Ana Walshe was thirty-nine years old. She was a mother of three boys: Thomas, the oldest, had just turned six when she disappeared; William was four; and the youngest was barely two. These three children had spent New Year's Eve 2022 with both parents in their Cohasset home, a house set back from Route 3A behind a used car dealership and another residence, in a wooded area of this quiet seaside town twenty miles southeast of Boston. By the time their mother was reported missing four days later, their world had already shattered. By the time this trial began, two years had passed. The youngest would be four now, old enough to ask questions but too young to remember the mother he lost. The oldest would be eight, old enough to remember everything.
Ana worked as a regional general manager for Tishman Speyer, one of the largest real estate companies in the world. She had risen from a hospitality job at the Intercontinental Hotel to overseeing major real estate operations in the nation's capital. She commuted between Washington D.C. and that seaside home in Cohasset, where her husband Brian cared for their children while she built her career. This was a woman who spoke multiple languages, who had studied in France during college, who had family in Serbia and connections across the globe. Her friends described her as brilliant, driven, devoted. She was, by all accounts, exactly the kind of person you would expect to succeed at everything she touched.
Her husband, in a recorded police interview that the jury heard today, described her as a wonderful mother and a wonderful wife. He said their family did not work without her. He said the stress of their situation, with Ana in Washington during the week and home only on weekends, was exhausting for both of them. He talked about their plans to finally be together full-time, to move the children to D.C. so the family could stop living in two places. He said he wanted to spend the rest of his life with her.
Today, the jury in Norfolk Superior Court heard those words from Brian Walshe's own mouth. They heard him tell police investigators, with apparent emotion in his voice, that he never hurt his wife. That he loved her. That he still intended to spend his life with her, even as she remained missing. The recording played in court captured a man who seemed desperate, confused, and heartbroken. A man who cooperated fully with investigators, showed them his phone, walked them through his home, answered every question they asked. A man who volunteered information about his federal art fraud case, his home confinement restrictions, the financial pressures weighing on his family. He did not sound like a man hiding something. He sounded like a man searching for answers.
And then, moments later, the prosecution showed the jury what those same investigators had discovered on the family's electronic devices. Starting at 4:52 in the morning on New Year's Day 2023, just hours after Ana was last seen alive, someone using Brian Walshe's MacBook computer began searching for information about how to dispose of a human body. The user went eleven pages deep into an article titled "10 ways to dispose of a dead body if you really need to." They searched for how long before a body starts to smell. They searched for whether DNA could be cleaned from a knife. They searched for the best tool for dismembering a body. They visited a website called murdermurdermurder.com. They researched a serial killer known for disposing of victims in trash bags.
This is the central contradiction at the heart of Commonwealth v. Brian Walshe. The loving husband whose voice cracked when he spoke about his missing wife. The same man whose computer history reads like a tutorial in murder and concealment. The defense has already conceded that Brian Walshe disposed of his wife's remains. They have admitted he bought the cleaning supplies, the tarps, the tools. They have acknowledged the searches happened. What they have not conceded is murder. And today, as the prosecution laid out its most damaging digital evidence, the defense began planting the seeds of an alternative explanation: that everything Brian searched, everything he did, happened after Ana was already dead from causes he did not inflict.
Day 2 of this trial was about timing. About what the searches prove and what they do not prove. About whether researching how to dispose of a body means you killed the body, or whether it might mean you found one and panicked. It was about a six-year-old boy whose iPad contained synced searches about dismemberment, and a father who looked genuinely distressed when police asked him to explain how those searches got there. It was about a trained detective who walked through the Walshe home twice and saw nothing suspicious, and a digital forensics expert who admitted he never looked at any data before December 25, 2022, because his warrant did not require him to. It was about what the prosecution can prove and what remains reasonable doubt.
