December 15, 2025 • 24 mins
Criminal Defense Attorney Alison Triessl joins Amy and T.J. to discuss today’s sooner than expected guilty verdict in the Brian Walshe trial. Triessl talks about how the defense overplayed its hand, and already had an uphill battle with those devastating and gruesome searches Brian made shortly after his wife Ana’s death. Despite the prosecution’s lackluster presentation, and the lack of a body or known cause of death, it took the jury less than 6 hours to return a guilty verdict.
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 episode of Amy and TJ Presents.
It is Monday, December fifteenth, and wow, we certainly got
a verdict today.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Quicker than expected, at.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Least on where we stood, and not the verdict that
you and I predicted. TJ.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
No, I was a little surprised how quick it was
and what they finally came back with, given that they
had another option. But we have been itching Alison Driesol.
She's been with us the last couple of weeks. Are
our defense attorney, our expert. Let's get your reaction. And
I mean that for the past week. Every time something happens,
we want ooh, I wonder what she thinks. Oh, I
wonder what Allison thinks. And we were texting, we were
(00:45):
actually texting you and you were in the middle of
a case and I said.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Please was of a murder case.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
I was like, go focus, this is nothing one case
at a time. But I was a good to see
you again.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Just first, your.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
Reaction to the Walsh verdict.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Okay, as we started, when we started this, I said,
this case is a stinker. This case is a stinker. Okay,
So we started from a place where I said this
is a slam dunk for the prosecution. Then we get
this very surprising defense in opening, and the defense was essentially, yes,
(01:23):
he lied to the police, he dismembered his own wife,
but he didn't kill her, and there is no body,
so they will not have a manner and cause of death. Okay.
So they took a nothing and turned it into something
for the defense to present to the jury. It was
(01:43):
an all or nothing essentially, because you either believe that
he killed her you didn't. They didn't say, and they
could have said that he learned that night they had
an argument, things went away and he didn't mean to
kill her. They were getting in to it and they
were shooting for a second degree murder. They didn't do that.
(02:05):
They went all or nothing. They and even know there
was a jury instruction, and I know that we went
over this. I said, look, they're going to add things
at the end, and they did include a second degree
well at the end of the day, and because the
prosecution's closing was not that powerful, but at the end
of the day, they had the facts and they had
(02:27):
the law on their side, and it is nearly impossible
to get over those kinds of searches, those kinds of searches,
and I think Tipton did the very best with what
he had, with the cards he was dealt without folding, right,
I mean, he did the best that he could. But
(02:48):
I took a look at what no matter how strong
their closing was, this is the people. They had, the facts,
they had these horrible searches, they had a motive. I
did believe that they proved that he knew about it.
I did believe. I found it shocking that the prosecution
(03:11):
didn't spend more time. I think her closing was thirty
eight minutes, that she didn't spend more time on the
fact that Brian Walsh. Absolutely, I would have argued he
absolutely knew about the affair.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
How do you think he proved that? How do you think, sorry,
how do you think the prosecution proved that.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
I'm curious the fact that Brian Walsh called him looking
for his wife after she allegedly disappeared. It would have
been very weird to me, and I would have made
it a central theme that why this guy, why would
he call this guy who if he didn't know anything,
(03:49):
you know, oh they knew they had a crush. Well,
I think there was much more to that. I think
that he was well aware, and it took common sense,
and they kept getting back to common sense, common sense.
He called him, He called him and said, where is
my wife? You call people close to her, very close
to her. So I thought that that was pretty compelling.
(04:11):
I really did. And she had talked about it with
her friends. And I don't believe that whole idea that
the mother, the mother apparently had hired this PI and oh,
you know, my mom had this dream or she went
to somebody to talk about it. That wasn't believable. That
(04:31):
just wasn't believable. And when you're talking about life circumstances,
even though you tell a jury, you know, leave it
at the door. Just listen to the facts of the case.
I think that that friend that testified at the end
was very, very compelling, and she said, look, my friend
was upset and there were problems in this marriage and
(04:53):
he owed a lot of money. So they don't have
to prove motiva amy. They don't have to, but they
certainly she was having an affair, there was marital strife.
I mean, for Tipton to get up there and say
this loving couple, this loving couple, I think he sold
it a bit too hard. I think he sold it
too hard. But I also I also loved the part
(05:17):
where they talked about him purchasing the antibiotic ointment and
the band aids before he goes to buy the cleaning supplies.
