December 2, 2025 • 11 mins
Recap of the afternoon session with Nicholas Gurino on cross exam.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.
- ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout - NEW STYLES
- Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all)
- PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibis
- Venmo - @prettyliesalibis
- Buy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesr
- Cash App- Prettyliesandalibis
- All links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibis
- Merch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.com
- Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis
- (Weekly lives and private message board)
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
What's your know?
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Alibyers. Welcome to another episode of Pretty Lies and Alibis.
I'm gg it's still Tuesday, December second. We're going to
jump into part two, recapping day two of the Brian
Walsh trial. When we left off on part one, Nicholas Garino,
he was still on direct exam on January first, at
eleven thirty seven am.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
That is when.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
The user of the laptop or aka Brian, searched for
Patrick Kearney, the trash bag killer. The witness did go
to that same Wikipedia page that was returned in the
search results for the iPad many six. He made copies
of the device. They saved that to their server to
load in the forensic software like Celebrit or Axiom. When
(00:44):
you get that initial return, it's not in a readable
form until it's run through one of these programs because
it's encrypted. The devices were returned to Brian after they
downloaded the contents of all the electronic devices they took
from the house. For the iPad, Brian's Apple ID was
on there and it was named Brian's iPad.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
He said.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
As far as the electronics, they were limited in the
dates they were allowed to examine. He ran two separate reports,
one from when Brian gave the device to investigators and
the other report was run after the search warrant was granted.
The iPad had the same searches as the MacBook. However,
those searches originated from the MacBook, so clearly the iPad
(01:26):
being signed into his Apple ID, it just populated those
search results on both devices. They move on to talk
about what he got from the Medical Examiner's office. He
got bags and in those one had rugs and some
smaller ones had hair and tissue. He took those to
the Maynard Crime Lab on cross Lord have mercy, y'all.
(01:47):
I would love to be in this courtroom just to
watch the jury. They want to talk about the timeline
for the search warrant. The defense says, you pick the
dates and then you go apply for the search warrant.
Once you began the investigation and you learn more information,
you can go back and get additional search warrants to
look earlier. The witness said, the courts will need a
(02:08):
specific timeframe, and he would need to show why he
needed that additional timeframe. The defense asked how far does
the content on the MacBook go back? The witness doesn't know.
The defense says, you only ask to go back to
Christmas Day, twenty twenty two. There could have been more
information before that. Why didn't you go back further? The
witness said he had no information showing that he needed to.
(02:31):
They move on to the porn hub web page. There
were ten separate results the cheating wife video. Do you
know how it came about? The witness said, the website
was viewed and that video was selected. The defense says,
so you would agree there's no specific search term for
cheating wife. The witness says it was not a Google search.
(02:53):
It was through the porn hub website. The video was
on the website and Brian clicked it. Defense there's no
indication the terms cheating or wife were.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Used to get to that movie.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
The witness said he can't see any values put into
the website. He can only see values that are put
into Google. The defense asked, did you view that movie
for your investigation? And the witness is like nope. Defense says,
you looked at other stuff. You have no idea what
this movie is about, and you don't know how many
times prior to December twenty fifth, twenty twenty two, that
(03:26):
person accessed the website. You don't know how long the
person viewed the movie, And the witness is like, yep,
seven minutes.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Defense.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
Do you know how long the movie is? The witness said, no, Defense.
You don't know if the person viewing this is trying
to get to their favorite actress. The witness is like,
I don't know. Is it fair to say when you
open the site like this, it has several selections that populate.
The witness says, he doesn't go to that website, so
he doesn't know defense, but it was important to put
(03:56):
that in the binder. The witness says, with what we knew, yes, defense,
because it has the phrase cheating wife, you said, let's
throw that out there.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
You didn't look to see what the movie was about.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
No, you didn't take the time to see if the
actress in the movie was the actress in the other
movie viewed.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
No defense.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
You can create reports with Celebrate that are restricted by
date and term searches, and the witness says, yes, Defense.
