December 2, 2025 • 38 mins
The trial of Brian Walshe is underway in Boston right now and it is riveting. The 50-year-old husband and father of three stands accused of murdering his still missing wife Ana on New Year’s Day two years ago. While Walshe has admitted to dismembering and disposing of his wife’s body - which has never been found - he denies murdering her. Joining us is renowned criminal defense attorney Alison Triessl who walks us through the defense strategy so far, with damning evidence mounting against their client. From the police audio tapes of Walshe lying and misleading investigators shortly after his wife’s disappearance, to the incriminating and jaw dropping google searches police found on devices linked to his iCloud account, there is already so much testimony to unpack and it’s only day 2 of 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 everybody to this episode of Amy and TJ Presents.
It is day two of the Brian Walsh trial on
this Tuesday, December second, and DJ and I have a
very special guest with us that we're going to introduce
in just a moment to give us some perspective about.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
What we have been seeing and hearing in this trial.
But it's already been a heck of a day in court.
These past two days been.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
A heck of a day. Is if this is setting
us up for what the next couple of weeks is
going to be in this trial, then this is it
is can't miss. This is a can't miss trial. It's
difficult to talk about it and not a sensationalized way
of some of the things. Just the idea of what
he's accused of, what he's admitting to, and how he's
trying to explain this as a defense.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
This is fascinating and for those of you will give
you a quick catch up.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
This is about a fifty year old husband and father
of three who has been charged with first degree murder
his wife, Anna's body has I've ever been found, but
get this, he's already pleaded guilty to dismembering her body,
to disposing of her body, and he's admitted to lying
about it all to investigators, but he says he did
(01:15):
not murder his wife. And with that, let's bring in
renowned criminal defense attorney Alison Treesel. She may be a
familiar face to some of you crime junkies who are
listening right now, but she's certainly made the rounds and
knows her stuff.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
I got this a fun fact about you, Allison.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
You have represented more than one thousand clients in your
decades long career who've all been charged with committing serious crimes.
So I know this case almost certainly has had to
have stood.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Out to you.
Speaker 4 (01:47):
Yeah. I mean, first of all, this is you're right,
This is one of those cannot miss, not just because
the facts and the text messages and the type of
relationship these people had. But then yesterday comes along and
we hear a defense. And TJ brought it up yesterday
(02:09):
that you really don't hear often, but when you have nothing,
this is an actual defense. This is a defense you
only need wonder to believe. And my goodness doesn't have legs. Well,
the case is pretty bad, the pace is bad, and
(02:30):
like you said Amy, I've been doing this for thirty years.
I handle really tough murder cases, and sometimes you feel
like Sisyphus. You are pushing that boulder up the hill
ill the hill is never gonna stop, and any moments
(02:51):
can come crashing down on you. And when you look
at the searches in this case, the line to the lease,
the evidence that has been found, you say to yourself,
what am I going to do? And Tipton has taken
a horsepoop of a case and turned it into something,
(03:15):
turned it into something.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
Okay, And you're talking about Tipton his attorney, Walsh's attorney.
So but we don't want to get too deep into
the evidence, okay, just on the surface. Tell me your
reaction when you hear them lay out in court yesterday,
my defensive rid of her body and we're saying she
died from just sudden, unexplained death. Now the idea there,
(03:38):
first of all, is that his only option?
Speaker 4 (03:40):
Yes, I mean, but you know I heard other commentators
who I will disagree with, say, well, why don't you
try and ask for a second degree murder? Why would
you go all or nothing here? Why would you do that?
And the reality is not only do you have the
things that you mentioned? All right, but he is now
(04:02):
a convicted felon, he's known to lie. The kinds of
evidence that they found against him is so damning, I
mean so damning. A hack saw with her DNA on it.
I mean, we're talking about facts that jurors shudder at
the idea that you dismember your wife's body. Those kinds
(04:26):
of things make jurors cry, I mean make jurors hate
the defendant. So what are we doing here? What he's
doing is he's saying all those things are true. He
came out and said, the searches are disturbing, they're true.
The lies to the police, they happened. He lied to
(04:50):
the police. At some point, it's going to come out
that he actually has pled guilty to it. I know
there's some debate right now, but ultimately someone's going to
open that door for the prosecution to walk through. That's
what's going to happen. And so what you have is
back to the basics, and that is they have no
(05:12):
body the motive, which all jurors want to hear. I
think they've got a motive. I think that they're going
to be able to establish that she was having an affair,
he knew about it, and she was going to leave him,
and that is motive. That is all the motive that
a jury really needs. Okay, they've got one hundred thousand
(05:34):
dollars life insurance policy where he's the benefactory excuse me,
a million dollars and he is he has to pay
that court a lot of money. Okay, So you have
all of that, but you don't have a body. And
the reason that's important is because when you're using a
defense right that this was a natural death, if you
(05:55):
don't have a body, you don't have a corner to
tell the jury what the cause and manner of death was.
You don't have that. So if a when you're saying, look,
she died of natural causes, and you don't have a
corner that can get up and say absolutely not, she
was strangled. Absolutely not before she was dismembered. There's X, Y,
(06:20):
and Z. And by the way, I'm not saying that
they're going to win. I am this is a very
difficult case for the defense to win. This looks like
by all accounts, a first degree murder case. There is
evidence of premeditation here, and certainly his actions of lying
(06:42):
to the police and going to all these different stores
and buying the hots on, buying all the cleaning stuff
and the fifty pounds you know, I mean of a
baking soda. That really is damning evidence and amy. You're
shaking your head, but it's true. I mean, this is
one of those cases where you go, this is as
(07:02):
sadistic and cruel of a case as you could ever imagine.
She is the mother of his three young children.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
And what is even more remarkable, as we've just been
watching these past two days, is to hear Brian Walsh
in those early days. First of all, he doesn't even
he's not even the one who reports his wife missing.
But then when police come to investigate, to hear how
good of a liar he is, because we now know
he is a liar. His attorney said, my client lied,
(07:33):
he lied to authorities, He panicked. But when you actually
hear and the jurors have been listening to Ryan Walsh
in the days after he dismembered his wife's body and
disposed of it, how cool, calm and collected he is.
He I would have believed him. He was so believable.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
He didn't seem.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Nervous or panicked or going into over great detail. He
didn't seem emotional. How do like you heard some of
this being played to the jury. You're a defense attorney,
how do you combat that? Look, I'm sitting listening to
these searches. Okay, I mean I'm sitting listening to these searches.
(08:18):
So not I mean, is it unusual for a defendant
to lie to the police.
