December 8, 2025 • 27 mins
Criminal defense attorney Alison Triessl is back with Amy and T.J. as we head into week 2 of the Brian Walshe trial, and Triessl can’t believe what she’s seen so far from the prosecution. From missed opportunities on redirect, to rushing through testimony, Triessl explains how Walshe’s defense attorneys are benefiting from the prosecution’s lackluster performance so far in the trial.
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):
Welcome everyone to this edition of Amy and TJ Presents.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
We have been covering the Brian Walsh trial.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
It has been even more fascinating, perhaps than we had anticipated,
but we have alongside us, back by popular demand, a
legal expert and renowned criminal defense attorney, Alison Triesil. And Alison,
you've been watching alongside of us, and this first week
of testimony wrapped up with a bang. We're already back
(00:31):
at it on week two here on Monday morning. But
what was your big takeaway last week?
Speaker 3 (00:37):
There's probably three big takeaways. I wanted to know what
the what the former lover had to say. I wanted
to know what the medical examiner was going to say,
and how the defense was going to cross examine the
medical examiner. And of course I had to wrap my
head around this defense and was the prosecution going to
(01:01):
spend all weekend preparing for how we're going to answer?
There's no body, there's no manner or cause of death.
How are we going to deal with this? And unfortunately
for the prosecution, in my mind, unless I see more
and a lot more, I think they missed a lot
of key points. I think that they could have done
(01:23):
a lot more with the medical examiner that they had
on the stand. I think they could have done more
with mister Fusto and asking him questions. So this is
a case where you have these searches that make the
prosecution's case nearly a slam dunk, and all of a sudden,
(01:45):
we're at a place where I'm scratching my head and
I'm saying, eh, wait a minute, wait a minute, the
defense has something here. Nobody, no intent, no causation, no
manner of death. This is a problem for the prosecution.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
I got Allison, We're smart, we feel so validated right now.
We're not legal experts, but we watched all last week
and we got to even day two, day three, and
we couldn't believe what we were saying, Like, wait a minute,
maybe that didn't happen. I could not believe. And it
sounds like this is what you are saying. The defense
had a good first week.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
The worst potential case. I mean, you know we're starting
from a place of less than zero. Okay, I mean really,
you know I've done this for many years and this
is not the kind of case you want to take
to trial. You go to trial because you have no
other option, because no offer is on the table. And
by the way, I'm also questioning why the prosecution allowed
(02:47):
him to plea to the other charges before the case
got to trial, because now they may be handcuffed where
they can't even talk about the fact that he pled
to it. So I'm saying, you know, was the fact
that they could prove consciousness of guilt. That's not enough
for me. So I'm again I'm saying, this is a
(03:07):
very bad case for the defense. Those searches may rule
the day, but we are talking about the defense. And basically,
from what I saw from the corner and the medical examiner,
the defense attorney owned him. That was as if he
was his witness.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
I agree.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
And the thing that has stood out to both TJ
and me is this notion of first degree murder. They
have to show premeditation if they don't have the motive
that they think they have.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
If the defense can prove or at least create.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Doubt that Brian Walsh may not have known his wife
was having an affair, how do you then prove premeditation.
There was a moment where you and I both looked
at each other when the defense attorney, Larry Tifton right
he was able.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
To to have the forensics.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
The digital forensics guy read off all of these other
back and forth between his wife and him, showing love,
showing pictures, back and forth before January one. None of
his searches were about murder. None of his searches were
about planning something. They were quite the opposite. What do
(04:25):
you make of that?
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Well, I want to say something about premeditation. First of all,
it doesn't have to be formed days, weeks, hours beforehand.
It can be formed pretty quickly. Okay, pre meditation can
be formed fairly quickly, So I would focus if I'm
the prosecution. And this is where I think they missed
a lot of key moments. Is you know, they had
(04:48):
mister Fausto on the stand and the most interesting part
of his testimony to me was this phone call that
Brian Walsh made to him and left him this message. Okay, now,
if he if Falsto is only the real estate broker
(05:08):
who they had spoken to months before and nothing more,
why is Brian Walsh calling him on January fourth and
saying where is my wife? And he does it in
a way that's very nice, And you know, I don't
think there's a problem. I'm not concerned when we know,
of course now that he actually had dismembered her by
(05:30):
that part, by that point, and had you know, taken
a hacksaw to her, and he's you know, he's lying
to this man. But why him? Why is he calling him?
If he didn't know something about them? I would have
spent a lot of time as the prosecution and of
course the defense was going to gloss over that. But
I it seems to me that the that the prosecution
(05:53):
is for some reason rushing through these witnesses they're ahead
of schedule. Well, that doesn't need that doesn't help them
slowly methodically. That's the kind of question that you spend
a lot of time on. Why is this man calling
a guy that the only relationship he knows is that
they were in a real estate deal many many months ago.
(06:16):
That is as strange, and that would show that Brian
Walsh knew exactly who he was, knew exactly who he was,
and so premeditation could have been formed if he looked
at the phone and he saw that him wishing her
a very happy New Year and then said what is this?
