December 17, 2025 • 24 mins
The verdict is in: Brian Walshe has been found guilty of first-degree murder in the death of his wife, Anna Walshe.
This week on "Zone 7," Sheryl McCollum is joined by Dani, creator and host of "Dani After Dark." The two revisit the Brian Walshe trial, where months of evidence, emotion, and courtroom drama culminated in a single word: guilty.
From the disturbing Google searches to the cash-only shopping trips for bleach, buckets, and a hacksaw, the jury weighed the evidence alongside the confession that Walshe dismembered his wife and disposed of her remains. Dani shares what she witnessed inside the courtroom, from the jurors’ reactions to the moment that sealed the case.
Then, she and Sheryl break down the digital evidence, behavioral patterns, and courtroom strategy that secured a first-degree murder conviction.
Highlights:
• (0:00) Sheryl opens with a summary of the Ana Walshe case, outlining the timeline and the accusations against her husband, Brian Walshe before welcoming Dani from Dani After Dark back to Zone 7
• (1:45) What Brian Walshe admitted before trial and what the jury did not hear
• (3:15) Brian’s Google searches that dismantled the “sudden death” defense
• (6:15) Cash-only shopping trips and the evidence captured on camera
• (7:45) The moment the jury watched Walshe’s six-year-old son help him check out at Lowe’s
• (13:30) Affair allegations and the life-insurance policy
• (16:30) Body language inside the courtroom: Brian Walshe and his mother
• (19:00) Why the defense never called on a psychologist, how that decision cost them, and the collapse during closing arguments
• (22:45) Verdict day: Guilty of murder and justice for Ana Walshe
• (23:45) Final reflections on the events that led to the first-degree murder conviction
Guest Bio:
Dani is the creator and host of "Dani After Dark," a true-crime and legal analysis channel on YouTube, where she covers high-profile criminal trials in real time.
Connect with Dani on Instagram @dani_after_dark or follow her on YouTube at @DaniAfterDark.
About the Host
Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an active crime scene investigator for a Metro Atlanta Police Department and the director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute, which partners with colleges and universities nationwide.
With more than 4 decades of experience, she has worked on thousands of cold cases using her investigative system, The Last 24/361, which integrates evidence, media, and advanced forensic testing.
Her work on high-profile cases, including The Boston Strangler, Natalie Holloway, Tupac Shakur and the Moore’s Ford Bridge lynching, led to her Emmy Award for "CSI: Atlanta," and induction into the National Law Enforcement Hall of Fame in 2023.
Social Links:
• Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com
• Twitter: @149zone7
• Facebook: @sheryl.mccollum
• Instagram: @officialzone7podcast
Enjoying Zone 7? Leave a rating and review where you listen to podcasts. Your feedback helps others find the show and supports the mission to educate, engage, and inspire.
Preorder Sheryl’s upcoming book, Swans Don’t Swim in a Sewer: Lessons in Life, Justice, and Joy from a Forensic Scientist, releasing May 2026 from Simon and Schuster. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Swans-Dont-Swim-in-a-Sewer/Sheryl-Mac-McCollum/9798895652824
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 (00:08):
Y'all. Anna Walsh was last seen at her home January one,
of twenty twenty three. It was said that she had
a business trip that she was headed to DC, but
she never made her flight. Now, this is usually a
tremendous red flag for me for people that are married,
(00:33):
have children, when the employer is the one that reports
you missing, not your loved ones. So Brian Walsh is
her husband. He is accused of killing her, dismembering her,
and disposing of her body. Now, her body was never recovered,
(00:53):
so this is one of those cases of homicide where
we don't have the body. Before the trial, he admitted
to a couple of things, and we'll get to that
in a minute, because I want to bring our guest on.
Y'all know her. She's been here before. Danny from Danny
after Dark, Danny, welcome back to his own seventh.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Hi, Cheryl, thank you for having me back. I'm really
excited to be here and to talk about the Brian
Walsh case.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Well, I'll tell you you're one of the people I
wanted to talk to so bad, because y'all, not only
has she been in town outside the courthouse, she's been inside.
So she's got information for us that we can't get
anywhere else. So, Danny, I appreciate you giving your time
(01:44):
to really give us this full picture of what in
the world is going on on this case. So if
you would tell us about the two things he's already
admitted to that this jury doesn't you know about.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
Yes, so the jury was not made aware before the
trial started that he lied to police and misled them
when for the past several years he's been saying he
does not know where Anna is. But in addition, and
most importantly, he admitted before the trial started that he did,
(02:19):
in fact dismember and dispose of her body.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
Was this just a legal genius maneuver? Like why would
he admit to that but not admit to killing her?
