December 3, 2025 • 17 mins
Prosecutors lined up the witnesses on day 3 of the Brian Walshe trial, establishing Ana Walshe’s final travel movements. They also produced photos and testimony surrounding the evidence police found in multiple trash bags from a dumpster near Brian’s mother’s home. It was eerie to see the hammer, wire snips, hatchet and hacksaw with red brown stains on it, all discovered along with some of Ana’s clothing and belongings.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey there, folks. It is Wednesday, December, third day three
of the Brian Walsh trial. Frankly got a little graphic
and with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Robes.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
There were exhibits today that I guess gives a kind
of a cave, kind of a graphic idea of a violent,
potentially violent death. That's right, Yes, she had. And I
think you said just a moment ago that that got
youa Today.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
It did because in this case we don't have a body,
they don't have an autopsy. Sometimes jurors are shown autopsy
photos and certainly look at autopsy reports, so they have
to take in a lot. In this case, there is
none of that. So it was interesting to me the
impact it had just seeing what the jurors saw. And
(00:55):
they were just photos, photos of weapons that were recovered
and normally they're considered tools, but tools that were turned
into weapons that were wrapped up in trash bags found
in those dumpsters near Brian Walsh's mom's home. And they
just showed the hammer, the wire snips, the hatchet, the
(01:16):
hack saw with red brown stains. If you were listening
to this trial today, you kept hearing those three words
with red brown stains. It almost became comical because that's
how much they were repeating all of the items they
found with this substance, which obviously you think is blood,
(01:36):
but it's almost as if they were like etching it
in the jurors minds.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Well, yeah, that was repeated quite a bit today, and
every time it was said, it was being shown graphic
detail in some way on the screen. But the day
a guy going today, and they had several witnesses, and
frankly several of these the defense didn't even ask a
(02:03):
single question of cross examination. It wasn't I mean, it
was housekeeping for the most part, making sure they determined, okay,
she did travel when and where and did she take
an uber and she didn't. Right, they had a couple
of Uber drivers and whatnot up there. This was all
just to establish that she was out of town, that
she didn't leave town, and whatnot her whereabouts. So that
(02:24):
was a lot of housekeeping in that. But the first
witness robes was the guy who was testifying yesterday, the
state trooper who handled.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
All the Google certainty.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Yeah, all that stuff. Now he started making some points today.
The defense attorney that had me sit up had me
perk up a little bit, and I couldn't believe he
had some answers that maybe had the jurors thinking.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Yes, because he wanted the state trooper to read some
of the searches that were left out of testimony, and
there were so many, you know, there are so many
other searches. So he asked him to read some of
the other searches that were found on Brian Walsh's computer,
like body disposal options, cool ways to be buried above ground,
(03:16):
burial options.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Now, what does that say to you?
Speaker 2 (03:19):
So that says that if those were the only searches,
then I would be more inclined to believe what Brian
Walsh's attorneys are trying to sell that he panicked after
his wife suddenly and inexplicably died. So yes, if those
were the only searches that would back up his story
(03:40):
for sure, Okay.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
So then what if the next part of that, and
I know the part that bothers is he used the
word murder in a search his attorney Today, the defense
attorney is pointing out just how little he used it
and when he used it as being a big deal. Now,
I couldn't imagine that I would listen to that. But
(04:02):
I gave that argument some thought, why did he do
it so little and why did he do it so late?
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Yeah, so the first reference to murder was actually six
hours into his searches. So he was using all sorts
of other different ways to describe, like we just referenced
body disposal options, cool ways to be varied, And it
wasn't until six hours later that he did that first
search that had murder.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
What do you make of that? What can we possibly
make of that? If he was panicked, if he was
all of these things, And as soon as he started searching,
it was only about disposal, it was only about dismember
what all that other stuff, And he didn't think to
type in murder until six plus hours later. I think
(04:56):
the defensive attorney was making an argument that it wasn't
top of mind. He's making the point that he was
trying to get different results through a bunch of searches. Man,
the timeline could make somebody go oh okay.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
I would also say that the other side of that
could be that perhaps he was in such a fog
and trying to figure out how to deal with the
issue at hand, which was a body, and then when
it kind of everything sunk in. He was maybe almost
owning it in his mind, almost acknowledging maybe something he
wasn't really trying or wasn't thinking about, which is the
(05:31):
fact that he just murdered his wife. And so maybe
it became something he was almost owning or accepting over time.