You can search terms relating to messages or search history,
and you can specify terms you're looking for. Did you
search for terms on the MacBook like divorce? The witness
said no, he just looked within the dates he had
the search warrant for Defense, the divorce searches only happened
(04:39):
on December twenty seventh. The witness said he didn't know
about anything before the twenty fifth, that search warrant was
only granted beginning on December twenty fifth. The defense asked
about the timeframe this stuff was searched. The witness set
around eleven am, he thinks, but he would have to
look to be sure. Defense points out, but that was
only on December twenty seventh, and the witness says yes.
(05:01):
The witness looked at some, but not all, of the
specific divorce terms that were searched for, and the defense
says they could be searching for the topic of how
divorce might protect family assets, and the witness agrees. Defense,
are you aware Brian and Anna we're talking about the
sale of one of their properties, and the witness that
he saw searches for apartments in DC, but he doesn't
(05:22):
know anything about selling real estate. Are you aware of
text between Brian and Anna between December twenty fifth through
the thirtieth? The witness said there were none in the
devices that he looked at. Defense, when you were asked
about your review of the MacBook regarding divorce, you aren't
aware of the text between them, and the witness says no.
He's asked if he saw documents that reference to what
(05:43):
state was best regarding fees and the timing of judgment
for divorce or protecting family assets. The witness said he
looked at these results years ago and he hasn't since.
They move on to talk about typing in search term
and then the browser generates your search results. The defense says,
sometimes the browser redirects the user, thinking the algorithm knows
(06:05):
what could be relevant. And did you follow the results
of how to dispose of a body? He said he
followed a lot of the search terms and what results
came up, but he can't say for sure that he
followed the trail of the search term how to dispose
of a body. The defense says, if you entered in
how to dispose of a body, the results could be
cemetary names or something like that. The witness says he
(06:29):
can't say because these results constantly change and it wouldn't
be the same as when Brian searched it. Defense says,
I didn't ask you that. If you ask how to
dispose of a body. The results could be take the
body to a cemetery. The witness said he would have
to search it to see, but the defense says, you didn't.
The witness says, not for that specific one. Defense, when
(06:51):
someone is using specific search terms, sometimes you have to
add different search terms that might be more helpful, like
adding murder to how to dispose of a body to
get more specific information you might be looking for. The
witness says he can't say, and the defense points out,
you didn't do that. And the witness said, it's been years. Defense,
(07:12):
you would agree your review of the MacBook data you
extracted that all these dark search terms you were asked
about on direct only occurred after four point fifty two
am on January first. The witness said, from what he
was able to see.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Defense asked, when you say able to see, what do
you mean? The witness again points out he only had
data going back to December twenty fifth. These search results
were from January first and second. Defense, if you wanted
to see if these searches were done prior to December
twenty fifth, you could have, but you didn't. The witness
said he would need probable cause. The defense says, no
(07:47):
probable cause to go to the court to say I
have reason to believe someone may have been trying to
learn how to dispose of a body prior to January first,
and the witness says, that's correct. Defense, and all the
data you looked at, you say on nothing from December
twenty fifth of searches of how to dispose of a body,
searches about DNA or how to get rid of blood
(08:08):
or using hydrogen peroxide to get rid of blood, and
the witness says correct. Again, he asks if he could
have gone back and applied for earlier dates. At this point,
the state objects and that sustained. He's asked, did you
see a search for a man named William Fosto. The
witness says yes, and that was prior to January first.