What's going on? I would have also spent time talking
(06:37):
about the clothes that she's wearing and meaning what was
found in the dumpsters? Is it what the person who
they celebrated New Year's Eve with? Is that what she
was wearing because his hit The opening from the defense
seemed to be that she died while she was in bed. Well,
why is she wearing her shoes? Why is she wearing
(06:57):
her jacket? Those kinds of things. Don't leave those for
the jury to speculate on. Hammer them home, spend time
on them, slow down, missed, missed opportunity.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
Okay, you just brought up two points that I'm pretty
sure I did not hear them spend any time. You
said that you were to spend more. I didn't hear
them spend much time at all on either of those things.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
Is motive?
Speaker 4 (07:20):
Am I justified on that jury right now? As taking
the motive being the affair off the table? Do I
have reasonable doubt at this point that Brian Walsh did
not know about the affair?
Speaker 3 (07:35):
I don't know if it raised I don't know if
it raises to the level of reasonable doubt. I think
we have to see what comes. But certainly, certainly there
Fausto did. Falsto made very clear that while he was
very open about the affair. She was not okay that
She basically said to him, I wanted to I want
(07:57):
it to come from me. But what the prosecution didn't
pull out of him is you have no idea what
conversations these two had. You have no idea what happened
that night you were not there. You have no idea
how many messages have you sent to her that he
could have easily seen. So those kinds of questions were
(08:20):
really missed opportunities because we're left, okay, the jury is
left with he didn't know about it. He didn't know
about this affair.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
It's so interesting you say that because when the defense attorney,
when lippt In was cross examining fast Out, and said
to him, did you ever have any indication.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
That Brian Walsh knew about your affair?
Speaker 1 (08:44):
And he said no, Did Anna ever tell you she
thought her husband was suspicious?
Speaker 2 (08:48):
No.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
By that alone, you would have thought the prosecution would
have come back for redirect and did exactly what you
just laid out.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Why wouldn't they, because that, to me, was a moment
for the defense, a clear vic for the defense.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
Absolutely. Now, by the way, what's interesting is when I
was thinking about ways to say maybe he found out
about it on you know, on New Year's and he'd
gone through the text as a defense attorney. My immediate
reaction to that would have been, well, if he found
out about it, she would have sent him a text
and said something to the effective he knows, he knows now.
(09:23):
But maybe there was a struggle. Maybe there was a
struggle there and you don't know. Look, you don't know
what happened. Which is part of the prosecution's problem is
that there is no body right so you and you know,
And I was thinking about ways over the weekend. How
could you know? What are the questions that you asked
the medical examiner? How you get out you know?
Speaker 1 (09:45):
It?
Speaker 3 (09:45):
Does it? Does blood after postmrtem post mortem? Can you
tell when you see when you see a blood colot?
Can you see if that is post mortem or not?
Those kinds of things that that I would be trying
to get at that somehow, of course, she was living
when this blood came out of her body onto the
(10:07):
rug or on the hack saw or something like that.
And that's what I would have been spending time with
on the weekend preparing because this defense may have come
as a shock to you don't have to disclose what
your defense is going to be. But we're now a
week into this, and the prosecutors have now known for
multiple days what the defense's theory of the cases, what
(10:31):
they're arguing, how they're getting there, and the prosecution has
got to be way ahead of this. So, for example,
I was thinking about the medical examiner and when I
said the defense had his way with him, is what
he did was he basically said, well, you know, these
sudden desks, they happen, and the witness basically, you know,
(10:52):
when he wouldn't even agree with him that it's uncommon.
It was a very strange moment that, you know, I mean,
and if i'm if I'm the prosecutor, I literally give statistics. Okay,
you personally has performed fifteen hundred autopsies. How many of
those that you personally performed were unexplained deaths? How many?
(11:15):
And I'd go on and on, And he's he is
supervised or been involved in thousands of autopsies. His education
and his credentialing is off the charts incredible. So this
is a man that the jury is going to believe,
and he's not somebody that was exaggerating or blowing things up.
So he was someone that was very, very credible, and
(11:37):
they should have used that as an opportunity to say
to him, healthy woman, did you go through her medical
records before? Did you interview people? And they touched on
it a little bit, but you interview people around her
and say did she ever complain of this? The only
place he kind of got there was the ninety minute
(11:58):
plane flight in Washington from Washington, right, those kinds of things.
But I would have spent far more time talking about
how uncommon it is. I mean, think about how much
time the defense spent trying to enumerate every single type
of unexplained death. I would have spent double the amount
(12:19):
of time saying how uncommon it is. And I just
don't know why they're rushing.
Speaker 4 (12:33):
Do you think this is going to happen? Should the
judge let the jury hear about the police on the
other two convictions? She seemed to be really going back
and forth about this and hasn't decided what she's.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
Supposed to do.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
Right, she's fascinating on it. And you know I had
said the last time that I was on is that
you know when the defense opens the door for it,
Right when the defense opens the door for it. Then
the judge has to let it in. But I I
you know, the the jury shouldn't be left with a
question of, well, what what happened here? I mean, he's
(13:10):
saying that he disposed the body. I you know, it's
going to come down. Is he going to testify if
he comes, If he comes to testify, and that's going
to come in. You know, we talked about this the
first time. But first question, where's the body? Second question,
why did you plead to this? You know, why did
(13:31):
you play to this? So I think it comes in
if he testifies. She's struggling. She's struggling. But again, and
I don't you know, it's not that I'm I'm I'm
scratching my head as to the prosecution in this case.