And then was it only to keep it from the
jury so that maybe they would be confused?
Speaker 2 (02:38):
I honestly was not sure why this was done. The
only thing I can think of was that it would
keep law enforcement from being able to take the stand
to testify, and because he admitted to it, they didn't
have to do that. But I will say at the
closing arguments part of the trial that happened on Friday,
(03:02):
the judge did inform the jury about those charges that
he pleded it guilty to. So the jury is now aware,
but the whole time during the trial, they were not.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
And they didn't get to hear any law enforcement testify
to what he said and did and et cetera. Well,
let's talk about a few other things. He made some
Google searches that I found pretty interesting. You know to me, y'all,
if your wife goes missing and you don't report or missing,
and they look at your computer and you've googled things
(03:34):
like how to dispose of a body. When does a
body start to smell? I mean, Danny, what do you
think the jury did with that?
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Yeah, everybody here going into this trial was wondering how
the defense was going to present or speak of these
Google searches. And before the trial started, his defense attorney
had said that they were quote problematic searches. In regards
to what was not searched, I think is worth saying
(04:06):
is sudden death, because that was what the defense was
trying to clean happen to Anna, that she died suddenly,
But never once in his searches was anything related to that.
So I think what was not search was actually more telling.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
That's a great point, because he did tell everybody. When
he finally started admitting that he disposed of her. Is
that well, you know, he woke up and she was
just dead. Yeah, And instead of calling for help, making
sure their children were okay, making sure her family knew,
making sure her employer knew, the neighbor's friends, whoever, because
(04:46):
they were socializing with a friend the night before, but
he calls none of those people. He decides, Hey, she
suddenly died. They're probably gonna think I had something to
do with it, So the best thing I can do
is behead her, dismember her, and dispose of her in
different places.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Yeah, that's not what I would first kind of jump
to if I was in that situation.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
But right, I mean, most people with any kind of
medical event, you call now one one. You want help,
not just for the victim, but in a panic, you
want somebody to come help you. And he doesn't do
anything life saving, no measure to assist her in any way.
(05:31):
He just wants to be sure, Hey, I got to
get her dead behind out of here, so they don't
think I had anything to do with it. Now, to me,
that's a really telling conclusion. You came to pretty quick
you wake up your wife is dead, and your first
thought is they're going to think I had something to
do with it. Well, I agree with you, Brian, I
(05:53):
think you had something to do with it. I sure do.
Not just because of your Google searches, not just because
of what you've already meted to. But chances are if
your wife is missing and you haven't reported her and
your line to law enforcement, and you've made these Google searches,
and you allowed somebody else to become so concerned that
(06:16):
they called law enforcement. Yeah, I'm looking directly at you.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
Yeah, well said.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Now, let's talk about his shopping trip. Can you walk
us through that and what was in his buggy?
Speaker 2 (06:28):
There were several shopping trips that he made, and some
of those videos had been released to the public before trial,
but some of them were not and were shown at trial,
and actually some of them were shown while I was
in the courtroom this past Monday, and those were really damning.
But a lot of the items that he purchased at
(06:52):
you know, Lows or home Goods, and at the home
goods store, he used a gift card that Ona had previously,
which was just really disturbing, but he made sure to
pay in cash at all of these stores. He went
to CBS as well, Walgreens. I mean so many stores,
buying so many products, but a lot of them were
(07:16):
clearly tools for dismembering his wife Anna. There were I
don't know the technical term for it, but a lot
of those like buckets that are used to either whole
paint or whatnot. A hacksaw was purchased. The cleaning products,
a lot of bleach. There was just a lot of
(07:37):
products that were used. But the most damning Sheryl that
I have to really point out that was showed on
Monday when I was in the courtroom, was one of
these trips. When he started entering Lows, he had his
six year old son with him. The sun his face
was blurred so that we could not see the public
(07:58):
could not see him. But right away it was very
It was quiet in the courtroom because we all saw,
oh my gosh, he brought his child with him. But
what was really upsetting was at the time of checkout,
Brian did a self checkout and there's a camera right
there and you see his son playing with the self
(08:19):
scanner and helping to scan these items that Brian is
purchasing and clearly his son is not aware of what
he's you know, why they're there and why they're purchasing it,
but we all knew, so that was it was just shocking.
And in that same trip, at one point, Brian looks
into the camera and tilts his head and then runs
(08:39):
his fingers through his hair. It was just everybody just
gasped at that moment because here's somebody who's supposed to
be in shock and in panic and frazzled what to
do with his wife Anna, but then he's doing that.
So that was really damning. And the jury they he
(09:00):
saw that, and that did not go by them.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
Now, Danny, this is important information because I only knew
about the trip to Low's. I didn't know about the
other shopping excursions, and I certainly did not know that
his child was with him.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
M on one of the trips.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Yes, okay, so this is a man that comes from privilege.