That could be another argument.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Okay, there is an argument. So if that is a possibility,
is it also a possibility that he did not kill her? Right?
If we want to be open to the possibility you
just gave what's more likely? I don't know, but in
that we talked to the attorney the other day and
(06:01):
she leaned into the camera talking to us and said,
she put her finger out one. I just need one
on that jury.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
M Well, I wouldn't be the one. That's what I
can tell you about that. And I agree, I totally
get it. You just have to somehow put a little
bit of doubt, enough doubt in one juror and you've
got you're not guilty verdict.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Well, I'm saying when I first heard the search, how
do you dispose of a body after a murder?
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Like he's done? This is what what can you what
can you argue? With that, and they found an argument
that's not out of this world.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
It was creative, I'll give them that. The other thing
that was really interesting to me was in cross examination,
the defense attorney also had this date trooper acknowledge because
they had testified. He had testified earlier to the fact
that Brian Walsh had been on divorce websites and had
(06:59):
spent time searching for divorce related searches, but on that
very same day they also he testified that Brian Walsh
went to his bank several times to check basically who
knows what, but checking accounts, then went to go look
at some Porsches for sale, okay, but then also went
(07:24):
to a diamond website where you go to Blue Nile
dot com. So, if this is someone who's trying to
divorce his wife or is considering divorce, why would he
be shopping for diamond rings. Why would if he was
worried about, you know, the future, why would he be
looking at a Porsche. So that was a little interesting
(07:48):
to me, the diamond the diamond website thing, because he's
not been accused of having someone on the side. He's
not accused of having a girlfriend the way shape of course,
it would have you make. I thought that was the
one thing that that piqud my interest today.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
So what the point they're trying to make is is
take away the idea of a motive that he was
trying to end his marriage or wanted his to get
his wife out of the way. He was planning for
the future, and this was at a time when he
didn't know anybody was going to see his Internet searches.
What do you make of that?
Speaker 2 (08:24):
I think it's interesting. I think there's something there.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
There's something there divorce. Now we've been hearing that was
the other thing. I think the prosecution was pointing out
searches that included divorce. They made it sound like this
dude was looking for the best states of divorce, right,
that was one of the searches es terms out divorce
searches took up in the fifteen days of data that
(08:49):
they reviewed fifteen days, twenty one minutes, only a twenty
one minute span did anything related to divorce come up.
That mean he wasn't obsessing over it, He wasn't doing
a whole lot. Whatever it came up.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
And whatever was a celebrity divorce too, rite Kati Katie Holmes.
It was something about Katie Holmes divorce. So that also
made the point like, Okay, he wasn't actually looking up
how to get divorced or you know when's a good
time to get divorced, or how expensive is divorce? Part
of that was looking up a celebrities divorce. So that
also was good defense work, right.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
It just made you think, it's so interesting when these
guys when you think that really after day two, After
day two, you and I both sat in guilty.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Why are we even watching this trial? You did?
Speaker 1 (09:41):
And now here we are now the I guess the
point rose when he got I said graphic at the
top that was in the crime lab specialist. He was
the one that handled the bags that were recovered from
the dumpster. I didn't realize it was as many bags
that they had recovered, but ten or so. And they
show a picture the bags, pictures of the contents and
(10:02):
I guess a lot of it robes, And they kept
using the same phrase to describe it had particular stains
on it that they kept pointing out, Oh.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
That's right, And so it was difficult to hear that
back and forth. But we're talking robes, towels, and as
we mentioned, some of the equipment that they believe was
used in either dismembering her or in murdering her. But
I do think once again, the Brian Walsh's attorney made
a pretty decent as much as you could point when
(10:35):
he cross examined the crime lab specialist after he talked,
because they kept saying red brown stains, red brown stains.
You're seeing picture pictures and images of clearly blood soaked
materials that were all in these bags that we now
know were dumped there by Brian Walsh. But his attorney said,
(10:56):
can you tell me that all of these items? Could
they not have been stained after they were thrown out,
after they were already in this dumpster? The condition of
the bags that were ripped in all of this, And
the crime lab specialist said, I cannot, I cannot tell
you that those stains were there before they were disposed of.