I just I don't understand why he was allowed to plea.
(13:51):
Maybe they didn't think that this was going to be
the defense, and it did kind of come out of
left field, this defense of you know, unexplained death. It's
not like they're they're arguing a passion. And by the way,
that's another thing. Amy they've closed the door to a
second degree murder. This isn't all or nothing here. I
mean the defense has said, either you believe that there's
(14:15):
an or there you know that this is an unexplained death,
or that the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that Brian Walsh killed her in any degree.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
In any degree, why wouldn't the prosecution have put on
other charges second degree murder of vanslaughter.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Why wouldn't they have included because we've seen that before.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
And they may they may at the end as for
ask for a jury instruction as to other charges, they
may increase that. But but I think I'm more interested
in you know, maybe they felt because there wasn't a
body that they would secure these other convictions. Okay, that
they could then show that it was consciousness of guilt
by by hacking up her body and disposing of it
(14:59):
the way he did. But it would it have been
far better better to go through this trial with the
jury having to decide and hear all this testimony and say,
oh my god, he actually did chop her up, he
did all these horrible things. You know that that probably
wasn't something that they thought that that they were going
(15:20):
to argue, is that this was an unexplained death, so
may have been a missed opportunity. But here's the thing.
I there's just there's just questions that should have been
asked by the prosecution, And I'm looking at my notes
and I'm jumping around a little bit. But with mister Falstow,
I I they talked about it a little bit, the
(15:43):
prosecution a little bit. But on the questions of what
Anna felt about him moving there, what Anna felt about
his case, Okay, I would have asked questions like, well,
wasn't I'm not furious that her husband was going potentially
(16:04):
was going to prison. Wasn't she furious about the financial
stress he had put on their family? Wasn't she furious
that as a result of what he had done, she
was separated from her children because he couldn't move to Washington, DC.
Those string of questions are proving motive are proving motive,
(16:26):
are proving that this is all boiling over, that this
is not by the way, this marriage isn't that great.
If she's having an affair, it's not that great? All right?
What TJ No?
Speaker 4 (16:42):
Because I had another question in mind for where I
was about to go, and then you actually came back
and brought me back to something else. Because motive has
been the big thing, and there was something that happened
last week, and I really I wanted to text you
and ask you about it. D murder, the word murder
not being in any of his searches until six plus
(17:05):
hours after he started searching. Is that relevant?
Speaker 3 (17:10):
Okay? So I listened to your podcast after I was on,
and Amy said, you know, maybe he is feeling guilty
over it, and which very by the way, is very possible.
I mean, it's very possible that he is, you know,
you know, after he recognizes what he has done, he
then says, you know, he starts to ask about murder.
(17:32):
But I just find I find that I don't care
how long of time elapsed. To me, the fact that
he used that he typed in the word murder, he
had to type it in. That is significant. That is significant.
You know, accident would have been great, but that's not
what he typed in. Typed in murder.
Speaker 4 (17:54):
Okay, I get it. It doesn't matter what time. Okay, I
get I get you know, to be honest, you put
us after that first UH interview or podcasts we did
with you, in a mindset to where I'm looking at
the defense and trying to figure out how I'm more
fascinated by what they're doing. And you sound like there's
so much you're looking at critically on the prosecution side.
(18:14):
But I'm just so fascinated by what Tipton, what's he
up against. I'm fascinated by any little little victory they get.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
Well and I and the reason that I spotlighted that.
And then look, you know, when I cover these cases,
I really cover them from both sides. I look at
the defense, I look at the prosecution. You know, what
does the prosecution have here? You have some you I mean,
those searches and the fact that he hacked up his
his his wife's body, and someone's got to explain, you know,
(18:49):
just leaving it alone. He may have to get on
the stand. You know, So how is it?
Speaker 2 (18:54):
How chance?
Speaker 3 (18:56):
I don't know. I don't know. I don't I want
to hear what and I said this from the beginning.
I want to hear what they're expert. I want to
hear what the defense is expert has to say. Okay,
and by the way, maybe they're going to use the
prosecution's expert because because he did such a good job
for the defense. So but but the thing with looking
(19:21):
at these cases critically is because the burden of proof
is so high. It's not a civil case, in a
criminal case. It's beyond a reasonable doubt. And I want
to share this with with your listeners because I think
it's always important to explain what that means. It's not
(19:41):
an imaginary doubt. It has to be a real doubt.