Speaker 4 (08:24):
Not at all, Not at all. I mean that that's
that's sort of par for the course, right, And I
always say to people, Look, I can't change what you've
said in the past, but we're not going to speak
to the police anymore. There's a reason people have a
right to remain silent. I literally would muffle someone. I
would say, we're not you're not talking ever again. Okay,
(08:46):
you're you have you, You've done enough, and now now
we're not going to speak. But I really today was
so captivating because he's going over by line these searches,
and you brought up a great point yesterday that should
(09:07):
not go unnoticed. And he used the word murder. And
if I'm the prosecutor and I say, wait a minute,
someone who innocently discovers that his wife is dead is
not going to type in the word murder? Are they
He didn't call the police, He didn't call nine one one.
(09:30):
As the prosecutor said, don't leave your common sense at
the door. Don't do it. You. Jurors come in and
they're not They come in with with life experiences. They
come in with a sense of decency and understanding and
asking themselves what would they do? What would be your
immediate reaction? Would your immediate reaction be to call nine
(09:53):
one one? Would your immediate reaction to see what you
can do to resuscitate her, to call the police, or
you know, all of those things? Would it be? Can
you be charged with murder without a body? Can you
identify a body with broken teeth? What happens to hair
on a dead body? Those types of things are going
(10:17):
to not only make the hairs on the jurors arms
stand up and everywhere else. They're going to say, who
does this? Who does this? An innocent person behaves this way?
Speaker 3 (10:32):
Is this to your point? Is this a done deal?
How do you over I don't think it is okay?
You don't think so well? How is your am I
or you as a defense attorney, how do you overcome
those messages? You're talking about, can you identify a body
with broken teeth? He brought up with some of the
messages blood, How do you clean it off a pavement,
off concrete? He used the word murder several times. How
(10:53):
to dispose of a body after murder? How are you,
as a defense attorney going to tell me in my
common sense in the box? Yep, I'm supposed to take
that as anything else.
Speaker 4 (11:04):
Okay. So what Tipton did is he took the air
out of the prosecution's tires immediately. Okay. First thing he
does is he said he lied. Yep, he searches, He
owns up to all of that. Okay, So that is
not going to in two or three weeks from now.
(11:24):
That's not going to be shocking to them. The defense
has owned it. They have owned it, okay. So then
the question is going to be can he really prove
this sudden unexplained death? I did in preparing for our podcast,
I looked up sudden unexplained death and in one hundred
(11:46):
thousand cases of deaths in an adult that is Latin
or White, the instant, the probability is like a point
one sixth probability that that happens Okay, so they've got
to find an expert who's going to say that, No,
I have not examined the body, but I do believe
(12:11):
that sudden, unexplained deaths from somebody who is a normally
healthy person happened with enough frequency that it is believable.
They've got to overcome the hurdle of is their client
going to testify to this How are they going to
make the nexus? Because there is a question, and this
(12:32):
is specific to Massachusetts law, and it is it is
sort of a general idea for experts to be able
to testify. They have to be able to explain that
this is what happened in this case, in this case,
(12:53):
and how do they do that without a body, without
an autopsy, and without their client testifying. So are they
just going to speculate? And is a judge going to
allow them just to sort of outline sudden desk syndrome
without some nexus to this case. That's an interesting question,
that's an interesting legal question, that's an interesting evidentiary question
(13:17):
of how this expert is going to be able to
get this information in.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
You said that does he have to testify?
Speaker 4 (13:25):
He shouldn't because he is going to be skewered on
the stand. And look, I don't think that that art
fraud case is a nothing burger. I think that it
shows a pattern for years of deception, of lies, of
stealing from of doing bad things. I mean here he
(13:50):
was passing off forged artwork to people and essentially stealing
from them. Jurors don't like that he was on house
arrest at the time. So all of these things. As
a defense attorney, you say, how in the world do
I put him on? And can I put him on
(14:10):
for the sole purpose of talking about how he found
his wife? Well, it doesn't work that way. The prosecution
gets a shot at you, and when you testify, you
don't get to selectively testify. You then open yourself up
to a whole lot of hurt.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
Okay, but Alison, what do you do if you say
you can't if you don't have a body, and no
expert can say to examine the body to have sudden
death of being the actual cause of death. He's the
only one that can do this, So how do you
do it if you don't want to put him on
the stand. But he's the only one that can prove
this point.
Speaker 4 (14:44):
Okay, So there are ways there are ways that Welsh
himself could not testify to the medical idea of sudden,
unexplained death. He could not do it right. He's not
an expert. The criteria for expert testimony in Massachusetts is
(15:09):
found in Evidence Code Section seven zero two, and they
can testify to their scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge
that will help the tryer fact in this case, the
jury understand the evidence and determine a fact in issue.
It has to be based on sufficient facts or data.
(15:32):
The testimony is dependent on reliable, reliable principles and methods.
And then the last one is the testimony. The expert
from the has to give testimony that is reliably a
pride to the principles and methods to the facts of
this case. That is the issue. That's the issue that
(15:56):
the judge is going to have to decide. Much going
to be able to say he can testify without Welsh,
without a body, and without examining a body, without examining
the coroner's report since there is no body, and without
Welsh saying well, this is what I found. Is the
expert going to be able to testify to that? And
(16:18):
even if they do, even if they do, is a
prosecution going to simply get up and say this is
a bunch of poppy cock. Have a body, you don't
have a you don't have a corner telling you what
a manner of death is or a cause of death is.
You've just simply made this up. So TJ, is this
(16:39):
the best case in the world? No?
Speaker 2 (16:42):
Would you take it? Allison? Would you take this case?
Speaker 4 (16:45):
Yes? Look, I believe in the criminal justice system. I
believe that everyone has a right to be defended. Amy
do I win cases like this? Not usually? Not usually,
(17:09):
But everyone has a right to be defended. They do.
And for our system to work, you deserve the zealous
advocacy and that is what Tipton is getting him giving him. Now,
does that mean he's going to win? Does that mean
that he sits there as a defendant in a murder
case and looks as smug as he does. I would
(17:29):
be kicking him a few times under council table, just
so you know. And I've done that.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
And I'm curious because yes, there are cameras in this
courtroom which we haven't seen for some time. A lot
of these high profile cases we've been covering over the years,
most of them do not have cameras in the courtroom.
This one is really unusual and it's been riveting. We've
been watching on four TV now for the last couple
of days, and yes, jurors, we get to see what
(17:55):
jurors get to see. We get to see Brian Walsh
sitting there listening to him himself, lying to police, listening
to an investigator rattle off all of his internet searches,
and see his body language and see how he's reacting,
which has not been much at all.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
How do you, as a defense attorney explain those searches?
Speaker 1 (18:18):
I mean it has I have never and I know
you obviously have a tremendous amount of trial experience. Have
you ever, It's almost as if he was breadcrumbing the police.
Speaker 4 (18:28):
A roadmap he's left.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
He left an exact like from from the timeline where
his head was, what he was thinking about, how he
was trying to cover up everything. It's almost as if
we were there with him, minute by minute.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
Look, I've certainly had text messages, and I have a case,
I have a murder case where text messages before the
death are very valuable. They're very useful because they do
talk about the state of mind of both parties. At
times they do explain a relationship. They are a mirror
(19:10):
into the mind and the soul of the individual that's
doing those searches or sending those text messages. And here
it is dark. It is very very dark. And let
me say that the Instagram search of the man that
she was having an affair with will prove to be
(19:33):
crucial because if he knew that they had a relationship.