(11:18):
So I thought that was pretty good lawyering right there.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
It wasn't quite a very amazing moment, no, but it
was to hear someone admit, I can just tell you
what's on it. I got no idea where it came from.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
And when it got there and how it got there.
I mean, he's just he's doing the best he can
with what he has. He's working with what he has.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
With what he has. But we had a little surprise
ending to the day. The judge let the jury go
home early, about a half hour early, and they had
a very important issue to take up with the jury
out of the room, an issue that could help decide
(12:06):
the case.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
We'll explain.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
Stay here, all right, Welcome back, We continue day three
of the Brian Walsh trial. Is in the books, just
mentioned a moment ago that the jury got to go
home a little early. This the judge has kept things
(12:29):
really really on time so far, trying to make the
best use of the time, but she let them go
a little surprised. We didn't know what was going on.
There were did you know there were a bunch of sidebars.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
Yes, yes, all of a sudden because we're watching it,
we're kind of doing other things, mostly listening to it,
and all of a sudden it would go completely silent
and then either they either have the back of Brian
Walsh's head or the ceiling fan. But yes, there were many,
many moments where they were having sidebars.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
So with the sidebars, maybe this was part of the issue.
But this is a big one. As folks know, he
is on trial right now for murder, for murdering his wife.
He was also charged with two other things for dismembering
the body.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Disposing of it and misleading misleading police.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
All right, he said he copped to that, said guilty.
He did that right when this trial was starting. The
question now for the judge to decide is if she's
going to let this jury hear that he pled guilty
to those charges. It sounds like she didn't know what
she's going to do.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
No, And I think it's interesting too, because here's the deal.
The jury is hearing all about the implication of dismemberment,
and they also already heard Brian Walsh's attorneys say he
misled authorities, he lied to police. So I wonder I
(13:55):
would think the defense would want the guilty police in
because you would think the jury could infer Well wow,
he admitted that, and he's now not admitting the murder.
Well that's interesting.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
So wow.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
But I'm not sure who is fighting what, because I
know probably the most important thing for the judge right
now is to make sure whatever she decides doesn't end
up being used as an excuse for a mistrial. So
it's confusing. I had never heard of someone pleading guilty
to something fairly significant, but not pleading guilty to something
(14:32):
that would kind of go along with.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
The crime to go together. Right, he's saying they don't.
And to your point, I didn't think about that as
a strategy. I'm thinking about that as a juror. Why
would anybody do that? Why would someone admit to that?
And why not just try to get off from all
of it if.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
That's the case, because you so obviously linked to it
when you look at the searches, when you look at
the surveillance video.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
Yeah, you couldn't get around.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
Nothing else he can do. If he could have, he
would have tried. I'm sure. So at least hearing him
admit that, I feel like works in his favor. But
I don't know. Again, no legal expert here.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
When the judge was saying it to them, So yeah,
it must be the prosecution that wants it end because
she was saying to them, you have to show me
what the relevance is to your case. Why this wouldn't
be prejudicial because she says, this jury absolutely is prohibited
from considering those guilty, please and determining this verdict. So
(15:34):
she says, if I let them hear about it, I'm
the one inviting them to be.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Prejudicial, right, because yes, you can say, well, just this
is obviously why we see lawyers say things or ask
things that they know are going to be objected to
and perhaps sustained. But it doesn't matter because the jury
heard it anyway. So once a jury hears something, you
can instruct them not to consider it. Obviously, they can't
(16:01):
unhear it. And so this is something that we see
happen all the time in courtrooms. They know what's going
to get thrown out, they know it's going to be sustained,
and they do it anyway because they want the jury
to hear it.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
And they don't mind being scolded by the judge a
little bit in that one moment for the sake of
saying whatever.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
Exactly. So you know, if that is the case that
a jury cannot consider punishment when considering this verdict, then
I couldn't see why the judge would allow those guilty
pleas to be known to the jurors. That wouldn't make
any sense.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
That was the big debate as they were wrapping up
today day three. I believe she said the schedule. They
will continue as normal tomorrow, but the day five, if
I guess it would be on Friday. She's anticipating the
jury's going to have a shorter day be done at
one o'clock. Can't remember what she.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
Said, Well, it's Friday. I don't think that was it.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
It was something else going on, but that's the schedule.