That was that hit for me, That resonated for me.
It means that he was injured before the dismemberment.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
You know, you just made a point about them overplaying
their hand on the love part, being a loving couple.
It was something we talked about Alison that he said
in the closing argument that there's the only things there's
evidence of is love? Right, talking about there were the
(05:57):
only evidence.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Love? That was a huge overstep.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
I thought that was a good He went too long.
And what he did is he he really fed into
the prosecution's hand. And I've been a Tippton fan because
I mean, they took a nothing case and and he
had this really bold defense. Of course, the problem was
that and he did kind of tapdance on that line
(06:23):
a little bit. Their client didn't testify, so there was
nobody to say that I found her in the bed right.
There was no one to say it. They didn't call
their own medical expert, and there the medical expert for
the prosecution did go to places like, yes, this happens,
and I did feel that the prosecution should have hammered
home how rare it was. I wanted numbers. I wanted
(06:46):
so in your fifteen hundred autopsies, how many people died
of this sudden, unexplained death. I wanted that. But they
gave the problem. They gave the jury enough to use
their common sense. And those videos of him disposing and
(07:06):
really doing all he could to Crouver's tracks. The phone
being off was a big deal to me, telling people
the phone was off that like eighteen digit code that
no child, I would never remember that password code, right,
So that that whole unlocking the phone with that long
are you two looking at each other because you agree, Yes,
(07:27):
we agree. I mean, yes, children are great, are really
way more techy than people our age. But that code
was not one, two, three four, I mean it was
you know, it was like an entire state ZIP code
plus a phone number plus I mean it was too much.
So you knew it was him that was unlocking the phone.
(07:47):
And like I said in the beginning, premeditation does not
need days, months, hours to form. It can be formed
very quickly, and so it was I mean, And the searches,
the searches were so bad. And he used the word
murder and used the word crime, and I did think
(08:10):
I didn't her tone, the prosecutor's tone. It was a
little too monotone for me. I would have been hitting harder.
I would have been more, you know, really saying this
man has lied repeatedly to you. He's lied throughout his life.
He lied about the case, the forgery case. He lied
(08:33):
to the police. Why wouldn't he lie to you. Of
course he's lying to you, But maybe that's more dramatic style.
But she did hit the key points. She did hit
the key points.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Yeah, Allison. We were scratching our heads the whole time,
wondering why she wasn't choosing to be more effective, because
she certainly it was almost as if she was making
a choice to be monotone. She was making a choice
to be unemotional, She was making a choice not to
follow through and actually helped the jury connect the dots.
I was frustrated watching what she left.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
On the table.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
It was funny even at the closing arguments, and we
were looking at each other when Larry Tipton said the
only evidence here is love.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
When she got up.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
The first thing, I would have said, evidence of love,
if this is what love looks like, and then start
reading the searches again. I mean I would have taken
what he left right there and just ran with it.
I was surprised she didn't.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
I wanted more visuals from her. I wanted like a
chart that walk through every search bolded. I wanted a
chart that said he hacked his wife up into pieces
like I wanted that kind of visual But at the
end of the day, they had a very good case.
(09:52):
They had a very good case aiming most people do
not search for how do you just remember a body?
And if you're a juror and you're hearing that, now
what what was interesting was the rulings that the judge made.
And I don't think they're going to get very far
(10:14):
on appeal, but I want to. I'm going to talk
about that in the second is she made the decision
that the jury would not hear that. He already pled
to it, that the jury would not hear it, and
I we had talked about the only way it was
really going to come in is if he testified, right,
So on appeal and we get let's talk a little
(10:35):
bit about the sentencing. This is an automatic what we
call an l WOPS life in prison without the possibility
of parole. She's going to add time to it. She's
going to add time to it, to the accounts that
he has already pled to, which from my understanding is somewhere,
because she's going to find all the enhancements, you know,
(10:57):
lying to the police when you know they're investigating a murder.
So she's going to add on as much as thirty
years to the life and vision without the possibility of parole.
And your listeners are saying, well, if you're getting life
in prison without the possibility of parole, why on earth
are you adding more time plus you know, plus the
time in the federal case. And here's the reason. If
(11:19):
for whatever reason, this case gets overturned on appeal, he's
still going to be in custody. It is very very
difficult to overturn a charges that you pled guilty to.