The morning began with the continuation of Sergeant Harrison Schmidt's testimony. Schmidt is the lead investigator from the Cohasset Police Department, a methodical and experienced officer who has been with the department since 2012. He became a detective in 2014 and was promoted to sergeant in January 2023, the same month Ana Walshe disappeared. He leads firearms training, serves on the Metro SWAT team, and has been involved in dozens of fatal investigations. Yesterday, the jury heard the first recorded interview between Schmidt and Brian Walshe from January 4, 2023. Today, they heard the rest of that interview, and then the critical January 8 interview where everything changed.
The January 7 recording that carried over from the previous day contained some of the most striking moments of emotional testimony. Brian Walshe spoke about his marriage in terms that would resonate with anyone who has ever loved someone. He said his wife was irreplaceable. He said the stress of living apart, with Ana in Washington during the week and home only on weekends, was exhausting for both of them. He talked about their plans to move the family to D.C. so they could be together. He described their relationship as a partnership, a team. He said they agreed on almost everything. He said the family does not work without his wife.
When investigators asked if he had ever hurt his wife, Brian's response was emphatic. He said he and Ana never had physical confrontations. He said they got along very well. He said the only stress in their marriage came from being apart, not from being together. He spoke about his children and how he could not imagine taking their mother away from them. He said it was simply not something he was capable of doing. He said he loved her and wanted to spend the rest of his life with her. And then, in a moment that will echo throughout this trial, he added: "I still am going to."
Those words hung in the air. A man whose wife had been missing for days, still speaking of their future together in the present tense. Either this was a husband in denial, clinging to hope that Ana would be found alive. Or it was a killer's performance, calculated to appear devastated while knowing exactly where his wife was. Or it was something else entirely, something the defense wants the jury to consider: a husband who knew his wife was dead but did not cause her death, speaking truthfully about his love while hiding what he had done with her body.
For anyone watching this trial with fresh eyes, those recordings would be compelling. Here is a man who appears genuinely distressed about his missing wife, who is cooperating fully with police, who seems to have nothing to hide. He showed investigators his phone. He walked them through his text messages. He gave them the names of Ana's friends and colleagues who might have information. He told them about her travel patterns, her work pressures, her health concerns. He mentioned that she had been sick the week before, that she had worked from home one day because she was so ill, which was apparently very rare for Ana. He said she seemed pale, that she had not had enough rest, that the pressure of her job was wearing on her.
Brian even told investigators about his own legal troubles. The federal art fraud case that had resulted in criminal charges. The home confinement restrictions that limited his movement to Massachusetts, with trips to his mother's house in Swampscott being one of the few allowed excursions. The pending sentencing that hung over the family like a sword, with prosecutors seeking 30 to 37 months of incarceration while Brian sought probation. He was transparent about problems that most people would try to hide. He seemed to have nothing to conceal.
But the prosecution was not playing these recordings to show Brian Walshe as a sympathetic figure. They were establishing a record of lies. Every statement Brian made about Ana's departure on New Year's Day, about her catching an early morning flight to Washington, about kissing him goodbye while he was still in bed, was about to be demolished by the evidence that followed. Investigators had already determined that Ana never boarded any flight from Logan Airport. There was no rideshare record of her going to the airport. Her phone remained pinging near the Cohasset house until around 3 a.m. on January 2. The loving husband who could not imagine hurting his wife was about to be confronted with his own internet search history.
The January 8 interview changed everything. On that morning, police executed a search warrant at the Walshe home at 516 Chief Justice Cushing Highway. Brian was there with his three children and his mother Diana. The scene must have been chaotic and frightening for those young boys, watching police search through their home, not understanding why. Attorney Tracy Miner arrived at the scene, and the family left with her. Later that afternoon, Schmidt and other investigators, including State Trooper Michael Proctor, went to Attorney Miner's residence in Scituate to interview Brian again.
By this point, investigators had examined the family's electronic devices. They had found the iPad Mini that belonged to Thomas, the six-year-old. And on that iPad, they found search history that no six-year-old could have generated. Starting at 4:52 a.m. on January 1, 2023, someone had searched for the best ways to dispose of a body. The searches continued throughout the day and into the following days. They included queries about how long before a body starts to smell, how to dispose of body parts, how to clean blood from hardwood floors, whether DNA could be cleaned from a knife, how to dismember a body, and whether someone could be charged with murder without a body being found.