He's asked if he recalls talking to the Commonwealth about
(08:29):
these searches, and he doesn't remember. Defense, you never wrote
a report summarizing what you found on the MacBook, The
witness said. He takes those reports directly from the software
so that he doesn't make mistakes transcribing from one to
the other. Defense points out the report is one thousand
and thirty four pages, long, and it contains many entries
referred to as records. He asked how many records were
(08:51):
there in total? The witness says, three thousand, six hundred
and seventy seven. Defense, out of those three thousand, six
hundred and seventy seven RCT, can you tell the jury
how many of those are relevant to your investigation? The
witness can't say, Defense, can you give an estimate? No,
The defense says, you would agree it's a relatively small
(09:12):
amount that has relevance to this case.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
And the witness is like, no, not a small amount.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
The defense asked how many do The witness said, I
would be guessing, but I would say a good portion.
Defense asks, what's a good portion? Witness says he doesn't know,
he would be guessing, and that was the end of cross.
So again, I'm very well aware the defence's herney has
very very little to work with. The Google searches alone
(09:40):
are so bad for his client. But to try and
say that you have searches that we just went over
in the last episode that are all about dismembering, disposing
of a body, how to hide a murder, how to
clean up blood. Can we just say it's a relatively
small amount compared to all the records. I mean, really, hey, y'all,
(10:00):
all it takes is a few searches that totally implicate
you in the murder of your wife, and that's all
that matters, even out of a million.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
If you have two searches.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
Like that on very specific dates, at very specific times,
such as just a few hours after she was last
seen alive, it's bad for your clients. So tomorrow morning,
first thing, the witness will be on redirect, and then
the Commonwealth expects to call keeper of records for uber
Lyft and Jet Blue. They plan to call a canine officer,
(10:30):
an officer from the US Border Patrol, other officers aside
from the Keeper of records.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
These other witnesses will take over a day.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
To get through. So we're going to keep on rolling tomorrow.
Don't forget nine am sharp. You can come watch live
with the Alibiers on my YouTube page. I'll post that
link on my socials. You don't do social media, Just
go straight to the YouTube page and click the live
tab up top.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
That'll bring you right to us.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Tomorrow, after the lunch break, i'll do that first recap
of the morning session. Tomorrow's Part two might be later
in the evening because i have to take my daughter
to watch her boyfriend wrestle at the high school and
I'm actually looking forward to getting out of the house.
But we'll get part two done at some point tomorrow night.
That is it for today. I hope you guys have
a good rest of your evening and we will see
(11:15):
you soon
What's your know?
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Alibyers. Welcome to another episode of Pretty Lies and Alibis.
I'm gg it's still Tuesday, December second. We're going to
jump into part two, recapping day two of the Brian
Walsh trial. When we left off on part one, Nicholas Garino,
he was still on direct exam on January first, at
eleven thirty seven am.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
That is when.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
The user of the laptop or aka Brian, searched for
Patrick Kearney, the trash bag killer. The witness did go
to that same Wikipedia page that was returned in the
search results for the iPad many six. He made copies
of the device. They saved that to their server to
load in the forensic software like Celebrit or Axiom. When
(00:44):
you get that initial return, it's not in a readable
form until it's run through one of these programs because
it's encrypted. The devices were returned to Brian after they
downloaded the contents of all the electronic devices they took
from the house. For the iPad, Brian's Apple ID was
on there and it was named Brian's iPad.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
He said.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
As far as the electronics, they were limited in the
dates they were allowed to examine. He ran two separate reports,
one from when Brian gave the device to investigators and
the other report was run after the search warrant was granted.
The iPad had the same searches as the MacBook. However,
those searches originated from the MacBook, so clearly the iPad
(01:26):
being signed into his Apple ID, it just populated those
search results on both devices. They move on to talk
about what he got from the Medical Examiner's office. He
got bags and in those one had rugs and some
smaller ones had hair and tissue. He took those to
the Maynard Crime Lab on cross Lord have mercy, y'all.
(01:47):
I would love to be in this courtroom just to
watch the jury. They want to talk about the timeline
for the search warrant. The defense says, you pick the
dates and then you go apply for the search warrant.
Once you began the investigation and you learn more information,
you can go back and get additional search warrants to
look earlier. The witness said, the courts will need a
(02:08):
specific timeframe, and he would need to show why he
needed that additional timeframe. The defense asked how far does
the content on the MacBook go back? The witness doesn't know.