It's very very difficult. So, for whatever reason, and his
appellate attorneys, who are not going to be a trial attorneys,
(11:40):
the trial attorneys will probably do a motion for a
new trial, and they'll argue things like, you know, improper
rulings that the judge made on the bench. They're going
to argue that think certain things were present prejudicial, but
for his appeal on the case, you always see an
(12:02):
ineffective assistance of council claim. And so you're the people
that try the case who are really trial attorneys and
not apolit attorneys. Anyway, you don't want to preclude any
potential issues that they have on appeal. So normally it's
another set of attorneys that are going to be the
ones to file an actual appeal as opposed to a
(12:24):
motion for a new trial, which this trial team would
probably do. But I they came up with something, They
came up with something for us to talk about. They
came up with something for the jury to talk about.
In Massachusetts, it's very interesting, and you guys talked about
(12:44):
how quickly this verdict was reached in Massachusetts as opposed
to a state like California, they do not take a
straw pole before. They do not take a straw pole
right when they go in to deliberate in other states
they do. Here they're specifically instructed go through the evidence,
(13:08):
talk about the evidence before you take a poll, knowing
where everybody else stands.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
Is that why? Because I want to ask you about
the timing. It's not an exact science or a science
at all really trying to predict what the jury is
going to do. But what did you make of it
being six hours that they came back and then knowing
that it was first degree? Now, what do you make
of the time of at all?
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Well? I think that part of it is the way
that Massachusetts instruct juries not to take a straw pole beforehand,
so they have to actually deliberate because in a lot
of cases, you take a straw pole, right, they say guilty, guilty, guilty,
and that's when you get those jury you know, those
those verdicts back in. You know, in less than an hour,
(13:55):
I've had a jury deliberate where it was in Orange County.
I hadn't even made it to the five freeway yet,
and there was a verdict on a murder case. You know.
So I'm like, wait a minute, you didn't even have
time to hand out the pencils and we're getting a verdict.
So the only thing I make of it is they
had a weekend. They had a weekend, and even know,
none of them were allowed to talk about the case.
(14:16):
Certainly they thought about it, right. Each of them thought
about the case. And it wasn't a lot of time
that they spent deliberating. It was a shorter trial than
we all predicted, than the judge predicted. But the key
witnesses there said what they had to say, right, They
(14:37):
said what they had to say. And that jury thought
all weekend about the searches and him going to Low's,
and him going and buying fifty pounds of baking soda
so and the idea that at the end he didn't
even give them a place to go and visit their mother.
(14:59):
He chopped her up. He chopped this woman up. God,
that's tough evidence to overcome, really tough. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Is there anything the defense missed? Is there anything? As
a criminal defense attorney?
Speaker 2 (15:11):
Yeah, he overstated his He overplayed his hand at the end.
He should have said nobody, no manner a death, no
cause of death. We are left with a question of
how did this woman die? He overplayed his hand. I
would have stayed away from the love, love, love, not
(15:31):
so much. She had told at least two people that
testified that there were marital problems she was having an affair.
I would have let that go. I would not have
used it as a central theme of the.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
Closing, should they have called any witnesses.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
I wanted to hear from their medical examiner. I wanted
to hear from their medical examiner, I mean the prosecution's
medical examiner. They felt, And that's one of the things
I think that they're going to argue on appeal is
he They can't argue about him not testifying, right, they
really can't, because the judge specifically asked him, is this
your decision? Is this your decision not to testify? But
(16:16):
they over promised at during their opening, they over promised,
and when he didn't testify, there was no one to
say what actually happened to her? What actually happened to her?
And now he would have been TJ, You're like, he
cannot testify. We talked about this because the first thing
(16:36):
I would ask is, well, where's her body? Where's her body?
And then it would have gone on from there. Right,
so when you were hacking her up, okay, in your
home with your children home. And by the way, it
also resonated when she said he used his children to
lie to the police. Things like that get you, They
(16:59):
get you, that affects yours.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
The line is this something that I mean, you can't avoid.
I'm trying to remember his line. He said, you cannot passion,
sympathy and anger for him.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
Right, he uses that, I'm sure in every case.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
But he seems like he knew what he was up against.
Do you think a juror can't help but bring anger
and sympathy and emotion and passion and whatever else after
what they just sat through and heard for two weeks.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
That's why he said it, and that's why the judge
repeats it, and that's why it's a very it's a
very important jury instruction because you need to be able
to put that aside and focus on the evidence that
you heard in the case. But we all know that
people bring their own thoughts and passion and prejudices and
(18:01):
real life experiences to every single event that they're experiencing.