But I've used this in clothing in a closing argument. So, TJ,
we're going to use sports tickets for you, and we're
going to use a curling iron for you. Okay, So TJ,
You're about to go to a Knicks game, and you've
(20:07):
packed your tickets, You've got yourself ready, you put them
in your jacket. You but you go and you feel
for the tickets because maybe you didn't bring them. Amy
you curl your hair, you remember pulling it out of
the wall, that you turn that curling iron off. But
and you get in the car. But then you get
out of the car because well, did I did I
(20:30):
did I turn that curling iron off? That's reasonable doubt,
not imaginary, not speculative. That's reasonable doubt. And so the
question here is you just need one person and I
said that before you need one to say God it
looks bad for him. It looks really those searches are bad,
(20:53):
the hack saws bad, the affair is bad. But did
he know about the fair I don't know. And there
is no body. There is no body. And the thing
that the prosecution is left with and there's no way
they can do anything about it, is that without a body,
they cannot determine manner or cause of death. And that
(21:17):
may be the biggest sticking point for this jury.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
Wow, and I was, I was so fascinated today with
the medical examiner, even you.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
DJ and I both looked at each other when the
defense started to talk about.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Sexual asphyxiation like you know, some sort of like you know,
sexual game gone bad, so an accidental death dot dot dot.
We thought, no, it would not actually turn into that direction.
But do you think the defense will get that specific
with their expert. Well, they actually get specific. Brian obviously
(21:51):
is the only person who knows how she get.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
They shouldn't. They shouldn't. They should leave it very vague,
very open, absolutely not that this happens. They don't. I mean,
the the on their their actual medical examiner doesn't know
how this woman died. How do they expect you? Mister
and missus jury to know.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
So only Brian could get on the stand and say
that why would why wouldy?
Speaker 3 (22:21):
Why would he?
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Why witty?
Speaker 4 (22:23):
This is my last quick thing? Uh, Christmas? Is the
holiday schedule going to play a role? I know we're
a little ways out and they expect to be done,
but do you think it's going to play a role
in the strung?
Speaker 1 (22:34):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (22:34):
I mean, you know, one thing, one thing that the
judge doesn't want to do is have this role into
people's Christmas holidays and vacations and because then you have
an angry jury, especially if they have a pre planned vacation,
especially if they have their kids, you know, school recitals
and so. But but that's not that's not an excuse
(22:59):
for the prosecution and to steamroll through their case. You know,
I mean I would be looking at this like I'm
going to take my time, I'm going to argue, you know,
I'm going to I'm going to just hammer home some
of these points for as long as it takes, and
you know, let the judge be the bad guy here.
I just would I yes, they may adjourn and then
(23:23):
come back if the case takes longer than that. But
I but when I'm hearing, Oh, the prosecution's going faster
than expected. I'm thinking that's not good. Why would you
do that?
Speaker 2 (23:34):
Wow?
Speaker 1 (23:35):
So what do you want to see if you're looking
or somebody who was saying, I'm not saying that you're
personally rooting for their prosecution, but if you'd like to
see them actually be successful given the week they just had,
what do they need to do this week to get
the jury on board with their version of events?
Speaker 3 (23:55):
Ask questions that start are in the middle, and end
with us your common sense. Okay, So I would be
you would be formulating questions where the jury says, well
that that makes sense to me. I mean, a very
healthy woman just dropping dead and nobody and there were
no signs of anything that doesn't make sense to me.
(24:18):
That is not common. I'd like to hear statistics. I'd
like to know what kind of medical shape she was
in beforehand, had she complained to anybody, had she seen
a doctor related to any symptom, things like that. I mean,
I look, I these are cases where, like I said,
(24:41):
the defense has an uphill battle, but as the prosecutor,
I'm certainly not making it easier for them. I mean,
I wouldn't be making it easier. I wouldn't lose out
on key moments. I mean, this foulsto the idea that
Brian Walsh called him on January fourth, You know, I
would hammer that, where did he Why would he call him?
(25:04):
Why him? I mean, if you were to rely solely
on the testimony from William falstow All, the only exchange
he had with him was over the real estate. And
then there was one call that I also would have
sort of honed in on where he said, oh, our
son mistakenly called well that must have been from a
(25:27):
conversation that Anna had with Brian about mister Fusto. What
was that?
Speaker 2 (25:35):
Did he ask her? Did she maybe not want to
tell him?
Speaker 1 (25:39):
Maybe she you know, and you could presume that maybe
Anna would not want to worry or concern William because
she would want the relationship to continue.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
She didn't want him to get scared off.
Speaker 3 (25:49):
There was also there was also some interesting exchange about
a one year plan, a ten year plan, a twenty
year plan, and the prosecution just let that one go too.
I would have gone back to that and said, well,
let's talk about that. I mean, did you too, even
though you had young children, did you guys see each
other together in a fifteen year, twenty year plan. What
(26:10):
does that look like?
Speaker 1 (26:12):
You know?
Speaker 3 (26:13):
I mean, did you have did she have contingency plans
if her husband went to prison? Was she going to
stay with them? Those to me? TJ missed, missed.
Speaker 4 (26:26):
Well, it has been very interesting to watch, yes, of course,
but it's really you've pointed some things out today and
this is why we have you as the expert that
we didn't think about and if we start thinking about it,
maybe the jury isn't thinking about it and they need
a lawyer to point it out and the prosecution hasn't
been doing that. So thank you. It's good to see you.