When investigators confronted Brian with these searches, his demeanor changed. Schmidt testified that Brian appeared sad, distressed, different from the cooperative man they had been interviewing for days. The searches had been found on the iPad Mini belonging to his six-year-old son Thomas. Brian's response was that he had no idea how those searches got there. He pointed out that Thomas was just six years old. He asked whether his son had the average intelligence for a six-year-old. Then he noted that he himself had a four-year-old who could not even spell his last name. How could a six-year-old spell "dismemberment"?
His response when pressed was simple and repeated: "I have no idea." He insisted he did not use that iPad. He seemed genuinely confused about how those searches could have appeared on his son's device. What the jury would learn later in the day was that Brian's confusion, genuine or performed, was based on a misunderstanding. The searches did not originate on Thomas's iPad. They originated on Brian's MacBook and synced to the iPad because both devices were registered to the same Apple ID. The digital trail led directly to the computer labeled "Brian's MacBook." The six-year-old's iPad was just a mirror, reflecting searches that came from his father's computer.
At 4:00 p.m. on January 8, 2023, Sergeant Schmidt placed Brian Walshe under arrest. The prosecution showed photographs of Brian's hands taken at booking, displaying injuries to both thumbs. The man who had spent four days cooperating with investigators, professing his love for his missing wife, was now in custody charged with misleading police. The murder charge would come later, after more evidence was recovered from dumpsters near his mother's house in Swampscott.
Schmidt's testimony also covered the dumpster search on January 9. Police had collected two dumpsters from an apartment complex at 330 Paradise Road in Swampscott, near where Brian's mother Diana lived. This was significant because Brian had told investigators he spent time at his mother's house on January 1 and January 2, running errands for her at CVS and Whole Foods. Police could not verify those errands. What they could verify was that something had been disposed of in those dumpsters. The contents were transported to a trash transfer station in Peabody, where investigators spread them across the warehouse floor and searched bag by bag.
Among the items recovered was Ana Walshe's COVID-19 vaccination card, a small piece of paper that placed her personal belongings in the same trash where prosecutors allege Brian disposed of her remains. Think about what that means. Ana's vaccination card, something she would have needed for travel and work, discarded in a dumpster near Brian's mother's house. Not lost. Not misplaced. Thrown away along with whatever else was in those bags. The prosecution would argue this was evidence of disposal. The defense would need to explain why a woman's personal documents ended up in the trash if she simply left for work one morning.
The prosecution also introduced financial records showing the Walshe household under strain. An Apple Credit Union account was overdrawn by more than $800. Ana's Barclays JetBlue credit card showed no activity after December 31, 2022. There were recurring payments for mortgages, utilities, credit cards, but the balances were mounting. The accounts revealed a family stretched thin. Brian was facing federal sentencing that could include prison time. Ana was the primary breadwinner, the one whose career supported their lifestyle. The prosecution's theory of motive was beginning to take shape: a husband facing prison, a family under financial stress, a wife who might have discovered something, or someone, that threatened to upend everything.
But defense attorney Larry Tipton's cross-examination landed significant blows. Schmidt admitted he had walked through the Walshe home twice, on January 4 and January 5, and seen nothing suspicious. He testified that he was trained to notice such things, that as an experienced investigator he was sensitive to signs of violence or concealment. Yet he noticed nothing. Not on his first visit. Not on his second. He went to the basement and pushed trash bags with his boot, assuming they contained carpet samples. He did not open them. Brian was right there with him the entire time, not acting like a man who had hidden evidence in those bags.
The pool in the backyard was searched and nothing was found. A K-9 unit, a patrol and tracking dog, searched the exterior and found nothing significant. Criminalists from the State Police later spent multiple days going through the house with specialized equipment, but on those early visits, the trained detective saw nothing that raised his concern. Either Brian Walshe was extraordinarily good at concealment, better than the trained investigator was at detection. Or there was nothing to find on those early visits. Or the detective missed something obvious. The jury will have to decide which explanation fits.