So you can't ask them to check all that at
the door, because that's not human nature.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
Allison, I want to ask you what you're expecting to
hear on Wednesday. So Brian sentencing hearing is on Wednesday.
But the judge made it very clear she would rearrange
what she needed to to make sure she got those
victim impact statements that part of sentencing and that part
of the trial. What are you anticipating. I was trying
to imagine if I mean, we haven't seen any emotion
(18:37):
from Brian Walsh whatsoever when the verdict was read.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Never I was watching his reaction when they when the
VERTICU came in. Nothing. Nothing, But he was stone cold
when he was talking to the police. He was stone
cold when he was buying less supplies. So but you
know what's interesting is normally you hear from family members, right,
you hear from family members. Are we going to hear
(19:00):
from Anna Walsh's family? I don't know. I don't know.
We know that her mother has been ill and lives
out of the country and the children through DCF or whatever.
That's uh. You know that that Massiss Juicus has is
going to issue a They're going to have a statement
(19:21):
from them. But they're young, They're very, very young. We're
going to hear from I'm sure we may hear from
mister Falstow, we may hear from her best friend, we
may hear from mister Matt Tou And they're going to
be impactful. They're going to be impactful. But what we're
not going to hear. Is the statements from the children
(19:44):
and what they have lived and what they have been
going through, and that's going to move the judge for sure.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Could Brian, judge, could Brian speak at this?
Speaker 2 (19:55):
We were teaching, we were talking.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
We thought he could.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
Right, absolutely, Here's his problem with speaking. He can't own it.
He can't accept responsibility because he closes the door to
his appeal.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
All but at this nothing the judge is going to hear.
The sentences are pretty much set, are they not arst
Green murder?
Speaker 2 (20:19):
It's set. It is life emparism without the possibility of parole.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
Remind people why this is always, even though we know
he's going to spend the rest of his life in
prison if the sentence goes through, why this is always
an important moment and an important day to have victims, friends,
family be able to speak in court like this.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
It reminds first of all, it's very therapeutic for them,
very very therapeutic for the victims. They should have a say,
you know, it's it's the state that's prosecuting you, not
the individual person. So it's their moment to face in
this case Brian Welsh and tell them what he took
from them what their life has been like without her,
(21:05):
and say things like I want you to understand that
for the rest of your life, you get to live.
You're going to be alive. She will never celebrate another Christmas,
she will never see her children again, we will never
get to laugh with her, call her, and the pain
that his actions have caused. That is a that is
(21:28):
that is very very important if there's to be any
healing for friends and family, that this was more than
just a murder case. There's a real person behind this,
there's a real victim and the ripple effect that it
had on the community and the people close to her.
That's always so incredibly important. So the judge knows that
(21:54):
this isn't just like any other case. This is a
case that someone who they loved and adore it has
been taken from them. So that is extremely important, and
in many states it's a requirement. It's a requirement that
you know, like Varci's Law, where victims have a chance
and an opportunity to be heard. So it's extremely important
(22:19):
part of our system that the victims get a voice,
they get to have their own voice.
Speaker 3 (22:25):
All right, Allison, we we actually thought we'd be talking
to you longer for the next couple of weeks.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
You know, and we thought, look, we thought the case
would would be much longer. I was surprised at how
quickly the prosecution was was sort of ripping through their case.
And then we hear that the defense is going to
present no defense at all, which, by the way, I'll
talk a little bit about that, and that is that
if Brian Walsh is going to attack any of it,
(22:53):
he may say, well, they my my attorneys choose not
to call any witness. Yes, it was on me that
I didn't, but that was a decision that they made.
So I'm going to attack that. They're going to attack
the judges ruling. They're going to attack that evidence didn't
come in. I am curious whether they believed that the
(23:16):
judge was going to tell the jury that he had
already fled to the dismemberment or you know, the the
body and the line to the police, and did they
think that that would change the verdict. And then ultimately,
what are we going to hear from the jurors and
is there anything that the defense is going to be
able to pick apart in what in their.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
Deliberations Morticam, It's always so fascinating to hear the jurors
and their mindset and what it was like during those
deliberations and state to state. As you pointed out, it's
very different what that looks like. But how's your Verder
trial going? By the way it's going on.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
I love analyzing other people's cases. I have lots and
lots to say, I never talk about my own.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
Very smart, that's why you're a great criminal defense attorney,
one of the best.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
Wonderful a happy holidays, Alison.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
We appreciate you absolutely, you all too. Bye.