Going back to what TJ said yesterday, motive, motive, motive.
It's not necessary in a case. The prosecution never has
to show a motive, but jurors always want to know
the why. They always want to know the why. And
(19:55):
if the prosecution can give them a why, and they
don't have a boughty, that's important. That's really really important.
And these text messages, these I mean I'm staring at them,
you know, and you've got what is the best state
to divorce for a man? I mean, you know that
(20:18):
he's thinking about these things. He's thinking about these things
soon after she has not heard from how long before
a body starts to smell? I mean things like this
that talk about where his head is. I mean his
tipton can do his best of job as he can
(20:40):
at tiptoeing around. He's frantic. He's frantic, he's frantic. These
aren't just frantic, these are sinister.
Speaker 3 (20:48):
And they went on for hours, and some of them
they like rapid fire. They were showing with the timestamps
of these. I want to ask you, I guess I'm
putting you to the fire a little bit here, and
that I am so curious because we couldn't figure out
a way then anybody could defend this guy. But if
the jury asked you, as the defense attorney for Brian Walsh,
to explain his Google search, is it possible to clean
(21:12):
DNA off a knife? The best way to dispose of
body parts? And he looked up someone called Patrick Kearney,
the trash bag killer. Now, if a juror asked you, Alison,
those three things, is this.
Speaker 4 (21:28):
Before or after I crawl under my desk?
Speaker 3 (21:32):
Okay?
Speaker 4 (21:33):
When is that? When is that?
Speaker 3 (21:35):
Okay? If that's the best strategy, you can own it.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
You own it that. You have to own it that
he did it. And then in a in what Tipton did.
And I'm telling you I have been doing these cases.
I am a I am a crime junkie. Okay, I
love criminal cases. I represent criminals or alleged criminals. All
(22:00):
they I watched Dateline. I know this stuff well. And
what Tipton did. No matter what other podcasters are saying
or legal commentators are saying, they do not understand the
(22:22):
brilliant behind this defense. And I mean, it is it
gonna work? Well? On one hand, you have the most
damning searches I've ever seen in my life. You have
ten trash bags full of evidence. You have him going
to home depot and buying hack saws, and I mean
(22:43):
that is as bad as it gets, right, I mean,
you're you have he he is a he is a
bad criminal. He left the receipt. Okay, he left the receipt.
I mean when they're getting you know, I mean you're
talking about breadcrumbs. I mean, he might as well well
have just laid out all the evidence right there. That
is tough stuff to overcome. But when you are defending
(23:07):
somebody and it's a really really bad case, and you've
given the jury and you need one TJ. You need one.
I need to convince everybody. I need to convince one.
And one person says, well, all of this looks horrible.
All of it looks horrible. But they haven't told me
(23:30):
how she died.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
What do you think the response is he told me
with the knife and the murder and the blood. Okay,
the desk, you're you're my eleven of twelve. You're in
the eleven of twelve. And by the way, I am
not saying that he's not going to get convicted. I mean,
but I don't want people to think that this is
(23:55):
a slam dunk for the people.
Speaker 4 (23:57):
They don't have a body. You don't have to prosecut
with a body, and in Massachusetts you don't need a body,
and they actually have a jury instruction about that where
you don't need a body. You have to show the
circumstances that this person is dead, and he's already admitted.
And by the way, that's one way when it comes
(24:17):
down to has he pled to this? Has he has
he pled to these two charges that it may come
in because they don't have to they have to prove
that they're that this person is dead. Okay, But at
the end of the day, the prosecutors have to show
(24:39):
that he killed her and that she didn't die of
natural causes, which, by the way, I gave you the statistics, Okay,
I gave you the statistics, and they need to find
an expert who's going to get up there and say, oh, yeah,
this definitely happens. This happens. One of the things that
I also did is I look to see how, oh
(25:00):
how many other cases in Massachusetts where sudden unexplained death
has been used and hasn't been successful. And there is
a two thousand and eight case Commonwealth be George Naughty
and he's accused of murdering his mother. It wasn't a
sudden death case, but he argued that his mother died
(25:22):
of natural causes, specifically heart disease, and he was found
guilty in the first degree. The crooks of his defense
was that she was not murdered, but died of natural
causes related to her heart, and it was outlined in
the council's opening statement. He did very similar things like, look,
(25:44):
you know there were medical conditions, this can happen. Jury
didn't believe it. It has been used, it was unsuccessful.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
Yeah, I mean there's a lot of defenses out there,
including self.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Defense, and they very rarely work.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
As you know, I'm curious when it comes to the
motive you mentioned, how important that is going to be
especially when you don't have a body, and we are
expecting Anna's lover to testify in this case, what are you?
Speaker 2 (26:14):
I actually am.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
On the edge of my seat waiting for that day
when he takes the stand, because that is going to
be I would imagine a pretty tremendous day for the prosecution.
Speaker 4 (26:31):
I'm not sure, and I'm going to tell you why
I'm not sure. I'm not sure because he didn't know
Brian Welsh. He doesn't know what Brian Welsh knew about
the relationship. So in terms of a motive, he can say, yes,
(26:53):
we had this affair, Yes we kept it secret, Yes
we did all of these things. But unless he says,
she told me that she told him about the affair.
I knew that this guy was cyberstalking me, this guy
called me. This guy you know she was planning to leave.
(27:15):
She told me that she told him she was planning
to leave. All of those things. He may say we
had an affair, but he said she said, I'm never
leaving my husband, and let's not tell anybody about it.
That doesn't get the prosecution anywhere.
Speaker 3 (27:31):
They don't have a body, How do they prove she's dead?
How do they prove how she died.
Speaker 4 (27:36):
I guess, well, okay, so that's the thing, right, So
he pled, right, he pled and they're going to have
to That's why I was saying that that those guilty
please and I want to talk a little bit about that,
because it's really fascinating to me that they sort of
bifurcated this case and had him plead guilty to certain
(27:59):
things and not others. And maybe they were hoping that
by pleading guilty to that it wouldn't become a central
focus of the case. And the judge has not made
that ruling yet on how much of that comes in.
But unless I had and this is where I may
have done things differently, unless I had a stipulation or
(28:22):
an agreement that those were not going to come in
as evidence at some point, that they were not going
to be thoroughly discussed that guilty plead. I'm struggling looking
a little bit because they've owned up to the fact
that he lied, right, They've owned up to other parts
(28:42):
of this case. So the is it going to do
him any favors by pleading guilty? Is it something that
they can just gloss over? Now? I'm not sure. We
have two more weeks of this case to go, and
the prosecution does have to pre that she's dead.