We're going to see you next week as well.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
Yeah, next Monday.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
Awesome. Alison Trizl. We appreciate you.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
Thank you so much for helping us get the perspective
we need to fully watch this trial.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
But it has been non stop, just crazy.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
Moments in court, so thank you for continuing to watch
alongside us.
Speaker 2 (27:04):
Of course,
Welcome everyone to this edition of Amy and TJ Presents.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
We have been covering the Brian Walsh trial.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
It has been even more fascinating, perhaps than we had anticipated,
but we have alongside us, back by popular demand, a
legal expert and renowned criminal defense attorney, Alison Triesil. And Alison,
you've been watching alongside of us, and this first week
of testimony wrapped up with a bang. We're already back
(00:31):
at it on week two here on Monday morning. But
what was your big takeaway last week?
Speaker 3 (00:37):
There's probably three big takeaways. I wanted to know what
the what the former lover had to say. I wanted
to know what the medical examiner was going to say,
and how the defense was going to cross examine the
medical examiner. And of course I had to wrap my
head around this defense and was the prosecution going to
(01:01):
spend all weekend preparing for how we're going to answer?
There's no body, there's no manner or cause of death.
How are we going to deal with this? And unfortunately
for the prosecution, in my mind, unless I see more
and a lot more, I think they missed a lot
of key points. I think that they could have done
(01:23):
a lot more with the medical examiner that they had
on the stand. I think they could have done more
with mister Fusto and asking him questions. So this is
a case where you have these searches that make the
prosecution's case nearly a slam dunk, and all of a sudden,
(01:45):
we're at a place where I'm scratching my head and
I'm saying, eh, wait a minute, wait a minute, the
defense has something here. Nobody, no intent, no causation, no
manner of death. This is a problem for the prosecution.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
I got Allison, We're smart, we feel so validated right now.
We're not legal experts, but we watched all last week
and we got to even day two, day three, and
we couldn't believe what we were saying, Like, wait a minute,
maybe that didn't happen. I could not believe. And it
sounds like this is what you are saying. The defense
had a good first week.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
The worst potential case. I mean, you know we're starting
from a place of less than zero. Okay, I mean really,
you know I've done this for many years and this
is not the kind of case you want to take
to trial. You go to trial because you have no
other option, because no offer is on the table. And
by the way, I'm also questioning why the prosecution allowed
(02:47):
him to plea to the other charges before the case
got to trial, because now they may be handcuffed where
they can't even talk about the fact that he pled
to it. So I'm saying, you know, was the fact
that they could prove consciousness of guilt. That's not enough
for me. So I'm again I'm saying, this is a
(03:07):
very bad case for the defense. Those searches may rule
the day, but we are talking about the defense. And basically,
from what I saw from the corner and the medical examiner,
the defense attorney owned him. That was as if he
was his witness.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
I agree.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
And the thing that has stood out to both TJ
and me is this notion of first degree murder. They
have to show premeditation if they don't have the motive
that they think they have.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
If the defense can prove or at least create.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Doubt that Brian Walsh may not have known his wife
was having an affair, how do you then prove premeditation.
There was a moment where you and I both looked
at each other when the defense attorney, Larry Tifton right
he was able.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
To to have the forensics.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
The digital forensics guy read off all of these other
back and forth between his wife and him, showing love,
showing pictures, back and forth before January one. None of
his searches were about murder. None of his searches were
about planning something. They were quite the opposite. What do
(04:25):
you make of that?
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Well, I want to say something about premeditation. First of all,
it doesn't have to be formed days, weeks, hours beforehand.
It can be formed pretty quickly. Okay, pre meditation can
be formed fairly quickly, So I would focus if I'm
the prosecution. And this is where I think they missed
a lot of key moments. Is you know, they had
(04:48):
mister Fausto on the stand and the most interesting part
of his testimony to me was this phone call that
Brian Walsh made to him and left him this message. Okay, now,
if he if Falsto is only the real estate broker
(05:08):
who they had spoken to months before and nothing more,
why is Brian Walsh calling him on January fourth and
saying where is my wife? And he does it in
a way that's very nice, And you know, I don't
think there's a problem. I'm not concerned when we know,
of course now that he actually had dismembered her by
(05:30):
that part, by that point, and had you know, taken
a hacksaw to her, and he's you know, he's lying
to this man. But why him? Why is he calling him?
If he didn't know something about them? I would have
spent a lot of time as the prosecution and of
course the defense was going to gloss over that. But
I it seems to me that the that the prosecution
(05:53):
is for some reason rushing through these witnesses they're ahead
of schedule. Well, that doesn't need that doesn't help them
slowly methodically. That's the kind of question that you spend
a lot of time on. Why is this man calling
a guy that the only relationship he knows is that
they were in a real estate deal many many months ago.
(06:16):
That is as strange, and that would show that Brian
Walsh knew exactly who he was, knew exactly who he was,
and so premeditation could have been formed if he looked
at the phone and he saw that him wishing her
a very happy New Year and then said what is this?