The defense says, you only ask to go back to
Christmas Day, twenty twenty two. There could have been more
information before that. Why didn't you go back further? The
witness said he had no information showing that he needed to.
(02:31):
They move on to the porn hub web page. There
were ten separate results the cheating wife video. Do you
know how it came about? The witness said, the website
was viewed and that video was selected. The defense says,
so you would agree there's no specific search term for
cheating wife. The witness says it was not a Google search.
(02:53):
It was through the porn hub website. The video was
on the website and Brian clicked it. Defense there's no
indication the terms cheating or wife were.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Used to get to that movie.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
The witness said he can't see any values put into
the website. He can only see values that are put
into Google. The defense asked, did you view that movie
for your investigation? And the witness is like nope. Defense says,
you looked at other stuff. You have no idea what
this movie is about, and you don't know how many
times prior to December twenty fifth, twenty twenty two, that
(03:26):
person accessed the website. You don't know how long the
person viewed the movie, And the witness is like, yep,
seven minutes.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Defense.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
Do you know how long the movie is? The witness said, no, Defense.
You don't know if the person viewing this is trying
to get to their favorite actress. The witness is like,
I don't know. Is it fair to say when you
open the site like this, it has several selections that populate.
The witness says, he doesn't go to that website, so
he doesn't know defense, but it was important to put
(03:56):
that in the binder. The witness says, with what we knew, yes, defense,
because it has the phrase cheating wife, you said, let's
throw that out there.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
You didn't look to see what the movie was about.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
No, you didn't take the time to see if the
actress in the movie was the actress in the other
movie viewed.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
No defense.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
You can create reports with Celebrate that are restricted by
date and term searches, and the witness says, yes, Defense.
You can search terms relating to messages or search history,
and you can specify terms you're looking for. Did you
search for terms on the MacBook like divorce? The witness
said no, he just looked within the dates he had
the search warrant for Defense, the divorce searches only happened
(04:39):
on December twenty seventh. The witness said he didn't know
about anything before the twenty fifth, that search warrant was
only granted beginning on December twenty fifth. The defense asked
about the timeframe this stuff was searched. The witness set
around eleven am, he thinks, but he would have to
look to be sure. Defense points out, but that was
only on December twenty seventh, and the witness says yes.
(05:01):
The witness looked at some, but not all, of the
specific divorce terms that were searched for, and the defense
says they could be searching for the topic of how
divorce might protect family assets, and the witness agrees. Defense,
are you aware Brian and Anna we're talking about the
sale of one of their properties, and the witness that
he saw searches for apartments in DC, but he doesn't
(05:22):
know anything about selling real estate. Are you aware of
text between Brian and Anna between December twenty fifth through
the thirtieth? The witness said there were none in the
devices that he looked at. Defense, when you were asked
about your review of the MacBook regarding divorce, you aren't
aware of the text between them, and the witness says no.
He's asked if he saw documents that reference to what
(05:43):
state was best regarding fees and the timing of judgment
for divorce or protecting family assets. The witness said he
looked at these results years ago and he hasn't since.
They move on to talk about typing in search term
and then the browser generates your search results. The defense says,
sometimes the browser redirects the user, thinking the algorithm knows
(06:05):
what could be relevant. And did you follow the results
of how to dispose of a body? He said he
followed a lot of the search terms and what results
came up, but he can't say for sure that he
followed the trail of the search term how to dispose
of a body. The defense says, if you entered in
how to dispose of a body, the results could be
cemetary names or something like that. The witness says he
(06:29):
can't say because these results constantly change and it wouldn't
be the same as when Brian searched it. Defense says,
I didn't ask you that. If you ask how to
dispose of a body. The results could be take the
body to a cemetery. The witness said he would have
to search it to see, but the defense says, you didn't.