Speaker 3 (29:02):
Okay, But how do you go about proving how she
do if everybody's assuming, yes, she's dead. But how isn't
that a key part of the case. Have to prove
how she does?
Speaker 4 (29:11):
That's my point. That's my point. There's two separate issues here.
One is she dead, okay, which he admits to hacking
her up and dismembering her. He admits to that, But
the prosecution for a first degree murder has got to
(29:31):
explain that he killed her. They've got to explain the
cause and manner of death. That's why Tipton, that's why
Tipton had I mean, Tipton had one of the greatest
days of his career because he has a stinker of
a case and we're talking about it now.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
Yeah, And what main headlines is, how do you have
a client, how do you have a man admit to dismemorying, dismembering,
and disposing of your wife's body and completely misleading investigators
into sending them on this massive search and manhunt for
your wife who you already know is dead because you
admit to disposing of her body. That is a crazy
(30:18):
thing to admit that, but then to say, but I'm
not guilty of murder.
Speaker 2 (30:22):
That was the first thing that caught our eyes. Obviously
when this case came out.
Speaker 4 (30:25):
By the way, I had a middle of the night
thought about this case, mid the night thought, and it
was this. One of the problems with Brian taking the
stand is, if I'm the prosecutor, I say, right, you
chopped her up? Where is she? Where is she now?
The thing is he can't ever tell them where she
(30:49):
is because if they can find her, and if they
can do an autopsy on her, no matter how badly
he composed, she is. And we see this in the
David case right where they're saying she had been her boy,
her bad her body was badly decomposed, but the coroner
(31:10):
is able to piece it together. And we have that
with a lot of old cold cases where they exhume
bodies and do all of that stuff. If they do that,
what if they find what the manner of death is?
What what if they find that it was actually strangulation,
or it was a gunshot, or it was you know,
it was cutster, all of those things. He can never
(31:31):
tell them where the body is.
Speaker 3 (31:33):
Oh, he can't get on the stand. He absolutely cannot. No, No,
isn't that question one from the prose of you?
Speaker 4 (31:39):
What? I?
Speaker 2 (31:41):
Because how can he admit to having that?
Speaker 4 (31:43):
What's the first thing he's gonna say. I'm not telling
you I don't like that question?
Speaker 3 (31:47):
Next and it's not going to allow that. Okay, last,
this will be the last thing for me. Actually, and
this we talked about this a lot with the ditty case.
Even though there were no cameras, we got a sense
of just how good Mark Acnophilo was. We got a
lot of reports about his personality and even the jurors
were laughing and whatnot watching the opening statements and watching
the trial today, the prosecutors look, they had their own tone,
(32:09):
but it's not necessarily entertaining. It's not on. It's gonna
make you jump out of your seat. And one of
the prosecutors today she was even questioning in such a
way that it was dragging and she was not keeping
up with her own notes and right, but Tipton, Yes
to your point. Alim Tipton got up yesterday. The first
words out of his mouth and I yeah, shouted into Robot.
(32:29):
This dude is going to be a star for the
next two weeks, hands in his pocket, head down, speaking extemporaneously.
How big of a deal is it to have a
tipt in it? And his personality in that court remote trip?
Speaker 4 (32:40):
All right, I'm going to tell you an important story
about it. But I'm going to tell you that the
prosecution she was monotone, and she shouldn't have been, because
I would have been wait a minute, he did a
search on is it better to throw crime scene clothes
away or wash them? I would have emphasized crime scene.
(33:04):
So the jury heard that. Now the answers, the answers
may be enough, and their case may be enough. But
this is the story that I'm going to tell you.
I was president of the criminal Court bar in Los Angeles,
and we you know, we've had great speakers, but the
best speaker we ever had was a sign language interpreter.
(33:25):
And the reason that she was the best speaker we've
ever had is because the only people that are ever
allowed into a jury room while they're deliberating are sign
language interpreters. Okay, And so she had a front row
seat to hundreds and hundreds of jury deliberations. And do
(33:46):
you know what she said? They talk about Uh, the
clothes that people wear, how the defendant is smug or
smiles or or looks guilty or cries, and the lawyer's performance.
(34:07):
The lawyer's performance. So, to answer your question, it matters now.
There may be so much overwhelming evidence that the prosecution
can stay monotone and it is their job just to
present the facts we all. I mean, look, prosecutors aren't
known to be flashy. That's not their mo and I
(34:30):
get it, but she missed key points today when she's
going through the most damning part of their case. I mean,
how are you not talking about can you throw body
parts away? You know, can you put body parts in ammonia?
Like I would have repeated it, and I would have
emphasized those those searches that are so best ways to
(34:56):
dispose of a body after a murder. That's what I
would have done.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
Yes, it's so interesting to have her be reading the
page number, then get lost, then be flipping. It takes
away from the inherent drama of the searches themselves, and
now I'm feeling befuddled and confused, and it really does
take away some of the significance. I told we were
both saying that today listening to that. So this trial
(35:24):
still had they said two to three weeks, we're only
on day two. What are you looking I don't want
to say looking most forward to, but what are you
looking to in this.
Speaker 2 (35:34):
Trial that you think will be the moment?
Speaker 1 (35:35):
I mean for this person who right now, obviously we
have no legal expertise, but I'm already like, I feel
like you could rest your case after today.
Speaker 4 (35:43):
What else are we going to be I'm going to
be interested in how the defense cross examines any law
enforcement that was that touched the Karen Reid case. Okay,
I'm going to be very interested in that because they're
going to hammer them for that. They're going to hammer
him for that. Okay. I mean we all know in
(36:04):
Massachusetts that was a black eye on law enforcement the
entire case. Okay, So any law enforcement officer, you already
have one who was in charge of collecting some evidence, Okay,
so I'm going to go after them for that. I
want to hear what this defense attorney Tipton is going
to do with them, because that is something that is
fair game that you're going to talk about. Okay, that's
(36:26):
number one. But I'm also very very keen to hear.
I don't think that Brian Well should justify, So I'm
not going to address that until we know whether or
not audio is But I want to know what the defense's
expert is going to say, and that's not going to
come for weeks. It's not going to come for weeks.
But my goodness, how is this expert who has nobody,
(36:51):
who has no autopsy report, who has nothing but the
word of someone that's not going to testify, going to
explain that and make it believable?
Speaker 3 (37:01):
Wow?
Speaker 1 (37:02):
Well, we will be watching and listening as well, Alison Triesel.
We so appreciate your perspective on this, and actually I
cannot believe what we're hearing already. So I know someone
as seasoned as you also saying those searches were probably
the most damning searches you've ever seen.
Speaker 4 (37:23):
Ever, we'll try it. Ever, I mean, other than a confession,
other than a Retten out, I mean, maybe this is
better than a confession, because you can't even say it
was a coarse confession for his searches, and he can't
blame his two four six year old on it.