What's going on? I would have also spent time talking
(06:37):
about the clothes that she's wearing and meaning what was
found in the dumpsters? Is it what the person who
they celebrated New Year's Eve with? Is that what she
was wearing because his hit The opening from the defense
seemed to be that she died while she was in bed. Well,
why is she wearing her shoes? Why is she wearing
(06:57):
her jacket? Those kinds of things. Don't leave those for
the jury to speculate on. Hammer them home, spend time
on them, slow down, missed, missed opportunity.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
Okay, you just brought up two points that I'm pretty
sure I did not hear them spend any time. You
said that you were to spend more. I didn't hear
them spend much time at all on either of those things.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
Is motive?
Speaker 4 (07:20):
Am I justified on that jury right now? As taking
the motive being the affair off the table? Do I
have reasonable doubt at this point that Brian Walsh did
not know about the affair?
Speaker 3 (07:35):
I don't know if it raised I don't know if
it raises to the level of reasonable doubt. I think
we have to see what comes. But certainly, certainly there
Fausto did. Falsto made very clear that while he was
very open about the affair. She was not okay that
She basically said to him, I wanted to I want
(07:57):
it to come from me. But what the prosecution didn't
pull out of him is you have no idea what
conversations these two had. You have no idea what happened
that night you were not there. You have no idea
how many messages have you sent to her that he
could have easily seen. So those kinds of questions were
(08:20):
really missed opportunities because we're left, okay, the jury is
left with he didn't know about it. He didn't know
about this affair.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
It's so interesting you say that because when the defense attorney,
when lippt In was cross examining fast Out, and said
to him, did you ever have any indication.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
That Brian Walsh knew about your affair?
Speaker 1 (08:44):
And he said no, Did Anna ever tell you she
thought her husband was suspicious?
Speaker 2 (08:48):
No.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
By that alone, you would have thought the prosecution would
have come back for redirect and did exactly what you
just laid out.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Why wouldn't they, because that, to me, was a moment
for the defense, a clear vic for the defense.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
Absolutely. Now, by the way, what's interesting is when I
was thinking about ways to say maybe he found out
about it on you know, on New Year's and he'd
gone through the text as a defense attorney. My immediate
reaction to that would have been, well, if he found
out about it, she would have sent him a text
and said something to the effective he knows, he knows now.
(09:23):
But maybe there was a struggle. Maybe there was a
struggle there and you don't know. Look, you don't know
what happened. Which is part of the prosecution's problem is
that there is no body right so you and you know,
And I was thinking about ways over the weekend. How
could you know? What are the questions that you asked
the medical examiner? How you get out you know?
Speaker 1 (09:45):
It?
Speaker 3 (09:45):
Does it? Does blood after postmrtem post mortem? Can you
tell when you see when you see a blood colot?
Can you see if that is post mortem or not?
Those kinds of things that that I would be trying
to get at that somehow, of course, she was living
when this blood came out of her body onto the
(10:07):
rug or on the hack saw or something like that.
And that's what I would have been spending time with
on the weekend preparing because this defense may have come
as a shock to you don't have to disclose what
your defense is going to be. But we're now a
week into this, and the prosecutors have now known for
multiple days what the defense's theory of the cases, what
(10:31):
they're arguing, how they're getting there, and the prosecution has
got to be way ahead of this. So, for example,
I was thinking about the medical examiner and when I
said the defense had his way with him, is what
he did was he basically said, well, you know, these
sudden desks, they happen, and the witness basically, you know,
(10:52):
when he wouldn't even agree with him that it's uncommon.
It was a very strange moment that, you know, I mean,
and if i'm if I'm the prosecutor, I literally give statistics. Okay,
you personally has performed fifteen hundred autopsies. How many of
those that you personally performed were unexplained deaths? How many?
(11:15):
And I'd go on and on, And he's he is
supervised or been involved in thousands of autopsies. His education
and his credentialing is off the charts incredible. So this
is a man that the jury is going to believe,
and he's not somebody that was exaggerating or blowing things up.
So he was someone that was very, very credible, and
(11:37):
they should have used that as an opportunity to say
to him, healthy woman, did you go through her medical
records before? Did you interview people? And they touched on
it a little bit, but you interview people around her
and say did she ever complain of this? The only
place he kind of got there was the ninety minute
(11:58):
plane flight in Washington from Washington, right, those kinds of things.
But I would have spent far more time talking about
how uncommon it is. I mean, think about how much
time the defense spent trying to enumerate every single type
of unexplained death. I would have spent double the amount
(12:19):
of time saying how uncommon it is. And I just
don't know why they're rushing.
Speaker 4 (12:33):
Do you think this is going to happen? Should the
judge let the jury hear about the police on the
other two convictions? She seemed to be really going back
and forth about this and hasn't decided what she's.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
Supposed to do.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
Right, she's fascinating on it. And you know I had
said the last time that I was on is that
you know when the defense opens the door for it,
Right when the defense opens the door for it. Then
the judge has to let it in. But I I
you know, the the jury shouldn't be left with a
question of, well, what what happened here? I mean, he's
(13:10):
saying that he disposed the body. I you know, it's
going to come down. Is he going to testify if
he comes, If he comes to testify, and that's going
to come in. You know, we talked about this the
first time. But first question, where's the body? Second question,
why did you plead to this? You know, why did
(13:31):
you play to this? So I think it comes in
if he testifies. She's struggling. She's struggling. But again, and
I don't you know, it's not that I'm I'm I'm
scratching my head as to the prosecution in this case.