He's had a run in with law enforcement before trying
to sell fake Andy Warhol paintings, but again, only somebody
with some knowledge and some way to fence in the
(09:38):
right community would attempt that. So he's not unfamiliar with money.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Is that fair to say that is very fair to say.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
So, I don't know how many trips to lows he's made.
I don't think he's worked in the yard. I don't
think he's repaired the roofs. I don't think he's replaced
to commode. So when this man who has probably hired
people to do whatever kind of repair work, when you
see him buying these items that look like a kill
(10:10):
kit look like a cleanup kit, you know, I mean,
think about it. I'm gonna cut her arm off, I'm
gonna put it in a bucket with this, you know, hacksaw,
and then I'm going to pour bleach all over the
tub to clean it up. That's what it looks like.
This Does it look like a Saturday or we're going
to get in there and clean.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
The garage exactly.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
I often tell young detectives and rookies men are a
to b people. My husband is not going to go
to five stores if he can go to one. So
when you're telling me he made multiple stops at multiple places,
that sounds deliberate. So what were some of the other
(10:53):
stops and what did he get? The gift card is
pretty gross, And of course he thinks using cash is
going to help him, even though he's freaking on camera.
But that's the difference in a you know, real criminal
and somebody that has found themselves in a position that
now they're having to play ketch up to what they did.
(11:13):
But tell us about the other trips now and wood eball.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
Yeah, So a lot of the other trips, again were
throughout the state of Massachusetts. We only saw one where
he brought his son, but there were several trips to Lows,
to CBS, to Walgreens to purchase, and then home goods.
As I mentioned, home goods was to pick up towels
(11:38):
like cleaning towels. The purchases at the various other stores
were there was a lot of hydrogen peroxide that was purchased,
a lot of bleach. Like I mentioned several of the
buckets Hack saw. He purchased a tarp as well. I'm
blinking on some of the other purchased items that he did,
(12:00):
but they were all in succession after the murder, and
in each case that he went to a store again,
it was all paid in cash. There was one of
the trips to I believe it was a CBS where
part of the purchase at the end he rounded up
to support a local charity for kids and people in
(12:21):
the courtroom when I was there on Monday, actually kind
of giggled at that because it was just.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
So acid on. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it's the devil
at work. I mean, he's only accused, he's standing trial.
But the bottom line is, your wife goes missing, you
make these incriminating searches, then you go around town paying
cash for things that only look like cleanup items, and
(12:46):
you have no way to explain those searches on your
computer to law enforcement. You can't tell them why in
the world you would ever type that thing in and
look to see had to dispose of a body.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Yeah. Absolutely, and your lawyer can't do it, correct his lawyer.
A lot of the witnesses that were called that were
working at these various stores and went over the footage
and went over the receipts. The defense did not question them,
They did not object to any of the questions. I
(13:24):
don't think they realized they didn't have a leg to
stand on to argue against it.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
So some of the things that's been brought up is
that she was having an affair, and y'all, that's going
to be pretty standard. We've seen it in the more
few case. We've seen it in other places where they're
going to look at the victim's background as well, to say, hey,
could somebody else have gone in the house when she's
(13:54):
asleep in the bed with her husband and somehow got
her out of the house and did this to her
and then made those search design a his computer. Of course,
that ain't gonna fly. He never even floated that. But
they are going to bring up her past. Is there
any truth to the affair?
Speaker 2 (14:13):
There was a gentleman that did confirm they had a
relationship on the stand, in addition to several of Ana's
friends that testified earlier in the week after him that
said that Anna had told them that she had a
crush on somebody, and that she told Brian that she
(14:33):
had to crush on somebody. But he was fine with
it because he was not the jealous type. That was
very weird to hear being in the courtroom.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
And I heard his attorneys say something really unusual. He said,
he's not the jealous type. I wish he was more jealous, Like,
what in the world. I just can't imagine anybody sitting
there on that jury believe in either one of those statements.
I don't believe he wasn't jealous, and I don't believe
his attorney he wanted him.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
To be jealous exactly, and I think the jury really
realized that as well. That didn't go past them.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
Well, let's talk about the life insurance policy. So you
have a wife who's still fairly young, and how many
children do they have, Danny, they.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Had three children under six at the time that Anna was.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
More okay, three under six, So he did have a
substantial life insurance policy own her. Do you know how
much it was?