Welcome everyone to this episode of Amy and TJ Presents.
It is Monday, December fifteenth, and wow, we certainly got
a verdict today.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Quicker than expected, at.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Least on where we stood, and not the verdict that
you and I predicted. TJ.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
No, I was a little surprised how quick it was
and what they finally came back with, given that they
had another option. But we have been itching Alison Driesol.
She's been with us the last couple of weeks. Are
our defense attorney, our expert. Let's get your reaction. And
I mean that for the past week. Every time something happens,
we want ooh, I wonder what she thinks. Oh, I
wonder what Allison thinks. And we were texting, we were
(00:45):
actually texting you and you were in the middle of
a case and I said.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Please was of a murder case.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
I was like, go focus, this is nothing one case
at a time. But I was a good to see
you again.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Just first, your.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
Reaction to the Walsh verdict.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Okay, as we started, when we started this, I said,
this case is a stinker. This case is a stinker. Okay,
So we started from a place where I said this
is a slam dunk for the prosecution. Then we get
this very surprising defense in opening, and the defense was essentially, yes,
(01:23):
he lied to the police, he dismembered his own wife,
but he didn't kill her, and there is no body,
so they will not have a manner and cause of death. Okay.
So they took a nothing and turned it into something
for the defense to present to the jury. It was
(01:43):
an all or nothing essentially, because you either believe that
he killed her you didn't. They didn't say, and they
could have said that he learned that night they had
an argument, things went away and he didn't mean to
kill her. They were getting in to it and they
were shooting for a second degree murder. They didn't do that.
(02:05):
They went all or nothing. They and even know there
was a jury instruction, and I know that we went
over this. I said, look, they're going to add things
at the end, and they did include a second degree
well at the end of the day, and because the
prosecution's closing was not that powerful, but at the end
of the day, they had the facts and they had
(02:27):
the law on their side, and it is nearly impossible
to get over those kinds of searches, those kinds of searches,
and I think Tipton did the very best with what
he had, with the cards he was dealt without folding, right,
I mean, he did the best that he could. But
(02:48):
I took a look at what no matter how strong
their closing was, this is the people. They had, the facts,
they had these horrible searches, they had a motive. I
did believe that they proved that he knew about it.
I did believe. I found it shocking that the prosecution
(03:11):
didn't spend more time. I think her closing was thirty
eight minutes, that she didn't spend more time on the
fact that Brian Walsh. Absolutely, I would have argued he
absolutely knew about the affair.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
How do you think he proved that? How do you think, sorry,
how do you think the prosecution proved that.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
I'm curious the fact that Brian Walsh called him looking
for his wife after she allegedly disappeared. It would have
been very weird to me, and I would have made
it a central theme that why this guy, why would
he call this guy who if he didn't know anything,
(03:49):
you know, oh they knew they had a crush. Well,
I think there was much more to that. I think
that he was well aware, and it took common sense,
and they kept getting back to common sense, common sense.
He called him, He called him and said, where is
my wife? You call people close to her, very close
to her. So I thought that that was pretty compelling.
(04:11):
I really did. And she had talked about it with
her friends. And I don't believe that whole idea that
the mother, the mother apparently had hired this PI and oh,
you know, my mom had this dream or she went
to somebody to talk about it. That wasn't believable. That
(04:31):
just wasn't believable. And when you're talking about life circumstances,
even though you tell a jury, you know, leave it
at the door. Just listen to the facts of the case.
I think that that friend that testified at the end
was very, very compelling, and she said, look, my friend
was upset and there were problems in this marriage and
(04:53):
he owed a lot of money. So they don't have
to prove motiva amy. They don't have to, but they
certainly she was having an affair, there was marital strife.
I mean, for Tipton to get up there and say
this loving couple, this loving couple, I think he sold
it a bit too hard. I think he sold it
too hard. But I also I also loved the part
(05:17):
where they talked about him purchasing the antibiotic ointment and
the band aids before he goes to buy the cleaning supplies.
That was that hit for me, That resonated for me.
It means that he was injured before the dismemberment.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
You know, you just made a point about them overplaying
their hand on the love part, being a loving couple.