Speaker 3 (37:40):
Good point, exactly, exactly, right point.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
Well, we would love to check back in with you
because we know you're watching just as feverishly as we are,
and so many others following this case. But Alison Triesel,
thank you so so much for being on the podcast,
and we certainly hope you come back soon.
Speaker 4 (37:59):
Have a great day, everybody.
Speaker 3 (38:00):
Eight
Welcome everybody to this episode of Amy and TJ Presents.
It is day two of the Brian Walsh trial on
this Tuesday, December second, and DJ and I have a
very special guest with us that we're going to introduce
in just a moment to give us some perspective about.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
What we have been seeing and hearing in this trial.
But it's already been a heck of a day in court.
These past two days been.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
A heck of a day. Is if this is setting
us up for what the next couple of weeks is
going to be in this trial, then this is it
is can't miss. This is a can't miss trial. It's
difficult to talk about it and not a sensationalized way
of some of the things. Just the idea of what
he's accused of, what he's admitting to, and how he's
trying to explain this as a defense.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
This is fascinating and for those of you will give
you a quick catch up.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
This is about a fifty year old husband and father
of three who has been charged with first degree murder
his wife, Anna's body has I've ever been found, but
get this, he's already pleaded guilty to dismembering her body,
to disposing of her body, and he's admitted to lying
about it all to investigators, but he says he did
(01:15):
not murder his wife. And with that, let's bring in
renowned criminal defense attorney Alison Treesel. She may be a
familiar face to some of you crime junkies who are
listening right now, but she's certainly made the rounds and
knows her stuff.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
I got this a fun fact about you, Allison.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
You have represented more than one thousand clients in your
decades long career who've all been charged with committing serious crimes.
So I know this case almost certainly has had to
have stood.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Out to you.
Speaker 4 (01:47):
Yeah. I mean, first of all, this is you're right,
This is one of those cannot miss, not just because
the facts and the text messages and the type of
relationship these people had. But then yesterday comes along and
we hear a defense. And TJ brought it up yesterday
(02:09):
that you really don't hear often, but when you have nothing,
this is an actual defense. This is a defense you
only need wonder to believe. And my goodness doesn't have legs. Well,
the case is pretty bad, the pace is bad, and
(02:30):
like you said Amy, I've been doing this for thirty years.
I handle really tough murder cases, and sometimes you feel
like Sisyphus. You are pushing that boulder up the hill
ill the hill is never gonna stop, and any moments
(02:51):
can come crashing down on you. And when you look
at the searches in this case, the line to the lease,
the evidence that has been found, you say to yourself,
what am I going to do? And Tipton has taken
a horsepoop of a case and turned it into something,
(03:15):
turned it into something.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
Okay, And you're talking about Tipton his attorney, Walsh's attorney.
So but we don't want to get too deep into
the evidence, okay, just on the surface. Tell me your
reaction when you hear them lay out in court yesterday,
my defensive rid of her body and we're saying she
died from just sudden, unexplained death. Now the idea there,
(03:38):
first of all, is that his only option?
Speaker 4 (03:40):
Yes, I mean, but you know I heard other commentators
who I will disagree with, say, well, why don't you
try and ask for a second degree murder? Why would
you go all or nothing here? Why would you do that?
And the reality is not only do you have the
things that you mentioned? All right, but he is now
(04:02):
a convicted felon, he's known to lie. The kinds of
evidence that they found against him is so damning, I
mean so damning. A hack saw with her DNA on it.
I mean, we're talking about facts that jurors shudder at
the idea that you dismember your wife's body. Those kinds
(04:26):
of things make jurors cry, I mean make jurors hate
the defendant. So what are we doing here? What he's
doing is he's saying all those things are true. He
came out and said, the searches are disturbing, they're true.
The lies to the police, they happened. He lied to
(04:50):
the police. At some point, it's going to come out
that he actually has pled guilty to it. I know
there's some debate right now, but ultimately someone's going to
open that door for the prosecution to walk through. That's
what's going to happen. And so what you have is
back to the basics, and that is they have no
(05:12):
body the motive, which all jurors want to hear. I
think they've got a motive. I think that they're going
to be able to establish that she was having an affair,
he knew about it, and she was going to leave him,
and that is motive. That is all the motive that
a jury really needs. Okay, they've got one hundred thousand
(05:34):
dollars life insurance policy where he's the benefactory excuse me,
a million dollars and he is he has to pay
that court a lot of money. Okay, So you have
all of that, but you don't have a body. And
the reason that's important is because when you're using a
defense right that this was a natural death, if you
(05:55):
don't have a body, you don't have a corner to
tell the jury what the cause and manner of death was.
You don't have that. So if a when you're saying, look,
she died of natural causes, and you don't have a
corner that can get up and say absolutely not, she
was strangled. Absolutely not before she was dismembered. There's X, Y,
(06:20):
and Z. And by the way, I'm not saying that
they're going to win. I am this is a very
difficult case for the defense to win. This looks like
by all accounts, a first degree murder case. There is
evidence of premeditation here, and certainly his actions of lying
(06:42):
to the police and going to all these different stores
and buying the hots on, buying all the cleaning stuff
and the fifty pounds you know, I mean of a
baking soda. That really is damning evidence and amy. You're
shaking your head, but it's true. I mean, this is
one of those cases where you go, this is as
(07:02):
sadistic and cruel of a case as you could ever imagine.
She is the mother of his three young children.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
And what is even more remarkable, as we've just been
watching these past two days, is to hear Brian Walsh
in those early days. First of all, he doesn't even
he's not even the one who reports his wife missing.
But then when police come to investigate, to hear how
good of a liar he is, because we now know
he is a liar. His attorney said, my client lied,
(07:33):
he lied to authorities, He panicked. But when you actually
hear and the jurors have been listening to Ryan Walsh
in the days after he dismembered his wife's body and
disposed of it, how cool, calm and collected he is.
He I would have believed him. He was so believable.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
He didn't seem.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Nervous or panicked or going into over great detail. He
didn't seem emotional. How do like you heard some of
this being played to the jury. You're a defense attorney,
how do you combat that? Look, I'm sitting listening to
these searches. Okay, I mean I'm sitting listening to these searches.
(08:18):
So not I mean, is it unusual for a defendant
to lie to the police.
Speaker 4 (08:24):
Not at all, Not at all. I mean that that's
that's sort of par for the course, right, And I
always say to people, Look, I can't change what you've
said in the past, but we're not going to speak
to the police anymore. There's a reason people have a
right to remain silent. I literally would muffle someone. I
would say, we're not you're not talking ever again. Okay,
(08:46):
you're you have you, You've done enough, and now now
we're not going to speak. But I really today was
so captivating because he's going over by line these searches,
and you brought up a great point yesterday that should
(09:07):
not go unnoticed. And he used the word murder. And
if I'm the prosecutor and I say, wait a minute,
someone who innocently discovers that his wife is dead is
not going to type in the word murder? Are they
He didn't call the police, He didn't call nine one one.