Speaker 2 (15:30):
So her life insurance policy was two times her best
salary at her job, which I believe was two hundred
and twenty thousand dollars.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
So she made a decent living. You know, the insurance
policy you're always going to look at. I'm assuming he
was the sole beneficiary.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Him and the children were listed.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
And that makes sense. And then being so young, I mean,
twice what you made, that's logical. I don't really have
a problem with that. I mean, if it was twenty
million dollars, that might be you know, circumstantial evidence, but
I think twice her salary that makes sense. Danny, is
there anything else that you have learned in court that
(16:07):
you did not know that the mainstream media has not
brought up yet.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Everything was pretty straightforward that was brought up to the media.
But what I just wanted to add so that your
listeners can kind of be aware of what was kind
of more so going on in the courtroom that really
wasn't captured on camera. And when I went on Monday,
as much as I was focused on the testimony and
(16:36):
all of the videos and pictures that were being short
shown to the jury into the court, I was really
kind of focusing on Brian and his mom, who was
two rows ahead of myself in kind of their mannerisms.
And one thing that I thought was really telling was
Brian's mother. Where Brian's mother was seated, she had a
(16:56):
direct view of the videos that were being shown to
the court and to the jury of any footage that
was being shown to Brian going into these stores and
making these purchases, as well as any photos from the
crime scene, and not once did she look at the
videos being shown. Instead, she would look down or kind
of ruffle through her purse, which I found was very telling.
(17:19):
She did that the entire day, so she did not
want to look at any of those. And I did
hear from somebody who I knew was in the courtroom
on Tuesday, when Anna's friends were testifying and were visibly
upset and crying on the stand. One of them said
that Brian's mother had a psychic had told her that
(17:40):
Anna was having an affair, and his mother actually started
laughing during during that testimony, and the jury did see
and hear that.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
You know one thing that I think should never happen,
a prosecutor or a defense attorney promising the jury something
that ends up not happening. The defense attorney said Brian
would testify and tell them himself what happened to Anna,
and that did not happen to me. That would hurt
(18:10):
the credibility of his entire defense. I'll be honest with you,
I didn't think it would go to the weekend.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
I felt that same way. They were very attentive when
I was there and focused on everything, and I did
see quite a bit of them taking notes, a lot
of notes of all of the purchases that was happening
in regards to the receipts being shown in the videos
of him going into all these places making those purchased items.
(18:38):
So the jury was very attentive to all of those things,
which I think was very important for them in regards to,
like you said, during the closing arguments, you know, they
were told Brian was going to come on and testify,
and that didn't happen. And in addition, I, you know,
as just somebody sitting there, if I kind of removed
myself from the self interest I have in this case,
(19:00):
I would have expected if I was in the jury's place. Okay,
the defense is saying she died suddenly, he panicked and
this is why he did the actions he did. Why
not bring in a psychologist or somebody who can testify
about maybe how someone could you know, disassociate and act
(19:21):
the way he did, and maybe try to explain his behavior.
But they never did that either. I was wondering their
strategy behind that in regards to if they automatically know
the jury's going to come forward with some type of sentence,
maybe possibly second degree versus first degree, And at the
(19:43):
time of their closing the judge did still still did
not make it clear to them that to the jury
that Brian did plead guilty to these other charges. So
it was actually very very confusing as to the offenses
closing arguments in what they did, because they really did
not give the jury any type of explanation as to
(20:06):
Brian's behaviors and actions during this time of Anna's death
or as we believe Anna's martyr.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
Well, could this be like a Karen Reids shell game?
They just want to confuse them and they don't know
what to vote on. They don't know where the body is,
they don't know what's happening.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
I don't think so. I don't think so. I think
it's very clear to the jury what happened and they're
not fighting it. And I don't know why. Because Attorney
Tipton is a pretty good attorney. He felt the tone
here very defeated almost during his closing arguments, and I
(20:47):
don't know why when I was observing this, and that
was kind of what a lot of people kind of
in live chats seem to be kind of sensing as
well as why isn't he putting forward more? We expected
more from him as the lead defense attorney and it
wasn't happening. And it's very confusing still as to why
they didn't present what they did or what they yeah
(21:09):
what they did, And I should say.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
So, Danny. One last question. You've been outside the courtroom,
inside the courtroom, and you're a part of media. Do
you think most people believed last Friday this thing would
be done in four hours.
Speaker 2 (21:25):
Yes. I think it was shocking that we did not
get a verdict on Friday. I think maybe part of
why we didn't get one necessarily so quickly was the
jury distinguishing between is it second degree murder or first
degree murder? Did the prosecution give enough to the jury
(21:46):
to show that this was a premeditated crime or not.
I kind of have my feelings as to which way
I think they will go, But I think maybe that's
where they needed a little bit more time through the
weekend to kind of make that was it first degree
or second degree charge?