It was something we talked about Alison that he said
in the closing argument that there's the only things there's
evidence of is love? Right, talking about there were the
(05:57):
only evidence.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Love? That was a huge overstep.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
I thought that was a good He went too long.
And what he did is he he really fed into
the prosecution's hand. And I've been a Tippton fan because
I mean, they took a nothing case and and he
had this really bold defense. Of course, the problem was
that and he did kind of tapdance on that line
(06:23):
a little bit. Their client didn't testify, so there was
nobody to say that I found her in the bed right.
There was no one to say it. They didn't call
their own medical expert, and there the medical expert for
the prosecution did go to places like, yes, this happens,
and I did feel that the prosecution should have hammered
home how rare it was. I wanted numbers. I wanted
(06:46):
so in your fifteen hundred autopsies, how many people died
of this sudden, unexplained death. I wanted that. But they
gave the problem. They gave the jury enough to use
their common sense. And those videos of him disposing and
(07:06):
really doing all he could to Crouver's tracks. The phone
being off was a big deal to me, telling people
the phone was off that like eighteen digit code that
no child, I would never remember that password code, right,
So that that whole unlocking the phone with that long
are you two looking at each other because you agree, Yes,
(07:27):
we agree. I mean, yes, children are great, are really
way more techy than people our age. But that code
was not one, two, three four, I mean it was
you know, it was like an entire state ZIP code
plus a phone number plus I mean it was too much.
So you knew it was him that was unlocking the phone.
(07:47):
And like I said in the beginning, premeditation does not
need days, months, hours to form. It can be formed
very quickly, and so it was I mean, And the searches,
the searches were so bad. And he used the word
murder and used the word crime, and I did think
(08:10):
I didn't her tone, the prosecutor's tone. It was a
little too monotone for me. I would have been hitting harder.
I would have been more, you know, really saying this
man has lied repeatedly to you. He's lied throughout his life.
He lied about the case, the forgery case. He lied
(08:33):
to the police. Why wouldn't he lie to you. Of
course he's lying to you, But maybe that's more dramatic style.
But she did hit the key points. She did hit
the key points.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Yeah, Allison. We were scratching our heads the whole time,
wondering why she wasn't choosing to be more effective, because
she certainly it was almost as if she was making
a choice to be monotone. She was making a choice
to be unemotional, She was making a choice not to
follow through and actually helped the jury connect the dots.
I was frustrated watching what she left.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
On the table.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
It was funny even at the closing arguments, and we
were looking at each other when Larry Tipton said the
only evidence here is love.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
When she got up.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
The first thing, I would have said, evidence of love,
if this is what love looks like, and then start
reading the searches again. I mean I would have taken
what he left right there and just ran with it.
I was surprised she didn't.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
I wanted more visuals from her. I wanted like a
chart that walk through every search bolded. I wanted a
chart that said he hacked his wife up into pieces
like I wanted that kind of visual But at the
end of the day, they had a very good case.
(09:52):
They had a very good case aiming most people do
not search for how do you just remember a body?
And if you're a juror and you're hearing that, now
what what was interesting was the rulings that the judge made.
And I don't think they're going to get very far
(10:14):
on appeal, but I want to. I'm going to talk
about that in the second is she made the decision
that the jury would not hear that. He already pled
to it, that the jury would not hear it, and
I we had talked about the only way it was
really going to come in is if he testified, right,
So on appeal and we get let's talk a little
(10:35):
bit about the sentencing. This is an automatic what we
call an l WOPS life in prison without the possibility
of parole. She's going to add time to it. She's
going to add time to it, to the accounts that
he has already pled to, which from my understanding is somewhere,
because she's going to find all the enhancements, you know,
(10:57):
lying to the police when you know they're investigating a murder.
So she's going to add on as much as thirty
years to the life and vision without the possibility of parole.
And your listeners are saying, well, if you're getting life
in prison without the possibility of parole, why on earth
are you adding more time plus you know, plus the
time in the federal case. And here's the reason. If
(11:19):
for whatever reason, this case gets overturned on appeal, he's
still going to be in custody. It is very very
difficult to overturn a charges that you pled guilty to.