Tipton also highlighted something that cut against the prosecution's motive theory. When investigators asked Brian about potential affairs, about whether Ana might have been involved with someone else, Brian cooperated fully. He did not get defensive. He did not refuse to discuss it. He gave them the name William Fasco without hesitation, without anger, without saying anything negative about the man. Fasco was the real estate agent who had sold Brian and Ana their million-dollar townhouse. The prosecution's theory that Brian killed Ana in a jealous rage over an affair does not align with a man who calmly provided investigators with the name of his wife's alleged lover.
The defense established that there was no forensic evidence Brian had ever seen any messages between Ana and Fasco. The prosecution cannot prove Brian knew about any affair, if there was one. They cannot prove he had seen incriminating texts or emails. All they have is the fact that someone searched divorce-related topics on December 27 and visited a Pornhub video with "cheating wife" in the title. Whether that proves murderous jealousy or simply a husband with concerns about his marriage is a question the jury will have to answer.
The defense also addressed the mysterious ceiling hole in Brian's bedroom that had appeared in crime scene photographs. Brian himself had shown investigators where the fallen ceiling tiles were stored, in a drawer right below the hole. Schmidt saw nothing to indicate the hole was recent or related to concealment. The insulation visible through the hole was pink fiberglass, the same as in the basement ceiling. There was no blood, no evidence of anything hidden. The hole appeared to be exactly what Brian said it was: old damage from walking in the attic space, not a hiding spot for evidence.
Tipton closed his cross-examination with a philosophical exchange about trust. He asked Schmidt about the warning given to Brian that people would suspect him, that the public would have their suspicions about whether he did something to Ana. Schmidt replied that he operates on the premise of trust but verify. The irony of that statement hung in the courtroom: trust but verify, applied to a man who was now charged with murder. Brian had trusted the system by cooperating. The system had verified his search history. And now he sat at the defense table facing life in prison.
After Schmidt concluded his testimony, the prosecution called its second witness of the day: Trooper Nicholas Guarino of the Massachusetts State Police. Guarino is a digital forensics expert with over ten years of experience and multiple certifications from Cellebrite, the industry-leading forensic software company. He had taken courses in mobile forensics, advanced database analysis, Apple device forensics, and device repair. He knew how to extract data from phones and computers, how to analyze that data, how to present it in court. He was about to walk the jury through the evidence that has dominated pretrial coverage of this case: the Google searches from Brian Walshe's MacBook.
Guarino began with his credentials and methodology, explaining how forensic copies are made using write blockers that prevent any changes to the original device. This is important because the defense might otherwise argue that investigators tampered with the evidence. Write blockers ensure that data flows only one direction: from the device to the forensic copy. Nothing can be added or changed on the original. The chain of custody is preserved.
He described seizing devices from the Walshe home during the January 8 search warrant execution: three MacBooks, two iPhones, and three iPads. The devices were photographed in place, then collected and transported to the digital evidence lab at the Norfolk District Attorney's Office. That lab is secured with key card access and an alarm. Only three people had access at the time: Guarino, Trooper Connor Keefe, and the civilian director of the lab. The evidence was protected.
The critical device was the gray MacBook, registered to "Brian's MacBook" with an Apple ID belonging to Brian Walshe's business email: [email protected]. This was not the six-year-old's iPad. This was not Ana's computer. This was the device registered to Brian, with his name literally in the device settings. Whatever searches appeared on this computer, the prosecution would argue, came from Brian.
The trooper walked the jury through Exhibit 79, a 1,034-page printout of Safari browser history from the MacBook. The search warrant limited his examination to December 25, 2022 through January 8, 2023. Within that window, what he found was devastating.
At 4:52 a.m. on January 1, 2023, the first search appeared: "Best ways to dispose of a body." The user did not just glance at the results. They clicked through to an article titled "10 ways to dispose of a dead body if you really need to" on a website called waterculture.com. And then they read. Page after page. Eleven pages deep into that single article. The timestamps showed the user spending significant time on each page, reading thoroughly, not skimming. This was not idle curiosity. This was not someone who stumbled onto disturbing content and quickly clicked away. This was research.