I just I don't understand why he was allowed to plea.
(13:51):
Maybe they didn't think that this was going to be
the defense, and it did kind of come out of
left field, this defense of you know, unexplained death. It's
not like they're they're arguing a passion. And by the way,
that's another thing. Amy they've closed the door to a
second degree murder. This isn't all or nothing here. I
mean the defense has said, either you believe that there's
(14:15):
an or there you know that this is an unexplained death,
or that the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that Brian Walsh killed her in any degree.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
In any degree, why wouldn't the prosecution have put on
other charges second degree murder of vanslaughter.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Why wouldn't they have included because we've seen that before.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
And they may they may at the end as for
ask for a jury instruction as to other charges, they
may increase that. But but I think I'm more interested
in you know, maybe they felt because there wasn't a
body that they would secure these other convictions. Okay, that
they could then show that it was consciousness of guilt
by by hacking up her body and disposing of it
(14:59):
the way he did. But it would it have been
far better better to go through this trial with the
jury having to decide and hear all this testimony and say,
oh my god, he actually did chop her up, he
did all these horrible things. You know that that probably
wasn't something that they thought that that they were going
(15:20):
to argue, is that this was an unexplained death, so
may have been a missed opportunity. But here's the thing.
I there's just there's just questions that should have been
asked by the prosecution, And I'm looking at my notes
and I'm jumping around a little bit. But with mister Falstow,
I I they talked about it a little bit, the
(15:43):
prosecution a little bit. But on the questions of what
Anna felt about him moving there, what Anna felt about
his case, Okay, I would have asked questions like, well,
wasn't I'm not furious that her husband was going potentially
(16:04):
was going to prison. Wasn't she furious about the financial
stress he had put on their family? Wasn't she furious
that as a result of what he had done, she
was separated from her children because he couldn't move to Washington, DC.
Those string of questions are proving motive are proving motive,
(16:26):
are proving that this is all boiling over, that this
is not by the way, this marriage isn't that great.
If she's having an affair, it's not that great? All right?
What TJ No?
Speaker 4 (16:42):
Because I had another question in mind for where I
was about to go, and then you actually came back
and brought me back to something else. Because motive has
been the big thing, and there was something that happened
last week, and I really I wanted to text you
and ask you about it. D murder, the word murder
not being in any of his searches until six plus
(17:05):
hours after he started searching. Is that relevant?
Speaker 3 (17:10):
Okay? So I listened to your podcast after I was on,
and Amy said, you know, maybe he is feeling guilty
over it, and which very by the way, is very possible.
I mean, it's very possible that he is, you know,
you know, after he recognizes what he has done, he
then says, you know, he starts to ask about murder.
(17:32):
But I just find I find that I don't care
how long of time elapsed. To me, the fact that
he used that he typed in the word murder, he
had to type it in. That is significant. That is significant.
You know, accident would have been great, but that's not
what he typed in. Typed in murder.
Speaker 4 (17:54):
Okay, I get it. It doesn't matter what time. Okay, I
get I get you know, to be honest, you put
us after that first UH interview or podcasts we did
with you, in a mindset to where I'm looking at
the defense and trying to figure out how I'm more
fascinated by what they're doing. And you sound like there's
so much you're looking at critically on the prosecution side.
(18:14):
But I'm just so fascinated by what Tipton, what's he
up against. I'm fascinated by any little little victory they get.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
Well and I and the reason that I spotlighted that.
And then look, you know, when I cover these cases,
I really cover them from both sides. I look at
the defense, I look at the prosecution. You know, what
does the prosecution have here? You have some you I mean,
those searches and the fact that he hacked up his
his his wife's body, and someone's got to explain, you know,
(18:49):
just leaving it alone. He may have to get on
the stand. You know, So how is it?
Speaker 2 (18:54):
How chance?
Speaker 3 (18:56):
I don't know. I don't know. I don't I want
to hear what and I said this from the beginning.
I want to hear what they're expert. I want to
hear what the defense is expert has to say. Okay,
and by the way, maybe they're going to use the
prosecution's expert because because he did such a good job
for the defense. So but but the thing with looking
(19:21):
at these cases critically is because the burden of proof
is so high. It's not a civil case, in a
criminal case. It's beyond a reasonable doubt. And I want
to share this with with your listeners because I think
it's always important to explain what that means. It's not
(19:41):
an imaginary doubt. It has to be a real doubt.
But I've used this in clothing in a closing argument. So, TJ,
we're going to use sports tickets for you, and we're
going to use a curling iron for you. Okay, So TJ,
You're about to go to a Knicks game, and you've
(20:07):
packed your tickets, You've got yourself ready, you put them
in your jacket. You but you go and you feel
for the tickets because maybe you didn't bring them. Amy
you curl your hair, you remember pulling it out of
the wall, that you turn that curling iron off. But
and you get in the car. But then you get
out of the car because well, did I did I
(20:30):
did I turn that curling iron off? That's reasonable doubt,
not imaginary, not speculative. That's reasonable doubt. And so the
question here is you just need one person and I
said that before you need one to say God it
looks bad for him. It looks really those searches are bad,
(20:53):
the hack saws bad, the affair is bad. But did
he know about the fair I don't know. And there
is no body. There is no body. And the thing
that the prosecution is left with and there's no way
they can do anything about it, is that without a body,
they cannot determine manner or cause of death. And that
(21:17):
may be the biggest sticking point for this jury.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
Wow, and I was, I was so fascinated today with
the medical examiner, even you.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
DJ and I both looked at each other when the
defense started to talk about.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Sexual asphyxiation like you know, some sort of like you know,
sexual game gone bad, so an accidental death dot dot dot.