It's very very difficult. So, for whatever reason, and his
appellate attorneys, who are not going to be a trial attorneys,
(11:40):
the trial attorneys will probably do a motion for a
new trial, and they'll argue things like, you know, improper
rulings that the judge made on the bench. They're going
to argue that think certain things were present prejudicial, but
for his appeal on the case, you always see an
(12:02):
ineffective assistance of council claim. And so you're the people
that try the case who are really trial attorneys and
not apolit attorneys. Anyway, you don't want to preclude any
potential issues that they have on appeal. So normally it's
another set of attorneys that are going to be the
ones to file an actual appeal as opposed to a
(12:24):
motion for a new trial, which this trial team would
probably do. But I they came up with something, They
came up with something for us to talk about. They
came up with something for the jury to talk about.
In Massachusetts, it's very interesting, and you guys talked about
(12:44):
how quickly this verdict was reached in Massachusetts as opposed
to a state like California, they do not take a
straw pole before. They do not take a straw pole
right when they go in to deliberate in other states
they do. Here they're specifically instructed go through the evidence,
(13:08):
talk about the evidence before you take a poll, knowing
where everybody else stands.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
Is that why? Because I want to ask you about
the timing. It's not an exact science or a science
at all really trying to predict what the jury is
going to do. But what did you make of it
being six hours that they came back and then knowing
that it was first degree? Now, what do you make
of the time of at all?
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Well? I think that part of it is the way
that Massachusetts instruct juries not to take a straw pole beforehand,
so they have to actually deliberate because in a lot
of cases, you take a straw pole, right, they say guilty, guilty, guilty,
and that's when you get those jury you know, those
those verdicts back in. You know, in less than an hour,
(13:55):
I've had a jury deliberate where it was in Orange County.
I hadn't even made it to the five freeway yet,
and there was a verdict on a murder case. You know.
So I'm like, wait a minute, you didn't even have
time to hand out the pencils and we're getting a verdict.
So the only thing I make of it is they
had a weekend. They had a weekend, and even know,
none of them were allowed to talk about the case.
(14:16):
Certainly they thought about it, right. Each of them thought
about the case. And it wasn't a lot of time
that they spent deliberating. It was a shorter trial than
we all predicted, than the judge predicted. But the key
witnesses there said what they had to say, right, They
(14:37):
said what they had to say. And that jury thought
all weekend about the searches and him going to Low's,
and him going and buying fifty pounds of baking soda
so and the idea that at the end he didn't
even give them a place to go and visit their mother.
(14:59):
He chopped her up. He chopped this woman up. God,
that's tough evidence to overcome, really tough. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Is there anything the defense missed? Is there anything? As
a criminal defense attorney?
Speaker 2 (15:11):
Yeah, he overstated his He overplayed his hand at the end.
He should have said nobody, no manner a death, no
cause of death. We are left with a question of
how did this woman die? He overplayed his hand. I
would have stayed away from the love, love, love, not
(15:31):
so much. She had told at least two people that
testified that there were marital problems she was having an affair.
I would have let that go. I would not have
used it as a central theme of the.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
Closing, should they have called any witnesses.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
I wanted to hear from their medical examiner. I wanted
to hear from their medical examiner, I mean the prosecution's
medical examiner. They felt, And that's one of the things
I think that they're going to argue on appeal is
he They can't argue about him not testifying, right, they
really can't, because the judge specifically asked him, is this
your decision? Is this your decision not to testify? But
(16:16):
they over promised at during their opening, they over promised,
and when he didn't testify, there was no one to
say what actually happened to her? What actually happened to her?
And now he would have been TJ, You're like, he
cannot testify. We talked about this because the first thing
(16:36):
I would ask is, well, where's her body? Where's her body?
And then it would have gone on from there. Right,
so when you were hacking her up, okay, in your
home with your children home. And by the way, it
also resonated when she said he used his children to
lie to the police. Things like that get you, They
(16:59):
get you, that affects yours.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
The line is this something that I mean, you can't avoid.
I'm trying to remember his line. He said, you cannot passion,
sympathy and anger for him.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
Right, he uses that, I'm sure in every case.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
But he seems like he knew what he was up against.
Do you think a juror can't help but bring anger
and sympathy and emotion and passion and whatever else after
what they just sat through and heard for two weeks.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
That's why he said it, and that's why the judge
repeats it, and that's why it's a very it's a
very important jury instruction because you need to be able
to put that aside and focus on the evidence that
you heard in the case. But we all know that
people bring their own thoughts and passion and prejudices and
(18:01):
real life experiences to every single event that they're experiencing.