We will keep a very close eye, folks. We always
appreciate you spending some time with us. Signed t J.
Holmes on behalf of my dear Amy Robak will talk
to Austin
Hey there, folks. It is Wednesday, December, third day three
of the Brian Walsh trial. Frankly got a little graphic
and with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Robes.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
There were exhibits today that I guess gives a kind
of a cave, kind of a graphic idea of a violent,
potentially violent death. That's right, Yes, she had. And I
think you said just a moment ago that that got
youa Today.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
It did because in this case we don't have a body,
they don't have an autopsy. Sometimes jurors are shown autopsy
photos and certainly look at autopsy reports, so they have
to take in a lot. In this case, there is
none of that. So it was interesting to me the
impact it had just seeing what the jurors saw. And
(00:55):
they were just photos, photos of weapons that were recovered
and normally they're considered tools, but tools that were turned
into weapons that were wrapped up in trash bags found
in those dumpsters near Brian Walsh's mom's home. And they
just showed the hammer, the wire snips, the hatchet, the
(01:16):
hack saw with red brown stains. If you were listening
to this trial today, you kept hearing those three words
with red brown stains. It almost became comical because that's
how much they were repeating all of the items they
found with this substance, which obviously you think is blood,
(01:36):
but it's almost as if they were like etching it
in the jurors minds.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Well, yeah, that was repeated quite a bit today, and
every time it was said, it was being shown graphic
detail in some way on the screen. But the day
a guy going today, and they had several witnesses, and
frankly several of these the defense didn't even ask a
(02:03):
single question of cross examination. It wasn't I mean, it
was housekeeping for the most part, making sure they determined, okay,
she did travel when and where and did she take
an uber and she didn't. Right, they had a couple
of Uber drivers and whatnot up there. This was all
just to establish that she was out of town, that
she didn't leave town, and whatnot her whereabouts. So that
(02:24):
was a lot of housekeeping in that. But the first
witness robes was the guy who was testifying yesterday, the
state trooper who handled.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
All the Google certainty.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Yeah, all that stuff. Now he started making some points today.
The defense attorney that had me sit up had me
perk up a little bit, and I couldn't believe he
had some answers that maybe had the jurors thinking.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Yes, because he wanted the state trooper to read some
of the searches that were left out of testimony, and
there were so many, you know, there are so many
other searches. So he asked him to read some of
the other searches that were found on Brian Walsh's computer,
like body disposal options, cool ways to be buried above ground,
(03:16):
burial options.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Now, what does that say to you?
Speaker 2 (03:19):
So that says that if those were the only searches,
then I would be more inclined to believe what Brian
Walsh's attorneys are trying to sell that he panicked after
his wife suddenly and inexplicably died. So yes, if those
were the only searches that would back up his story
(03:40):
for sure, Okay.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
So then what if the next part of that, and
I know the part that bothers is he used the
word murder in a search his attorney Today, the defense
attorney is pointing out just how little he used it
and when he used it as being a big deal. Now,
I couldn't imagine that I would listen to that. But
(04:02):
I gave that argument some thought, why did he do
it so little and why did he do it so late?
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Yeah, so the first reference to murder was actually six
hours into his searches. So he was using all sorts
of other different ways to describe, like we just referenced
body disposal options, cool ways to be varied, And it
wasn't until six hours later that he did that first
search that had murder.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
What do you make of that? What can we possibly
make of that? If he was panicked, if he was
all of these things, And as soon as he started searching,
it was only about disposal, it was only about dismember
what all that other stuff, And he didn't think to
type in murder until six plus hours later. I think
(04:56):
the defensive attorney was making an argument that it wasn't
top of mind. He's making the point that he was
trying to get different results through a bunch of searches. Man,
the timeline could make somebody go oh okay.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
I would also say that the other side of that
could be that perhaps he was in such a fog
and trying to figure out how to deal with the
issue at hand, which was a body, and then when
it kind of everything sunk in. He was maybe almost
owning it in his mind, almost acknowledging maybe something he
wasn't really trying or wasn't thinking about, which is the
(05:31):
fact that he just murdered his wife. And so maybe
it became something he was almost owning or accepting over time.
That could be another argument.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Okay, there is an argument. So if that is a possibility,
is it also a possibility that he did not kill her? Right?