We thought, no, it would not actually turn into that direction.
But do you think the defense will get that specific
with their expert. Well, they actually get specific. Brian obviously
(21:51):
is the only person who knows how she get.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
They shouldn't. They shouldn't. They should leave it very vague,
very open, absolutely not that this happens. They don't. I mean,
the the on their their actual medical examiner doesn't know
how this woman died. How do they expect you? Mister
and missus jury to know.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
So only Brian could get on the stand and say
that why would why wouldy?
Speaker 3 (22:21):
Why would he?
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Why witty?
Speaker 4 (22:23):
This is my last quick thing? Uh, Christmas? Is the
holiday schedule going to play a role? I know we're
a little ways out and they expect to be done,
but do you think it's going to play a role
in the strung?
Speaker 1 (22:34):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (22:34):
I mean, you know, one thing, one thing that the
judge doesn't want to do is have this role into
people's Christmas holidays and vacations and because then you have
an angry jury, especially if they have a pre planned vacation,
especially if they have their kids, you know, school recitals
and so. But but that's not that's not an excuse
(22:59):
for the prosecution and to steamroll through their case. You know,
I mean I would be looking at this like I'm
going to take my time, I'm going to argue, you know,
I'm going to I'm going to just hammer home some
of these points for as long as it takes, and
you know, let the judge be the bad guy here.
I just would I yes, they may adjourn and then
(23:23):
come back if the case takes longer than that. But
I but when I'm hearing, Oh, the prosecution's going faster
than expected. I'm thinking that's not good. Why would you
do that?
Speaker 2 (23:34):
Wow?
Speaker 1 (23:35):
So what do you want to see if you're looking
or somebody who was saying, I'm not saying that you're
personally rooting for their prosecution, but if you'd like to
see them actually be successful given the week they just had,
what do they need to do this week to get
the jury on board with their version of events?
Speaker 3 (23:55):
Ask questions that start are in the middle, and end
with us your common sense. Okay, So I would be
you would be formulating questions where the jury says, well
that that makes sense to me. I mean, a very
healthy woman just dropping dead and nobody and there were
no signs of anything that doesn't make sense to me.
(24:18):
That is not common. I'd like to hear statistics. I'd
like to know what kind of medical shape she was
in beforehand, had she complained to anybody, had she seen
a doctor related to any symptom, things like that. I mean,
I look, I these are cases where, like I said,
(24:41):
the defense has an uphill battle, but as the prosecutor,
I'm certainly not making it easier for them. I mean,
I wouldn't be making it easier. I wouldn't lose out
on key moments. I mean, this foulsto the idea that
Brian Walsh called him on January fourth, You know, I
would hammer that, where did he Why would he call him?
(25:04):
Why him? I mean, if you were to rely solely
on the testimony from William falstow All, the only exchange
he had with him was over the real estate. And
then there was one call that I also would have
sort of honed in on where he said, oh, our
son mistakenly called well that must have been from a
(25:27):
conversation that Anna had with Brian about mister Fusto. What
was that?
Speaker 2 (25:35):
Did he ask her? Did she maybe not want to
tell him?
Speaker 1 (25:39):
Maybe she you know, and you could presume that maybe
Anna would not want to worry or concern William because
she would want the relationship to continue.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
She didn't want him to get scared off.
Speaker 3 (25:49):
There was also there was also some interesting exchange about
a one year plan, a ten year plan, a twenty
year plan, and the prosecution just let that one go too.
I would have gone back to that and said, well,
let's talk about that. I mean, did you too, even
though you had young children, did you guys see each
other together in a fifteen year, twenty year plan. What
(26:10):
does that look like?
Speaker 1 (26:12):
You know?
Speaker 3 (26:13):
I mean, did you have did she have contingency plans
if her husband went to prison? Was she going to
stay with them? Those to me? TJ missed, missed.
Speaker 4 (26:26):
Well, it has been very interesting to watch, yes, of course,
but it's really you've pointed some things out today and
this is why we have you as the expert that
we didn't think about and if we start thinking about it,
maybe the jury isn't thinking about it and they need
a lawyer to point it out and the prosecution hasn't
been doing that. So thank you. It's good to see you.
We're going to see you next week as well.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
Yeah, next Monday.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
Awesome. Alison Trizl. We appreciate you.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
Thank you so much for helping us get the perspective
we need to fully watch this trial.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
But it has been non stop, just crazy.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
Moments in court, so thank you for continuing to watch
alongside us.
Speaker 2 (27:04):
Of course,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com