The witness says, not for that specific one. Defense, when
(06:51):
someone is using specific search terms, sometimes you have to
add different search terms that might be more helpful, like
adding murder to how to dispose of a body to
get more specific information you might be looking for. The
witness says he can't say, and the defense points out,
you didn't do that. And the witness said, it's been years. Defense,
(07:12):
you would agree your review of the MacBook data you
extracted that all these dark search terms you were asked
about on direct only occurred after four point fifty two
am on January first. The witness said, from what he
was able to see.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Defense asked, when you say able to see, what do
you mean? The witness again points out he only had
data going back to December twenty fifth. These search results
were from January first and second. Defense, if you wanted
to see if these searches were done prior to December
twenty fifth, you could have, but you didn't. The witness
said he would need probable cause. The defense says, no
(07:47):
probable cause to go to the court to say I
have reason to believe someone may have been trying to
learn how to dispose of a body prior to January first,
and the witness says, that's correct. Defense, and all the
data you looked at, you say on nothing from December
twenty fifth of searches of how to dispose of a body,
searches about DNA or how to get rid of blood
(08:08):
or using hydrogen peroxide to get rid of blood, and
the witness says correct. Again, he asks if he could
have gone back and applied for earlier dates. At this point,
the state objects and that sustained. He's asked, did you
see a search for a man named William Fosto. The
witness says yes, and that was prior to January first.
He's asked if he recalls talking to the Commonwealth about
(08:29):
these searches, and he doesn't remember. Defense, you never wrote
a report summarizing what you found on the MacBook, The
witness said. He takes those reports directly from the software
so that he doesn't make mistakes transcribing from one to
the other. Defense points out the report is one thousand
and thirty four pages, long, and it contains many entries
referred to as records. He asked how many records were
(08:51):
there in total? The witness says, three thousand, six hundred
and seventy seven. Defense, out of those three thousand, six
hundred and seventy seven RCT, can you tell the jury
how many of those are relevant to your investigation? The
witness can't say, Defense, can you give an estimate? No,
The defense says, you would agree it's a relatively small
(09:12):
amount that has relevance to this case.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
And the witness is like, no, not a small amount.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
The defense asked how many do The witness said, I
would be guessing, but I would say a good portion.
Defense asks, what's a good portion? Witness says he doesn't know,
he would be guessing, and that was the end of cross.
So again, I'm very well aware the defence's herney has
very very little to work with. The Google searches alone
(09:40):
are so bad for his client. But to try and
say that you have searches that we just went over
in the last episode that are all about dismembering, disposing
of a body, how to hide a murder, how to
clean up blood. Can we just say it's a relatively
small amount compared to all the records. I mean, really, hey, y'all,
(10:00):
all it takes is a few searches that totally implicate
you in the murder of your wife, and that's all
that matters, even out of a million.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
If you have two searches.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
Like that on very specific dates, at very specific times,
such as just a few hours after she was last
seen alive, it's bad for your clients. So tomorrow morning,
first thing, the witness will be on redirect, and then
the Commonwealth expects to call keeper of records for uber
Lyft and Jet Blue. They plan to call a canine officer,
(10:30):
an officer from the US Border Patrol, other officers aside
from the Keeper of records.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
These other witnesses will take over a day.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
To get through. So we're going to keep on rolling tomorrow.
Don't forget nine am sharp. You can come watch live
with the Alibiers on my YouTube page. I'll post that
link on my socials. You don't do social media, Just
go straight to the YouTube page and click the live
tab up top.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
That'll bring you right to us.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Tomorrow, after the lunch break, i'll do that first recap
of the morning session. Tomorrow's Part two might be later
in the evening because i have to take my daughter
to watch her boyfriend wrestle at the high school and
I'm actually looking forward to getting out of the house.
But we'll get part two done at some point tomorrow night.
That is it for today. I hope you guys have
a good rest of your evening and we will see
(11:15):
you soon
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com