Speaker 1 (22:03):
Okay, and you are talking about a room full of
people that are not lawyers. Most people have not had
a lot of front row seating to this type of
trial and understanding. So I like the fact they're taking
their time. I ain't mad about that. I just think
after you see the video from Low's alone and the
(22:24):
internet search, I don't know what the confusion would be.
I agree with that, and especially when you find out
at the very end. Oh and by the way, he's
already admitted to beheading her and dismembering her and getting
rid of her. Well, okay, I'm good on that all day.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
So the jury came back and it is what we
thought that Brian Walsh has been found guilty in the
murder of his wife Anna Walsh. So clearly the jury
made the right decision, even though it took them a
little bit longer to deliberate after one day than we
had thought. But yeah, he has been found guilty in
the murder.
Speaker 1 (23:02):
Of Honor Danny. Thank you so much. I'm going to
tell you something. You being there in person inside the
courtroom has given us information we didn't know. The multiple
shopping trips alone has changed this whole thing for me.
And I was already pretty solid on where I landed,
but that was incredible information, especially the fact that he
(23:25):
took his child on one of those excursions.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
Yeah, I was pretty damning to see.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
Well, I just appreciate you joining us again on Zone seven,
and this won't be the last time.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Thank you for having me, Cheryl.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
I'm going to end Zone seven the way that I
always do with a quote. It didn't make sense to
Brian Walsh. It was confusing. He never thought anybody would
believe that Anna was alive one minute and dead the next.
Mister Walsh is a turnin. I'm Cheryl McCollum in This
(24:01):
Is Own seven
Y'all. Anna Walsh was last seen at her home January one,
of twenty twenty three. It was said that she had
a business trip that she was headed to DC, but
she never made her flight. Now, this is usually a
tremendous red flag for me for people that are married,
(00:33):
have children, when the employer is the one that reports
you missing, not your loved ones. So Brian Walsh is
her husband. He is accused of killing her, dismembering her,
and disposing of her body. Now, her body was never recovered,
(00:53):
so this is one of those cases of homicide where
we don't have the body. Before the trial, he admitted
to a couple of things, and we'll get to that
in a minute, because I want to bring our guest on.
Y'all know her. She's been here before. Danny from Danny
after Dark, Danny, welcome back to his own seventh.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Hi, Cheryl, thank you for having me back. I'm really
excited to be here and to talk about the Brian
Walsh case.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Well, I'll tell you you're one of the people I
wanted to talk to so bad, because y'all, not only
has she been in town outside the courthouse, she's been inside.
So she's got information for us that we can't get
anywhere else. So, Danny, I appreciate you giving your time
(01:44):
to really give us this full picture of what in
the world is going on on this case. So if
you would tell us about the two things he's already
admitted to that this jury doesn't you know about.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
Yes, so the jury was not made aware before the
trial started that he lied to police and misled them
when for the past several years he's been saying he
does not know where Anna is. But in addition, and
most importantly, he admitted before the trial started that he did,
(02:19):
in fact dismember and dispose of her body.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
Was this just a legal genius maneuver? Like why would
he admit to that but not admit to killing her?
And then was it only to keep it from the
jury so that maybe they would be confused?
Speaker 2 (02:38):
I honestly was not sure why this was done. The
only thing I can think of was that it would
keep law enforcement from being able to take the stand
to testify, and because he admitted to it, they didn't
have to do that. But I will say at the
closing arguments part of the trial that happened on Friday,
(03:02):
the judge did inform the jury about those charges that
he pleded it guilty to. So the jury is now aware,
but the whole time during the trial, they were not.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
And they didn't get to hear any law enforcement testify
to what he said and did and et cetera. Well,
let's talk about a few other things. He made some
Google searches that I found pretty interesting. You know to me, y'all,
if your wife goes missing and you don't report or missing,
and they look at your computer and you've googled things
(03:34):
like how to dispose of a body. When does a
body start to smell? I mean, Danny, what do you
think the jury did with that?
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Yeah, everybody here going into this trial was wondering how
the defense was going to present or speak of these
Google searches. And before the trial started, his defense attorney
had said that they were quote problematic searches. In regards
to what was not searched, I think is worth saying
(04:06):
is sudden death, because that was what the defense was
trying to clean happen to Anna, that she died suddenly,
But never once in his searches was anything related to that.