From there, the searches escalated. At 4:55 a.m., how long before a body starts to smell. At 6:24 a.m., how long for someone to be missing to inheritance. At 9:33 a.m., how long does DNA last. At 9:34 a.m., is it possible to clean DNA off a knife. At 9:35 a.m., can identification be made on partial human remains. The user was systematically researching every aspect of body disposal: the timeline of decomposition, the forensic evidence that might remain, the legal questions about missing persons and inheritance.
At 9:59 a.m., the searches shifted to covering digital tracks. How to dispose of a cell phone. How to dispose of a computer. The user was worried about the electronic trail they were leaving, even as they continued to leave it. At 10:29 a.m., the searches took a strangely practical turn. "I am a user on my wife's credit card. She is missing. Can I still use the card?" And then, moments later: "My wife is missing. What should I do?" These searches suggested someone who knew their wife was not coming back but wanted to understand the procedures that would follow.
At 10:30 a.m., the searches became darker still. "Your spouse is missing and you want a divorce." The user visited a website called helloDivorce. At 11:28 a.m., "Ways to dispose of body parts after murder." And then the user visited murdermurdermurder.com, a website with an article titled "6 ways to dispose of a body."
The prosecutor read title after title while the trooper confirmed dates and times. Each search more disturbing than the last. Each one documented in the browser history with timestamps that placed them in the hours after Ana was last seen alive. The jury could follow along with the 1,034-page binder, which they will have access to during deliberations. They could see for themselves the URLs, the timestamps, the titles. This was not the prosecution's interpretation. This was the raw data from Brian's computer.
At 11:30 a.m., the user searched for Patrick Kierney and visited his Wikipedia page. Kierney was a serial killer who disposed of his victims' bodies in trash bags. The defense objected to the characterization of Kierney as the "trash bag killer," and the judge struck that description from the record. But the jury had already heard it. They knew why Brian Walshe might have been interested in someone who threw corpses into trash bags. The prosecution would later allege that Brian disposed of Ana's remains in dumpsters. The Kierney search suggested he had researched the technique.
The searches continued into January 2 and January 3. At 12:27 p.m. on January 2: how to saw a body. At 12:27 p.m., how to dismember a body. At 12:33 p.m., hacksaw, the best tool for dismembering a body. At 12:42 p.m., details of dismemberment discussed in murder trial. The user was not just researching how to dismember a body. They were researching what evidence might come out at trial if they were caught.
At 12:47 p.m., the most chilling search of all: "Can you be charged with murder without a body?" The user visited a Wikipedia article on murder convictions without a body. At 12:51 p.m., they visited another article titled "No corpse? No problem. Notable murder convictions without a body." Someone using Brian's computer was researching whether they could be convicted for a murder where the victim's body was never recovered. They were assessing their own risk.
The searches continued with questions about whether teeth could be used for identification, about apartments for rent in Brockton and Abington, about what powder makes dead bodies smell the least, about whether baking soda could make a dead body smell good, about how long for a dismembered body to decompose, about whether a body could decompose in a plastic bag. The user searched for news about bodies found at trash stations. They were monitoring whether their disposal method might be discovered.
They also searched about evading detection. Can the FBI tell when you accessed your phone. Does a cell phone track your historical location. Can police get your search history without your computer. The user knew they were creating evidence. They wanted to know if that evidence could be obtained.
The prosecution also established what had been searched before New Year's Day. On December 27, 2022, the MacBook was used for divorce-related searches. Best divorce strategies for men. Five best and five worst states to get divorced. Washington DC divorce lawyers. The user spent significant time reading articles about divorce, about property division, about strategies for men facing divorce proceedings. The prosecution's theory was that Brian was already contemplating the end of his marriage before Ana disappeared.
The user also visited Pornhub on December 27, including a video with a title containing the words "cheating wife seduces another man." The prosecution suggested this showed Brian's awareness of, or concern about, Ana's alleged affair. But as the defense would establish on cross-examination, this was not what it appeared to be.