(09:30):
As the prosecutor said, don't leave your common sense at
the door. Don't do it. You. Jurors come in and
they're not They come in with with life experiences. They
come in with a sense of decency and understanding and
asking themselves what would they do? What would be your
immediate reaction? Would your immediate reaction be to call nine
(09:53):
one one? Would your immediate reaction to see what you
can do to resuscitate her, to call the police, or
you know, all of those things? Would it be? Can
you be charged with murder without a body? Can you
identify a body with broken teeth? What happens to hair
on a dead body? Those types of things are going
(10:17):
to not only make the hairs on the jurors arms
stand up and everywhere else. They're going to say, who
does this? Who does this? An innocent person behaves this way?
Speaker 3 (10:32):
Is this to your point? Is this a done deal?
How do you over I don't think it is okay?
You don't think so well? How is your am I
or you as a defense attorney, how do you overcome
those messages? You're talking about, can you identify a body
with broken teeth? He brought up with some of the
messages blood, How do you clean it off a pavement,
off concrete? He used the word murder several times. How
(10:53):
to dispose of a body after murder? How are you,
as a defense attorney going to tell me in my
common sense in the box? Yep, I'm supposed to take
that as anything else.
Speaker 4 (11:04):
Okay. So what Tipton did is he took the air
out of the prosecution's tires immediately. Okay. First thing he
does is he said he lied. Yep, he searches, He
owns up to all of that. Okay, So that is
not going to in two or three weeks from now.
(11:24):
That's not going to be shocking to them. The defense
has owned it. They have owned it, okay. So then
the question is going to be can he really prove
this sudden unexplained death? I did in preparing for our podcast,
I looked up sudden unexplained death and in one hundred
(11:46):
thousand cases of deaths in an adult that is Latin
or White, the instant, the probability is like a point
one sixth probability that that happens Okay, so they've got
to find an expert who's going to say that, No,
I have not examined the body, but I do believe
(12:11):
that sudden, unexplained deaths from somebody who is a normally
healthy person happened with enough frequency that it is believable.
They've got to overcome the hurdle of is their client
going to testify to this How are they going to
make the nexus? Because there is a question, and this
(12:32):
is specific to Massachusetts law, and it is it is
sort of a general idea for experts to be able
to testify. They have to be able to explain that
this is what happened in this case, in this case,
(12:53):
and how do they do that without a body, without
an autopsy, and without their client testifying. So are they
just going to speculate? And is a judge going to
allow them just to sort of outline sudden desk syndrome
without some nexus to this case. That's an interesting question,
that's an interesting legal question, that's an interesting evidentiary question
(13:17):
of how this expert is going to be able to
get this information in.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
You said that does he have to testify?
Speaker 4 (13:25):
He shouldn't because he is going to be skewered on
the stand. And look, I don't think that that art
fraud case is a nothing burger. I think that it
shows a pattern for years of deception, of lies, of
stealing from of doing bad things. I mean here he
(13:50):
was passing off forged artwork to people and essentially stealing
from them. Jurors don't like that he was on house
arrest at the time. So all of these things. As
a defense attorney, you say, how in the world do
I put him on? And can I put him on
(14:10):
for the sole purpose of talking about how he found
his wife? Well, it doesn't work that way. The prosecution
gets a shot at you, and when you testify, you
don't get to selectively testify. You then open yourself up
to a whole lot of hurt.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
Okay, but Alison, what do you do if you say
you can't if you don't have a body, and no
expert can say to examine the body to have sudden
death of being the actual cause of death. He's the
only one that can do this, So how do you
do it if you don't want to put him on
the stand. But he's the only one that can prove
this point.
Speaker 4 (14:44):
Okay, So there are ways there are ways that Welsh
himself could not testify to the medical idea of sudden,
unexplained death. He could not do it right. He's not
an expert. The criteria for expert testimony in Massachusetts is
(15:09):
found in Evidence Code Section seven zero two, and they
can testify to their scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge
that will help the tryer fact in this case, the
jury understand the evidence and determine a fact in issue.
It has to be based on sufficient facts or data.
(15:32):
The testimony is dependent on reliable, reliable principles and methods.
And then the last one is the testimony. The expert
from the has to give testimony that is reliably a
pride to the principles and methods to the facts of
this case. That is the issue. That's the issue that
(15:56):
the judge is going to have to decide. Much going
to be able to say he can testify without Welsh,
without a body, and without examining a body, without examining
the coroner's report since there is no body, and without
Welsh saying well, this is what I found. Is the
expert going to be able to testify to that? And
(16:18):
even if they do, even if they do, is a
prosecution going to simply get up and say this is
a bunch of poppy cock. Have a body, you don't
have a you don't have a corner telling you what
a manner of death is or a cause of death is.
You've just simply made this up. So TJ, is this
(16:39):
the best case in the world? No?
Speaker 2 (16:42):
Would you take it? Allison? Would you take this case?
Speaker 4 (16:45):
Yes? Look, I believe in the criminal justice system. I
believe that everyone has a right to be defended. Amy
do I win cases like this? Not usually? Not usually,
(17:09):
But everyone has a right to be defended. They do.
And for our system to work, you deserve the zealous
advocacy and that is what Tipton is getting him giving him. Now,
does that mean he's going to win? Does that mean
that he sits there as a defendant in a murder
case and looks as smug as he does. I would
(17:29):
be kicking him a few times under council table, just
so you know. And I've done that.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
And I'm curious because yes, there are cameras in this
courtroom which we haven't seen for some time. A lot
of these high profile cases we've been covering over the years,
most of them do not have cameras in the courtroom.
This one is really unusual and it's been riveting. We've
been watching on four TV now for the last couple
of days, and yes, jurors, we get to see what
(17:55):
jurors get to see. We get to see Brian Walsh
sitting there listening to him himself, lying to police, listening
to an investigator rattle off all of his internet searches,
and see his body language and see how he's reacting,
which has not been much at all.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
How do you, as a defense attorney explain those searches?
Speaker 1 (18:18):
I mean it has I have never and I know
you obviously have a tremendous amount of trial experience. Have
you ever, It's almost as if he was breadcrumbing the police.
Speaker 4 (18:28):
A roadmap he's left.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
He left an exact like from from the timeline where
his head was, what he was thinking about, how he
was trying to cover up everything. It's almost as if
we were there with him, minute by minute.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
Look, I've certainly had text messages, and I have a case,
I have a murder case where text messages before the
death are very valuable. They're very useful because they do
talk about the state of mind of both parties. At
times they do explain a relationship. They are a mirror
(19:10):
into the mind and the soul of the individual that's
doing those searches or sending those text messages. And here
it is dark. It is very very dark. And let
me say that the Instagram search of the man that
she was having an affair with will prove to be
(19:33):
crucial because if he knew that they had a relationship.
Going back to what TJ said yesterday, motive, motive, motive.
