happened. But honestly, more importantly, babe,
you just would call nine one one because you'd want
that person to have a shot. Maybe they could be resuscitated,
maybe something could be given to them that could alter
the the current state of their bow.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
That was the one. I mean, let me give the
prosecution credit on that one. Yep, you're right, they made
that point and that was common now that's used in
common sense absolutely like wait, and he had a lot
of hours to do anything related to resuscitating or first
aid and whatever. Maybe, but folks, stay here, we'll tell
you now how could change a verdict because the jury
(16:04):
doesn't have just one option for finding him guilty. And
Roosees and I, who have watched every moment of this trial,
will give you our predictions for what this jury is
going to do.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Stay here, Welcome back everyone, as we await the jury's
verdict in the Brian Walsh trial. The jury was handed
the opportunity to start deliberating earlier this afternoon, after we
(16:36):
heard from both the prosecution and the defense give their
closing arguments. The judge gave instructions. But the big difference
from the charges Brian wash is facing versus what the
jury can consider to convict him of has changed. At first,
we just we were told, hey, he is being charged
with first degree murder premeditated murder, and he had already
(16:58):
pled guilty to the lesser charge that involve dismembering his
wife's body and misleading investigators, so we knew he was
already guilty on those and the only other charge that
they were considering or pursuing was that first degree murder charge. Well,
they decided to give the jury more than just two options,
not guilty or guilty as charged. So now they can
(17:21):
come back with a not guilty verdict. They can come
back as guilty as charged murder in the first degree,
or the jury can come back with guilty of murder
in the second degree.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
MM, which, Kay, I don't know. If you have it
in front of you, we can look it up right quickly.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
I was just going to do that.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
What was sentence that possibly carries and the distinction as well?
There are distinctions of course, Uh was stavery target of
one one I put? In Massachusetts yep, first and second
degree murder. There is a difference, certainly time difference, and
the premeditation wouldn't necessarily be there, so correct.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
So in Massachusetts, second degree murder is an unlawful killing
committed with malice afterthought, so the intent to kill or
cost various harm or extreme atrocity or cruelty, but without
the deliberate premeditation required for first degree murder. A sentence
conviction carries a life sentence with parole eligibility often after
(18:14):
fifteen years.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
Court sets the exact minimum.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Yes, that'd be a big difference to get second degree
versus first degree murder.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
They have options. Now, what do you think you want
to tell us? Yes, you know, what do you think?
Speaker 2 (18:30):
I believe after everything I've seen and heard, I believe
the jury is going to come back with a second
degree murder conviction. Why Because I think that using common
sense and seeing the evidence from the searches, the use
(18:51):
of the word murder, his inability to be trusted in
terms of what he says, and the unbelievable, tiny, small
minute chance that she died of something other than murder
that would all weigh to me.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
There.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
I feel like he absolutely caused her death. I don't
know how he did it, and I don't know that
he premeditated it. I don't believe necessarily. I think it's
very possible and maybe even probable that he did. I
do think he saw text messages, he did google William
Fasteau's name. I do think that he knew so, but
(19:31):
I don't think that the state proved premeditation.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
There you go. So I have opinions, But as a juror,
am I supposed to I'm supposed to go with what
you showed. I am convinced of something because of what
you proved to me, and I'm just not there on it.
So I, while I was talking to you earlier, if
the first degree murder, I said, this is gonna be
a hunger. I'm gonna miss her do this all over again. Right,
(19:55):
But they gave them an option. They gave them. Anybody
who's having some doubts, with some questions like you and
I and listening to the prosecution now has an option
of going, Okay, my common sense tells me this dude
probably did this, but they didn't prove it. But now
this gives me an option to go, eh, a little
win for you, a little win for you. Maybe he
(20:16):
still gets punished because it seems like you do want
to punish him, right, don't you feel that, like just
there's about him? No, you don't see anything about him
that makes you root for this guy in the trial.
There's not just right, he's accused of something contructious. But yeah,
I think they've given them an option now that.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
They could say, okay, so what do you think the
jury is going to come back second?
Speaker 1 (20:39):
Agree?
Speaker 2 (20:39):
And you know what, that's a win for Brian Walsh
because they were not the prosecution was not willing to
offer him any lesser charge. And he tried because he
pleaded guilty to the dismemberment charges and the misleading police charges,
and the hope was that he could get a lesser
charge for murder. The prosecution was like, absolutely so they
(21:00):
had to take their chances at trial and this for him,
other than obviously not guilty, would be the best case scenario.
But if he gets a second degree murder conviction, that's
a win for him and a win for his attorney.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
And like we say, we only need one on that jury, right,
that could be one that's so overwhelmingly convinced that there
is no way, given what the prosecution gave me, that
you just need one.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
And what's so hard to know is how long you know, yes,
you just need one. So how long is it going
to take?
Speaker 1 (21:32):
You know?
Speaker 2 (21:32):
Are they all on the same page now that they
have this other lesser charge as an option, or are
there going to be die hard folks there who think.
Speaker 3 (21:40):
He premeditated this, he did this? I want first degree?
Speaker 2 (21:43):
Will that complicate the negotiations that go on in a
jurors room now that you have multiple options, you.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
Know that if I'm voting, the thing that would shock
me is a first degree murderer.
Speaker 3 (21:56):
That would shock me.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
So you think either second degree murder or not guilty,
you think you don't think they're going to come back
with the first degree murder Charch.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
Now that's the only one that would absolutely shock me.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
I actually agree with you, babe. I would be shocked
if they get their first degree murder charge after everything
we saw and the quality of his defense team.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
Well, folks, this has been fascinating, but as we sit here,
we are officially on verdict watch. I believe she's going
to let them go home tonight and they'll have the weekend. So, man,
can you imagine going home and sitting on this over
the weekend.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
Come back on Monday, and you know, we'll see how
quickly they can because they will have deliberated essentially for
at least three hours, three or four hours today, so
maybe they will have made some headway.
Speaker 3 (22:45):
Maybe we'll have some questions.
Speaker 2 (22:46):
On Monday, we can kind of get a sense of
where they are in their deliberation process, but we will
stay on top of it. Everyone, So thank you for
listening to us. We always appreciate that. I'm Amy Roboch
alongside TJ.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
Holmes. We'll talk to you soon. The catch and Taken
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!