Defense attorney Tipton's cross-examination struck at the heart of what this evidence actually proves. He began with the warrant limitation. The trooper confirmed that his search warrant only covered December 25, 2022 through January 8, 2023. He had the entire contents of the MacBook, all of the browser history going back potentially years. But he only looked at that two-week window. He established that there were no searches about body disposal, DNA cleanup, blood removal, or hydrogen peroxide before 4:52 a.m. on January 1. Not on December 25. Not on December 26. Not on December 27, 28, 29, 30, or 31. Nothing.
This is significant for the defense's theory. If Brian Walshe had planned to murder his wife, where was the preparation? Where was the research that would have preceded the killing? The prosecution might argue that Brian was too smart to leave a pre-murder trail. But then why would he leave such an obvious post-murder trail? If he was capable of concealing his planning, why was he incapable of concealing his cover-up? The absence of pre-January 1 searches suggests that whatever happened, it happened suddenly. The research began only after Ana was already dead.
Tipton also attacked the Pornhub evidence. The "cheating wife" video was not a search term. It was just a video title. The trooper admitted he never watched the video, had no idea what it was actually about. He could not say whether the same actress appeared in other videos the user had watched, which might suggest the user was following a performer rather than seeking out content about cheating. He acknowledged that Pornhub suggests videos based on viewing history, and that the "cheating wife" video might have appeared as a suggestion rather than a deliberate search. He admitted the only reason this evidence was included was because of the phrase "cheating wife" in the title. It was prejudicial. It was inflammatory. And it may have been meaningless.
The trooper also acknowledged significant limitations in his analysis. He had never written a summary report of his findings. He could not say how many of the 3,677 records in his binder were actually relevant to the case. When asked to give even an approximate number, he said he would just be guessing, that he thought "a good portion" were relevant but could not define what that meant. He admitted that search algorithms can redirect users to content they did not specifically request, that following one link can lead to suggested content that the user never intended to find.
Most significantly, Tipton established that investigators had never sought to look at data from before December 25, 2022. If they believed Brian had planned this murder, why did they not look at what he was searching in November? October? September? The trooper admitted he had no idea what was on the MacBook before December 25. He admitted that if he had information suggesting relevant earlier searches existed, he could have sought an additional warrant. He never did. The absence of pre-January 1 disposal searches might be evidence of no premeditation. Or it might be evidence that investigators simply did not look.
Day 2 ended with the jury having heard both the most damaging evidence and the most significant challenges to what that evidence means. The searches are undeniably disturbing. No innocent explanation makes them comfortable. But the question for this jury is not whether they are disturbing. The question is whether they prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution says they prove consciousness of guilt. The defense says they prove reaction to a death, not causation of a death.
Tomorrow and in the days ahead, the prosecution will call more witnesses. They will present physical evidence: the blood found in the home and basement, the items recovered from dumpsters, the hatchet and hacksaw with DNA evidence. They will try to connect these searches to actual physical conduct, to show that Brian did not just research disposal but carried it out. The defense will continue attacking investigative choices, continuing to create doubt about whether these searches prove murder or prove something else entirely.
Three young boys have lost their mother. That is beyond dispute. Whether they will also lose their father to a murder conviction depends on whether this jury believes the Commonwealth has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. After Day 2, the prosecution has put its most shocking evidence on the table. The defense has shown the jury where the gaps are. The burden of proof has not shifted. It never does. The State must prove its case. Brian Walshe does not have to prove anything at all.
The prosecution's strategy on Day 2 was devastatingly effective in its emotional sequencing. They began with Brian Walshe's own recorded voice professing love for his wife, describing their partnership, insisting he would never hurt her. Then they showed the jury what his computer was doing in the hours after she disappeared. The juxtaposition was designed to create cognitive dissonance: this man who sounds so loving, so desperate to find his wife, was simultaneously researching how to dispose of her body. Either everything he said in those interviews was a lie, or the prosecution's interpretation of the searches is wrong. There is no comfortable middle ground.