So I think what was not search was actually more telling.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
That's a great point, because he did tell everybody. When
he finally started admitting that he disposed of her. Is
that well, you know, he woke up and she was
just dead. Yeah, And instead of calling for help, making
sure their children were okay, making sure her family knew,
making sure her employer knew, the neighbor's friends, whoever, because
(04:46):
they were socializing with a friend the night before, but
he calls none of those people. He decides, Hey, she
suddenly died. They're probably gonna think I had something to
do with it, So the best thing I can do
is behead her, dismember her, and dispose of her in
different places.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Yeah, that's not what I would first kind of jump
to if I was in that situation.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
But right, I mean, most people with any kind of
medical event, you call now one one. You want help,
not just for the victim, but in a panic, you
want somebody to come help you. And he doesn't do
anything life saving, no measure to assist her in any way.
(05:31):
He just wants to be sure, Hey, I got to
get her dead behind out of here, so they don't
think I had anything to do with it. Now, to me,
that's a really telling conclusion. You came to pretty quick
you wake up your wife is dead, and your first
thought is they're going to think I had something to
do with it. Well, I agree with you, Brian, I
(05:53):
think you had something to do with it. I sure do.
Not just because of your Google searches, not just because
of what you've already meted to. But chances are if
your wife is missing and you haven't reported her and
your line to law enforcement, and you've made these Google searches,
and you allowed somebody else to become so concerned that
(06:16):
they called law enforcement. Yeah, I'm looking directly at you.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
Yeah, well said.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Now, let's talk about his shopping trip. Can you walk
us through that and what was in his buggy?
Speaker 2 (06:28):
There were several shopping trips that he made, and some
of those videos had been released to the public before trial,
but some of them were not and were shown at trial,
and actually some of them were shown while I was
in the courtroom this past Monday, and those were really damning.
But a lot of the items that he purchased at
(06:52):
you know, Lows or home Goods, and at the home
goods store, he used a gift card that Ona had previously,
which was just really disturbing, but he made sure to
pay in cash at all of these stores. He went
to CBS as well, Walgreens. I mean so many stores,
buying so many products, but a lot of them were
(07:16):
clearly tools for dismembering his wife Anna. There were I
don't know the technical term for it, but a lot
of those like buckets that are used to either whole
paint or whatnot. A hacksaw was purchased. The cleaning products,
a lot of bleach. There was just a lot of
(07:37):
products that were used. But the most damning Sheryl that
I have to really point out that was showed on
Monday when I was in the courtroom, was one of
these trips. When he started entering Lows, he had his
six year old son with him. The sun his face
was blurred so that we could not see the public
(07:58):
could not see him. But right away it was very
It was quiet in the courtroom because we all saw,
oh my gosh, he brought his child with him. But
what was really upsetting was at the time of checkout,
Brian did a self checkout and there's a camera right
there and you see his son playing with the self
(08:19):
scanner and helping to scan these items that Brian is
purchasing and clearly his son is not aware of what
he's you know, why they're there and why they're purchasing it,
but we all knew, so that was it was just shocking.
And in that same trip, at one point, Brian looks
into the camera and tilts his head and then runs
(08:39):
his fingers through his hair. It was just everybody just
gasped at that moment because here's somebody who's supposed to
be in shock and in panic and frazzled what to
do with his wife Anna, but then he's doing that.
So that was really damning. And the jury they he
(09:00):
saw that, and that did not go by them.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
Now, Danny, this is important information because I only knew
about the trip to Low's. I didn't know about the
other shopping excursions, and I certainly did not know that
his child was with him.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
M on one of the trips.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Yes, okay, so this is a man that comes from privilege.
He's had a run in with law enforcement before trying
to sell fake Andy Warhol paintings, but again, only somebody
with some knowledge and some way to fence in the
(09:38):
right community would attempt that. So he's not unfamiliar with money.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Is that fair to say that is very fair to say.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
So, I don't know how many trips to lows he's made.
I don't think he's worked in the yard. I don't
think he's repaired the roofs. I don't think he's replaced
to commode. So when this man who has probably hired
people to do whatever kind of repair work, when you
see him buying these items that look like a kill
(10:10):
kit look like a cleanup kit, you know, I mean,
think about it. I'm gonna cut her arm off, I'm
gonna put it in a bucket with this, you know, hacksaw,
and then I'm going to pour bleach all over the
tub to clean it up. That's what it looks like.
This Does it look like a Saturday or we're going
to get in there and clean.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
The garage exactly.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
I often tell young detectives and rookies men are a
to b people. My husband is not going to go
to five stores if he can go to one. So
when you're telling me he made multiple stops at multiple places,
that sounds deliberate. So what were some of the other
(10:53):
stops and what did he get? The gift card is
pretty gross, And of course he thinks using cash is
going to help him, even though he's freaking on camera.
But that's the difference in a you know, real criminal
and somebody that has found themselves in a position that
now they're having to play ketch up to what they did.