It's not necessary in a case. The prosecution never has
to show a motive, but jurors always want to know
the why. They always want to know the why. And
(19:55):
if the prosecution can give them a why, and they
don't have a boughty, that's important. That's really really important.
And these text messages, these I mean I'm staring at them,
you know, and you've got what is the best state
to divorce for a man? I mean, you know that
(20:18):
he's thinking about these things. He's thinking about these things
soon after she has not heard from how long before
a body starts to smell? I mean things like this
that talk about where his head is. I mean his
tipton can do his best of job as he can
(20:40):
at tiptoeing around. He's frantic. He's frantic, he's frantic. These
aren't just frantic, these are sinister.
Speaker 3 (20:48):
And they went on for hours, and some of them
they like rapid fire. They were showing with the timestamps
of these. I want to ask you, I guess I'm
putting you to the fire a little bit here, and
that I am so curious because we couldn't figure out
a way then anybody could defend this guy. But if
the jury asked you, as the defense attorney for Brian Walsh,
to explain his Google search, is it possible to clean
(21:12):
DNA off a knife? The best way to dispose of
body parts? And he looked up someone called Patrick Kearney,
the trash bag killer. Now, if a juror asked you, Alison,
those three things, is this.
Speaker 4 (21:28):
Before or after I crawl under my desk?
Speaker 3 (21:32):
Okay?
Speaker 4 (21:33):
When is that? When is that?
Speaker 3 (21:35):
Okay? If that's the best strategy, you can own it.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
You own it that. You have to own it that
he did it. And then in a in what Tipton did.
And I'm telling you I have been doing these cases.
I am a I am a crime junkie. Okay, I
love criminal cases. I represent criminals or alleged criminals. All
(22:00):
they I watched Dateline. I know this stuff well. And
what Tipton did. No matter what other podcasters are saying
or legal commentators are saying, they do not understand the
(22:22):
brilliant behind this defense. And I mean, it is it
gonna work? Well? On one hand, you have the most
damning searches I've ever seen in my life. You have
ten trash bags full of evidence. You have him going
to home depot and buying hack saws, and I mean
(22:43):
that is as bad as it gets, right, I mean,
you're you have he he is a he is a
bad criminal. He left the receipt. Okay, he left the receipt.
I mean when they're getting you know, I mean you're
talking about breadcrumbs. I mean, he might as well well
have just laid out all the evidence right there. That
is tough stuff to overcome. But when you are defending
(23:07):
somebody and it's a really really bad case, and you've
given the jury and you need one TJ. You need one.
I need to convince everybody. I need to convince one.
And one person says, well, all of this looks horrible.
All of it looks horrible. But they haven't told me
(23:30):
how she died.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
What do you think the response is he told me
with the knife and the murder and the blood. Okay,
the desk, you're you're my eleven of twelve. You're in
the eleven of twelve. And by the way, I am
not saying that he's not going to get convicted. I mean,
but I don't want people to think that this is
(23:55):
a slam dunk for the people.
Speaker 4 (23:57):
They don't have a body. You don't have to prosecut
with a body, and in Massachusetts you don't need a body,
and they actually have a jury instruction about that where
you don't need a body. You have to show the
circumstances that this person is dead, and he's already admitted.
And by the way, that's one way when it comes
(24:17):
down to has he pled to this? Has he has
he pled to these two charges that it may come
in because they don't have to they have to prove
that they're that this person is dead. Okay, But at
the end of the day, the prosecutors have to show
(24:39):
that he killed her and that she didn't die of
natural causes, which, by the way, I gave you the statistics, Okay,
I gave you the statistics, and they need to find
an expert who's going to get up there and say, oh, yeah,
this definitely happens. This happens. One of the things that
I also did is I look to see how, oh
(25:00):
how many other cases in Massachusetts where sudden unexplained death
has been used and hasn't been successful. And there is
a two thousand and eight case Commonwealth be George Naughty
and he's accused of murdering his mother. It wasn't a
sudden death case, but he argued that his mother died
(25:22):
of natural causes, specifically heart disease, and he was found
guilty in the first degree. The crooks of his defense
was that she was not murdered, but died of natural
causes related to her heart, and it was outlined in
the council's opening statement. He did very similar things like, look,
(25:44):
you know there were medical conditions, this can happen. Jury
didn't believe it. It has been used, it was unsuccessful.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
Yeah, I mean there's a lot of defenses out there,
including self.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Defense, and they very rarely work.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
As you know, I'm curious when it comes to the
motive you mentioned, how important that is going to be
especially when you don't have a body, and we are
expecting Anna's lover to testify in this case, what are you?
Speaker 2 (26:14):
I actually am.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
On the edge of my seat waiting for that day
when he takes the stand, because that is going to
be I would imagine a pretty tremendous day for the prosecution.
Speaker 4 (26:31):
I'm not sure, and I'm going to tell you why
I'm not sure. I'm not sure because he didn't know
Brian Welsh. He doesn't know what Brian Welsh knew about
the relationship. So in terms of a motive, he can say, yes,
(26:53):
we had this affair, Yes we kept it secret, Yes
we did all of these things. But unless he says,
she told me that she told him about the affair.
I knew that this guy was cyberstalking me, this guy
called me. This guy you know she was planning to leave.
(27:15):
She told me that she told him she was planning
to leave. All of those things. He may say we
had an affair, but he said she said, I'm never
leaving my husband, and let's not tell anybody about it.
That doesn't get the prosecution anywhere.
Speaker 3 (27:31):
They don't have a body, How do they prove she's dead?
How do they prove how she died.
Speaker 4 (27:36):
I guess, well, okay, so that's the thing, right, So
he pled, right, he pled and they're going to have
to That's why I was saying that that those guilty
please and I want to talk a little bit about that,
because it's really fascinating to me that they sort of
bifurcated this case and had him plead guilty to certain
(27:59):
things and not others. And maybe they were hoping that
by pleading guilty to that it wouldn't become a central
focus of the case. And the judge has not made
that ruling yet on how much of that comes in.
But unless I had and this is where I may
have done things differently, unless I had a stipulation or
(28:22):
an agreement that those were not going to come in
as evidence at some point, that they were not going
to be thoroughly discussed that guilty plead. I'm struggling looking
a little bit because they've owned up to the fact
that he lied, right, They've owned up to other parts
(28:42):
of this case. So the is it going to do
him any favors by pleading guilty? Is it something that
they can just gloss over? Now? I'm not sure. We
have two more weeks of this case to go, and
the prosecution does have to pre that she's dead.
Speaker 3 (29:02):
Okay, But how do you go about proving how she
do if everybody's assuming, yes, she's dead. But how isn't
that a key part of the case. Have to prove
how she does?
Speaker 4 (29:11):
That's my point. That's my point. There's two separate issues here.