If we want to be open to the possibility you
just gave what's more likely? I don't know, but in
that we talked to the attorney the other day and
(06:01):
she leaned into the camera talking to us and said,
she put her finger out one. I just need one
on that jury.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
M Well, I wouldn't be the one. That's what I
can tell you about that. And I agree, I totally
get it. You just have to somehow put a little
bit of doubt, enough doubt in one juror and you've
got you're not guilty verdict.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Well, I'm saying when I first heard the search, how
do you dispose of a body after a murder?
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Like he's done? This is what what can you what
can you argue? With that, and they found an argument
that's not out of this world.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
It was creative, I'll give them that. The other thing
that was really interesting to me was in cross examination,
the defense attorney also had this date trooper acknowledge because
they had testified. He had testified earlier to the fact
that Brian Walsh had been on divorce websites and had
(06:59):
spent time searching for divorce related searches, but on that
very same day they also he testified that Brian Walsh
went to his bank several times to check basically who
knows what, but checking accounts, then went to go look
at some Porsches for sale, okay, but then also went
(07:24):
to a diamond website where you go to Blue Nile
dot com. So, if this is someone who's trying to
divorce his wife or is considering divorce, why would he
be shopping for diamond rings. Why would if he was
worried about, you know, the future, why would he be
looking at a Porsche. So that was a little interesting
(07:48):
to me, the diamond the diamond website thing, because he's
not been accused of having someone on the side. He's
not accused of having a girlfriend the way shape of course,
it would have you make. I thought that was the
one thing that that piqud my interest today.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
So what the point they're trying to make is is
take away the idea of a motive that he was
trying to end his marriage or wanted his to get
his wife out of the way. He was planning for
the future, and this was at a time when he
didn't know anybody was going to see his Internet searches.
What do you make of that?
Speaker 2 (08:24):
I think it's interesting. I think there's something there.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
There's something there divorce. Now we've been hearing that was
the other thing. I think the prosecution was pointing out
searches that included divorce. They made it sound like this
dude was looking for the best states of divorce, right,
that was one of the searches es terms out divorce
searches took up in the fifteen days of data that
(08:49):
they reviewed fifteen days, twenty one minutes, only a twenty
one minute span did anything related to divorce come up.
That mean he wasn't obsessing over it, He wasn't doing
a whole lot. Whatever it came up.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
And whatever was a celebrity divorce too, rite Kati Katie Holmes.
It was something about Katie Holmes divorce. So that also
made the point like, Okay, he wasn't actually looking up
how to get divorced or you know when's a good
time to get divorced, or how expensive is divorce? Part
of that was looking up a celebrities divorce. So that
also was good defense work, right.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
It just made you think, it's so interesting when these
guys when you think that really after day two, After
day two, you and I both sat in guilty.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Why are we even watching this trial? You did?
Speaker 1 (09:41):
And now here we are now the I guess the
point rose when he got I said graphic at the
top that was in the crime lab specialist. He was
the one that handled the bags that were recovered from
the dumpster. I didn't realize it was as many bags
that they had recovered, but ten or so. And they
show a picture the bags, pictures of the contents and
(10:02):
I guess a lot of it robes, And they kept
using the same phrase to describe it had particular stains
on it that they kept pointing out, Oh.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
That's right, And so it was difficult to hear that
back and forth. But we're talking robes, towels, and as
we mentioned, some of the equipment that they believe was
used in either dismembering her or in murdering her. But
I do think once again, the Brian Walsh's attorney made
a pretty decent as much as you could point when
(10:35):
he cross examined the crime lab specialist after he talked,
because they kept saying red brown stains, red brown stains.
You're seeing picture pictures and images of clearly blood soaked
materials that were all in these bags that we now
know were dumped there by Brian Walsh. But his attorney said,
(10:56):
can you tell me that all of these items? Could
they not have been stained after they were thrown out,
after they were already in this dumpster? The condition of
the bags that were ripped in all of this, And
the crime lab specialist said, I cannot, I cannot tell
you that those stains were there before they were disposed of.
(11:18):
So I thought that was pretty good lawyering right there.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
It wasn't quite a very amazing moment, no, but it
was to hear someone admit, I can just tell you
what's on it. I got no idea where it came from.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
And when it got there and how it got there.