(11:13):
But tell us about the other trips now and wood eball.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
Yeah, So a lot of the other trips, again were
throughout the state of Massachusetts. We only saw one where
he brought his son, but there were several trips to Lows,
to CBS, to Walgreens to purchase, and then home goods.
As I mentioned, home goods was to pick up towels
(11:38):
like cleaning towels. The purchases at the various other stores
were there was a lot of hydrogen peroxide that was purchased,
a lot of bleach. Like I mentioned several of the
buckets Hack saw. He purchased a tarp as well. I'm
blinking on some of the other purchased items that he did,
(12:00):
but they were all in succession after the murder, and
in each case that he went to a store again,
it was all paid in cash. There was one of
the trips to I believe it was a CBS where
part of the purchase at the end he rounded up
to support a local charity for kids and people in
(12:21):
the courtroom when I was there on Monday, actually kind
of giggled at that because it was just.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
So acid on. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it's the devil
at work. I mean, he's only accused, he's standing trial.
But the bottom line is, your wife goes missing, you
make these incriminating searches, then you go around town paying
cash for things that only look like cleanup items, and
(12:46):
you have no way to explain those searches on your
computer to law enforcement. You can't tell them why in
the world you would ever type that thing in and
look to see had to dispose of a body.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Yeah. Absolutely, and your lawyer can't do it, correct his lawyer.
A lot of the witnesses that were called that were
working at these various stores and went over the footage
and went over the receipts. The defense did not question them,
They did not object to any of the questions. I
(13:24):
don't think they realized they didn't have a leg to
stand on to argue against it.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
So some of the things that's been brought up is
that she was having an affair, and y'all, that's going
to be pretty standard. We've seen it in the more
few case. We've seen it in other places where they're
going to look at the victim's background as well, to say, hey,
could somebody else have gone in the house when she's
(13:54):
asleep in the bed with her husband and somehow got
her out of the house and did this to her
and then made those search design a his computer. Of course,
that ain't gonna fly. He never even floated that. But
they are going to bring up her past. Is there
any truth to the affair?
Speaker 2 (14:13):
There was a gentleman that did confirm they had a
relationship on the stand, in addition to several of Ana's
friends that testified earlier in the week after him that
said that Anna had told them that she had a
crush on somebody, and that she told Brian that she
(14:33):
had to crush on somebody. But he was fine with
it because he was not the jealous type. That was
very weird to hear being in the courtroom.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
And I heard his attorneys say something really unusual. He said,
he's not the jealous type. I wish he was more jealous, Like,
what in the world. I just can't imagine anybody sitting
there on that jury believe in either one of those statements.
I don't believe he wasn't jealous, and I don't believe
his attorney he wanted him.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
To be jealous exactly, and I think the jury really
realized that as well. That didn't go past them.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
Well, let's talk about the life insurance policy. So you
have a wife who's still fairly young, and how many
children do they have, Danny, they.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Had three children under six at the time that Anna was.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
More okay, three under six, So he did have a
substantial life insurance policy own her. Do you know how
much it was?
Speaker 2 (15:30):
So her life insurance policy was two times her best
salary at her job, which I believe was two hundred
and twenty thousand dollars.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
So she made a decent living. You know, the insurance
policy you're always going to look at. I'm assuming he
was the sole beneficiary.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Him and the children were listed.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
And that makes sense. And then being so young, I mean,
twice what you made, that's logical. I don't really have
a problem with that. I mean, if it was twenty
million dollars, that might be you know, circumstantial evidence, but
I think twice her salary that makes sense. Danny, is
there anything else that you have learned in court that
(16:07):
you did not know that the mainstream media has not
brought up yet.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Everything was pretty straightforward that was brought up to the media.
But what I just wanted to add so that your
listeners can kind of be aware of what was kind
of more so going on in the courtroom that really
wasn't captured on camera. And when I went on Monday,
as much as I was focused on the testimony and
(16:36):
all of the videos and pictures that were being short
shown to the jury into the court, I was really
kind of focusing on Brian and his mom, who was
two rows ahead of myself in kind of their mannerisms.
And one thing that I thought was really telling was
Brian's mother. Where Brian's mother was seated, she had a
(16:56):
direct view of the videos that were being shown to
the court and to the jury of any footage that
was being shown to Brian going into these stores and
making these purchases, as well as any photos from the
crime scene, and not once did she look at the
videos being shown. Instead, she would look down or kind
of ruffle through her purse, which I found was very telling.