So you can't ask them to check all that at
the door, because that's not human nature.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
Allison, I want to ask you what you're expecting to
hear on Wednesday. So Brian sentencing hearing is on Wednesday.
But the judge made it very clear she would rearrange
what she needed to to make sure she got those
victim impact statements that part of sentencing and that part
of the trial. What are you anticipating. I was trying
to imagine if I mean, we haven't seen any emotion
(18:37):
from Brian Walsh whatsoever when the verdict was read.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Never I was watching his reaction when they when the
VERTICU came in. Nothing. Nothing, But he was stone cold
when he was talking to the police. He was stone
cold when he was buying less supplies. So but you
know what's interesting is normally you hear from family members, right,
you hear from family members. Are we going to hear
(19:00):
from Anna Walsh's family? I don't know. I don't know.
We know that her mother has been ill and lives
out of the country and the children through DCF or whatever.
That's uh. You know that that Massiss Juicus has is
going to issue a They're going to have a statement
(19:21):
from them. But they're young, They're very, very young. We're
going to hear from I'm sure we may hear from
mister Falstow, we may hear from her best friend, we
may hear from mister Matt Tou And they're going to
be impactful. They're going to be impactful. But what we're
not going to hear. Is the statements from the children
(19:44):
and what they have lived and what they have been
going through, and that's going to move the judge for sure.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Could Brian, judge, could Brian speak at this?
Speaker 2 (19:55):
We were teaching, we were talking.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
We thought he could.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
Right, absolutely, Here's his problem with speaking. He can't own it.
He can't accept responsibility because he closes the door to
his appeal.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
All but at this nothing the judge is going to hear.
The sentences are pretty much set, are they not arst
Green murder?
Speaker 2 (20:19):
It's set. It is life emparism without the possibility of parole.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
Remind people why this is always, even though we know
he's going to spend the rest of his life in
prison if the sentence goes through, why this is always
an important moment and an important day to have victims, friends,
family be able to speak in court like this.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
It reminds first of all, it's very therapeutic for them,
very very therapeutic for the victims. They should have a say,
you know, it's it's the state that's prosecuting you, not
the individual person. So it's their moment to face in
this case Brian Welsh and tell them what he took
from them what their life has been like without her,
(21:05):
and say things like I want you to understand that
for the rest of your life, you get to live.
You're going to be alive. She will never celebrate another Christmas,
she will never see her children again, we will never
get to laugh with her, call her, and the pain
that his actions have caused. That is a that is
(21:28):
that is very very important if there's to be any
healing for friends and family, that this was more than
just a murder case. There's a real person behind this,
there's a real victim and the ripple effect that it
had on the community and the people close to her.
That's always so incredibly important. So the judge knows that
(21:54):
this isn't just like any other case. This is a
case that someone who they loved and adore it has
been taken from them. So that is extremely important, and
in many states it's a requirement. It's a requirement that
you know, like Varci's Law, where victims have a chance
and an opportunity to be heard. So it's extremely important
(22:19):
part of our system that the victims get a voice,
they get to have their own voice.
Speaker 3 (22:25):
All right, Allison, we we actually thought we'd be talking
to you longer for the next couple of weeks.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
You know, and we thought, look, we thought the case
would would be much longer. I was surprised at how
quickly the prosecution was was sort of ripping through their case.
And then we hear that the defense is going to
present no defense at all, which, by the way, I'll
talk a little bit about that, and that is that
if Brian Walsh is going to attack any of it,
(22:53):
he may say, well, they my my attorneys choose not
to call any witness. Yes, it was on me that
I didn't, but that was a decision that they made.
So I'm going to attack that. They're going to attack
the judges ruling. They're going to attack that evidence didn't
come in. I am curious whether they believed that the
(23:16):
judge was going to tell the jury that he had
already fled to the dismemberment or you know, the the
body and the line to the police, and did they
think that that would change the verdict. And then ultimately,
what are we going to hear from the jurors and
is there anything that the defense is going to be
able to pick apart in what in their.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
Deliberations Morticam, It's always so fascinating to hear the jurors
and their mindset and what it was like during those
deliberations and state to state. As you pointed out, it's
very different what that looks like. But how's your Verder
trial going? By the way it's going on.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
I love analyzing other people's cases. I have lots and
lots to say, I never talk about my own.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
Very smart, that's why you're a great criminal defense attorney,
one of the best.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
Wonderful a happy holidays, Alison.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
We appreciate you absolutely, you all too. Bye.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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.