I mean, he's just he's doing the best he can
with what he has. He's working with what he has.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
With what he has. But we had a little surprise
ending to the day. The judge let the jury go
home early, about a half hour early, and they had
a very important issue to take up with the jury
out of the room, an issue that could help decide
(12:06):
the case.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
We'll explain.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
Stay here, all right, Welcome back, We continue day three
of the Brian Walsh trial. Is in the books, just
mentioned a moment ago that the jury got to go
home a little early. This the judge has kept things
(12:29):
really really on time so far, trying to make the
best use of the time, but she let them go
a little surprised. We didn't know what was going on.
There were did you know there were a bunch of sidebars.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
Yes, yes, all of a sudden because we're watching it,
we're kind of doing other things, mostly listening to it,
and all of a sudden it would go completely silent
and then either they either have the back of Brian
Walsh's head or the ceiling fan. But yes, there were many,
many moments where they were having sidebars.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
So with the sidebars, maybe this was part of the issue.
But this is a big one. As folks know, he
is on trial right now for murder, for murdering his wife.
He was also charged with two other things for dismembering
the body.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Disposing of it and misleading misleading police.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
All right, he said he copped to that, said guilty.
He did that right when this trial was starting. The
question now for the judge to decide is if she's
going to let this jury hear that he pled guilty
to those charges. It sounds like she didn't know what
she's going to do.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
No, And I think it's interesting too, because here's the deal.
The jury is hearing all about the implication of dismemberment,
and they also already heard Brian Walsh's attorneys say he
misled authorities, he lied to police. So I wonder I
(13:55):
would think the defense would want the guilty police in
because you would think the jury could infer Well wow,
he admitted that, and he's now not admitting the murder.
Well that's interesting.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
So wow.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
But I'm not sure who is fighting what, because I
know probably the most important thing for the judge right
now is to make sure whatever she decides doesn't end
up being used as an excuse for a mistrial. So
it's confusing. I had never heard of someone pleading guilty
to something fairly significant, but not pleading guilty to something
(14:32):
that would kind of go along with.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
The crime to go together. Right, he's saying they don't.
And to your point, I didn't think about that as
a strategy. I'm thinking about that as a juror. Why
would anybody do that? Why would someone admit to that?
And why not just try to get off from all
of it if.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
That's the case, because you so obviously linked to it
when you look at the searches, when you look at
the surveillance video.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
Yeah, you couldn't get around.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
Nothing else he can do. If he could have, he
would have tried. I'm sure. So at least hearing him
admit that, I feel like works in his favor. But
I don't know. Again, no legal expert here.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
When the judge was saying it to them, So yeah,
it must be the prosecution that wants it end because
she was saying to them, you have to show me
what the relevance is to your case. Why this wouldn't
be prejudicial because she says, this jury absolutely is prohibited
from considering those guilty, please and determining this verdict. So
(15:34):
she says, if I let them hear about it, I'm
the one inviting them to be.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Prejudicial, right, because yes, you can say, well, just this
is obviously why we see lawyers say things or ask
things that they know are going to be objected to
and perhaps sustained. But it doesn't matter because the jury
heard it anyway. So once a jury hears something, you
can instruct them not to consider it. Obviously, they can't
(16:01):
unhear it. And so this is something that we see
happen all the time in courtrooms. They know what's going
to get thrown out, they know it's going to be sustained,
and they do it anyway because they want the jury
to hear it.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
And they don't mind being scolded by the judge a
little bit in that one moment for the sake of
saying whatever.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
Exactly. So you know, if that is the case that
a jury cannot consider punishment when considering this verdict, then
I couldn't see why the judge would allow those guilty
pleas to be known to the jurors. That wouldn't make
any sense.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
That was the big debate as they were wrapping up
today day three. I believe she said the schedule. They
will continue as normal tomorrow, but the day five, if
I guess it would be on Friday. She's anticipating the
jury's going to have a shorter day be done at
one o'clock. Can't remember what she.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
Said, Well, it's Friday. I don't think that was it.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
It was something else going on, but that's the schedule.
We will keep a very close eye, folks. We always
appreciate you spending some time with us. Signed t J.
Holmes on behalf of my dear Amy Robak will talk
to Austin
Hosts And Creators
Lauren Zima
Chris Harrison
Popular Podcasts
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
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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.