One is she dead, okay, which he admits to hacking
her up and dismembering her. He admits to that, But
the prosecution for a first degree murder has got to
(29:31):
explain that he killed her. They've got to explain the
cause and manner of death. That's why Tipton, that's why
Tipton had I mean, Tipton had one of the greatest
days of his career because he has a stinker of
a case and we're talking about it now.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
Yeah, And what main headlines is, how do you have
a client, how do you have a man admit to dismemorying, dismembering,
and disposing of your wife's body and completely misleading investigators
into sending them on this massive search and manhunt for
your wife who you already know is dead because you
admit to disposing of her body. That is a crazy
(30:18):
thing to admit that, but then to say, but I'm
not guilty of murder.
Speaker 2 (30:22):
That was the first thing that caught our eyes. Obviously
when this case came out.
Speaker 4 (30:25):
By the way, I had a middle of the night
thought about this case, mid the night thought, and it
was this. One of the problems with Brian taking the
stand is, if I'm the prosecutor, I say, right, you
chopped her up? Where is she? Where is she now?
The thing is he can't ever tell them where she
(30:49):
is because if they can find her, and if they
can do an autopsy on her, no matter how badly
he composed, she is. And we see this in the
David case right where they're saying she had been her boy,
her bad her body was badly decomposed, but the coroner
(31:10):
is able to piece it together. And we have that
with a lot of old cold cases where they exhume
bodies and do all of that stuff. If they do that,
what if they find what the manner of death is?
What what if they find that it was actually strangulation,
or it was a gunshot, or it was you know,
it was cutster, all of those things. He can never
(31:31):
tell them where the body is.
Speaker 3 (31:33):
Oh, he can't get on the stand. He absolutely cannot. No, No,
isn't that question one from the prose of you?
Speaker 4 (31:39):
What? I?
Speaker 2 (31:41):
Because how can he admit to having that?
Speaker 4 (31:43):
What's the first thing he's gonna say. I'm not telling
you I don't like that question?
Speaker 3 (31:47):
Next and it's not going to allow that. Okay, last,
this will be the last thing for me. Actually, and
this we talked about this a lot with the ditty case.
Even though there were no cameras, we got a sense
of just how good Mark Acnophilo was. We got a
lot of reports about his personality and even the jurors
were laughing and whatnot watching the opening statements and watching
the trial today, the prosecutors look, they had their own tone,
(32:09):
but it's not necessarily entertaining. It's not on. It's gonna
make you jump out of your seat. And one of
the prosecutors today she was even questioning in such a
way that it was dragging and she was not keeping
up with her own notes and right, but Tipton, Yes
to your point. Alim Tipton got up yesterday. The first
words out of his mouth and I yeah, shouted into Robot.
(32:29):
This dude is going to be a star for the
next two weeks, hands in his pocket, head down, speaking extemporaneously.
How big of a deal is it to have a
tipt in it? And his personality in that court remote trip?
Speaker 4 (32:40):
All right, I'm going to tell you an important story
about it. But I'm going to tell you that the
prosecution she was monotone, and she shouldn't have been, because
I would have been wait a minute, he did a
search on is it better to throw crime scene clothes
away or wash them? I would have emphasized crime scene.
(33:04):
So the jury heard that. Now the answers, the answers
may be enough, and their case may be enough. But
this is the story that I'm going to tell you.
I was president of the criminal Court bar in Los Angeles,
and we you know, we've had great speakers, but the
best speaker we ever had was a sign language interpreter.
(33:25):
And the reason that she was the best speaker we've
ever had is because the only people that are ever
allowed into a jury room while they're deliberating are sign
language interpreters. Okay, And so she had a front row
seat to hundreds and hundreds of jury deliberations. And do
(33:46):
you know what she said? They talk about Uh, the
clothes that people wear, how the defendant is smug or
smiles or or looks guilty or cries, and the lawyer's performance.
(34:07):
The lawyer's performance. So, to answer your question, it matters now.
There may be so much overwhelming evidence that the prosecution
can stay monotone and it is their job just to
present the facts we all. I mean, look, prosecutors aren't
known to be flashy. That's not their mo and I
(34:30):
get it, but she missed key points today when she's
going through the most damning part of their case. I mean,
how are you not talking about can you throw body
parts away? You know, can you put body parts in ammonia?
Like I would have repeated it, and I would have
emphasized those those searches that are so best ways to
(34:56):
dispose of a body after a murder. That's what I
would have done.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
Yes, it's so interesting to have her be reading the
page number, then get lost, then be flipping. It takes
away from the inherent drama of the searches themselves, and
now I'm feeling befuddled and confused, and it really does
take away some of the significance. I told we were
both saying that today listening to that. So this trial
(35:24):
still had they said two to three weeks, we're only
on day two. What are you looking I don't want
to say looking most forward to, but what are you
looking to in this.
Speaker 2 (35:34):
Trial that you think will be the moment?
Speaker 1 (35:35):
I mean for this person who right now, obviously we
have no legal expertise, but I'm already like, I feel
like you could rest your case after today.
Speaker 4 (35:43):
What else are we going to be I'm going to
be interested in how the defense cross examines any law
enforcement that was that touched the Karen Reid case. Okay,
I'm going to be very interested in that because they're
going to hammer them for that. They're going to hammer
him for that. Okay. I mean we all know in
(36:04):
Massachusetts that was a black eye on law enforcement the
entire case. Okay, So any law enforcement officer, you already
have one who was in charge of collecting some evidence, Okay,
so I'm going to go after them for that. I
want to hear what this defense attorney Tipton is going
to do with them, because that is something that is
fair game that you're going to talk about. Okay, that's
(36:26):
number one. But I'm also very very keen to hear.
I don't think that Brian Well should justify, So I'm
not going to address that until we know whether or
not audio is But I want to know what the defense's
expert is going to say, and that's not going to
come for weeks. It's not going to come for weeks.
But my goodness, how is this expert who has nobody,
(36:51):
who has no autopsy report, who has nothing but the
word of someone that's not going to testify, going to
explain that and make it believable?
Speaker 3 (37:01):
Wow?
Speaker 1 (37:02):
Well, we will be watching and listening as well, Alison Triesel.
We so appreciate your perspective on this, and actually I
cannot believe what we're hearing already. So I know someone
as seasoned as you also saying those searches were probably
the most damning searches you've ever seen.
Speaker 4 (37:23):
Ever, we'll try it. Ever, I mean, other than a confession,
other than a Retten out, I mean, maybe this is
better than a confession, because you can't even say it
was a coarse confession for his searches, and he can't
blame his two four six year old on it.
Speaker 3 (37:40):
Good point, exactly, exactly, right point.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
Well, we would love to check back in with you
because we know you're watching just as feverishly as we are,
and so many others following this case. But Alison Triesel,
thank you so so much for being on the podcast,
and we certainly hope you come back soon.
Speaker 4 (37:59):
Have a great day, everybody.
Speaker 3 (38:00):
Eight
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
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.