(17:19):
She did that the entire day, so she did not
want to look at any of those. And I did
hear from somebody who I knew was in the courtroom
on Tuesday, when Anna's friends were testifying and were visibly
upset and crying on the stand. One of them said
that Brian's mother had a psychic had told her that
(17:40):
Anna was having an affair, and his mother actually started
laughing during during that testimony, and the jury did see
and hear that.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
You know one thing that I think should never happen,
a prosecutor or a defense attorney promising the jury something
that ends up not happening. The defense attorney said Brian
would testify and tell them himself what happened to Anna,
and that did not happen to me. That would hurt
(18:10):
the credibility of his entire defense. I'll be honest with you,
I didn't think it would go to the weekend.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
I felt that same way. They were very attentive when
I was there and focused on everything, and I did
see quite a bit of them taking notes, a lot
of notes of all of the purchases that was happening
in regards to the receipts being shown in the videos
of him going into all these places making those purchased items.
(18:38):
So the jury was very attentive to all of those things,
which I think was very important for them in regards to,
like you said, during the closing arguments, you know, they
were told Brian was going to come on and testify,
and that didn't happen. And in addition, I, you know,
as just somebody sitting there, if I kind of removed
myself from the self interest I have in this case,
(19:00):
I would have expected if I was in the jury's place. Okay,
the defense is saying she died suddenly, he panicked and
this is why he did the actions he did. Why
not bring in a psychologist or somebody who can testify
about maybe how someone could you know, disassociate and act
(19:21):
the way he did, and maybe try to explain his behavior.
But they never did that either. I was wondering their
strategy behind that in regards to if they automatically know
the jury's going to come forward with some type of sentence,
maybe possibly second degree versus first degree, And at the
(19:43):
time of their closing the judge did still still did
not make it clear to them that to the jury
that Brian did plead guilty to these other charges. So
it was actually very very confusing as to the offenses
closing arguments in what they did, because they really did
not give the jury any type of explanation as to
(20:06):
Brian's behaviors and actions during this time of Anna's death
or as we believe Anna's martyr.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
Well, could this be like a Karen Reids shell game?
They just want to confuse them and they don't know
what to vote on. They don't know where the body is,
they don't know what's happening.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
I don't think so. I don't think so. I think
it's very clear to the jury what happened and they're
not fighting it. And I don't know why. Because Attorney
Tipton is a pretty good attorney. He felt the tone
here very defeated almost during his closing arguments, and I
(20:47):
don't know why when I was observing this, and that
was kind of what a lot of people kind of
in live chats seem to be kind of sensing as
well as why isn't he putting forward more? We expected
more from him as the lead defense attorney and it
wasn't happening. And it's very confusing still as to why
they didn't present what they did or what they yeah
(21:09):
what they did, And I should say.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
So, Danny. One last question. You've been outside the courtroom,
inside the courtroom, and you're a part of media. Do
you think most people believed last Friday this thing would
be done in four hours.
Speaker 2 (21:25):
Yes. I think it was shocking that we did not
get a verdict on Friday. I think maybe part of
why we didn't get one necessarily so quickly was the
jury distinguishing between is it second degree murder or first
degree murder? Did the prosecution give enough to the jury
(21:46):
to show that this was a premeditated crime or not.
I kind of have my feelings as to which way
I think they will go, But I think maybe that's
where they needed a little bit more time through the
weekend to kind of make that was it first degree
or second degree charge?
Speaker 1 (22:03):
Okay, and you are talking about a room full of
people that are not lawyers. Most people have not had
a lot of front row seating to this type of
trial and understanding. So I like the fact they're taking
their time. I ain't mad about that. I just think
after you see the video from Low's alone and the
(22:24):
internet search, I don't know what the confusion would be.
I agree with that, and especially when you find out
at the very end. Oh and by the way, he's
already admitted to beheading her and dismembering her and getting
rid of her. Well, okay, I'm good on that all day.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
So the jury came back and it is what we
thought that Brian Walsh has been found guilty in the
murder of his wife Anna Walsh. So clearly the jury
made the right decision, even though it took them a
little bit longer to deliberate after one day than we
had thought. But yeah, he has been found guilty in
the murder.
Speaker 1 (23:02):
Of Honor Danny. Thank you so much. I'm going to
tell you something. You being there in person inside the
courtroom has given us information we didn't know. The multiple
shopping trips alone has changed this whole thing for me.
And I was already pretty solid on where I landed,
but that was incredible information, especially the fact that he
(23:25):
took his child on one of those excursions.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
Yeah, I was pretty damning to see.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
Well, I just appreciate you joining us again on Zone seven,
and this won't be the last time.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Thank you for having me, Cheryl.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
I'm going to end Zone seven the way that I
always do with a quote. It didn't make sense to
Brian Walsh. It was confusing. He never thought anybody would
believe that Anna was alive one minute and dead the next.
Mister Walsh is a turnin. I'm Cheryl McCollum in This
(24:01):
Is Own seven
Host
Sheryl McCollum
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
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.