The methodical reading of search after search had a cumulative power that transcripts cannot fully capture. Prosecutor Gilman would ask for a page number and record number. Trooper Guarino would read the title. The prosecutor would ask for the time and date. And then they would move to the next one. For over an hour, this continued. Best ways to dispose of a body. How long before a body starts to smell. Is it possible to clean DNA off a knife. How to dismember a body. Hacksaw, the best tool for dismembering. Can you be charged with murder without a body. The repetition was numbing and then horrifying and then numbing again. Each search another nail in the coffin.
The jury could follow along with the 1,034-page binder, exhibit 79, which they will have access to during deliberations. They can see for themselves the timestamps, the URLs, the titles. They can see that the user went eleven pages deep into an article about body disposal. They can see the progression from generic questions about smell and decomposition to specific questions about dismemberment tools. They can see the searches about evading detection, about whether police could access search history, about whether cell phones track location. This was not someone who stumbled onto disturbing content and quickly clicked away. This was systematic research by someone who knew they had something to hide and wanted to hide it well.
The prosecution also strategically bookended the searches with context. Before showing the New Year's Day disposal searches, they established the December 27 divorce searches. Best strategies for men in divorce. Washington DC divorce lawyers. And visits to Pornhub including a video about a cheating wife. The implication was clear: Brian knew about the affair, was considering divorce, and then something changed. By New Year's Day, he was no longer researching how to end his marriage through legal means. He was researching how to dispose of his wife.
But the defense did not let this narrative stand unchallenged. Tipton's cross-examination was surgically precise. He did not try to explain away the searches or offer innocent interpretations. He did not ask the trooper to speculate about alternative explanations. Instead, he attacked the timeline. He attacked the methodology. He attacked the conclusions that could fairly be drawn from the evidence presented.
He forced the trooper to confirm that there were no disposal searches before 4:52 a.m. on January 1. Not one. If Brian planned to kill Ana, where is the evidence of planning before Ana was dead? Where are the searches from December about how to commit murder, how to overpower someone, how to stage a scene? The prosecution might respond that Brian was too careful to leave such a trail. But then why was he so careless about the disposal searches? The inconsistency matters.
The absence of pre-January 1 searches is significant because of the defense theory announced in opening statements. Larry Tipton told the jury that Ana died suddenly and unexpectedly. That Brian found her dead and panicked. That everything he did afterward, as despicable as it was, was a reaction to finding his wife's body, not the result of murdering her. If that theory is true, then the searches would naturally begin only after she was dead. If Brian did not kill her, he would not have been researching disposal before she died. The timeline fits the defense theory.
The Pornhub evidence was particularly vulnerable to attack. Tipton established that "cheating wife" was a video title, not a search term. The trooper had no idea what the video was actually about. He had not watched it. He could not say whether the user had been watching videos featuring the same actress and this was simply the next suggested video in a sequence. He admitted the only reason this evidence was included was because of the phrase "cheating wife" in the title. The prosecution wanted the jury to believe Brian was obsessing about infidelity. The evidence showed only that he watched a video with certain words in the title. The inference the prosecution wants the jury to draw is not supported by the evidence presented.
Similarly, the divorce searches from December 27 may be less damning than the prosecution suggests. The defense established that around that same time, Brian and Ana were discussing the possible sale of one of their properties. Divorce searches in the context of property decisions might reflect financial planning rather than marital breakdown. People research divorce for many reasons. They might be curious about what would happen if their marriage ended. They might be helping a friend who is going through a divorce. They might be planning financially for different contingencies. The trooper admitted he had no idea what text messages were exchanged between Brian and Ana in late December. He did not examine those. He did not know the context of the divorce searches.
The jury also saw something subtle but important in the contrast between the two key witnesses of the day. Sergeant Schmidt was experienced and thorough, but he also admitted he walked through the house twice and noticed nothing suspicious. He touched bags in the basement with his boot and assumed they contained carpet samples. He did not open them. Brian was right there with him. The prosecution wants the jury to believe that Brian had already hidden evidence of murder in that house. But the trained detective, sensitive to such things, saw nothing. Either Brian Walshe is the most brazen killer in history, standing beside a detective while bodies or body parts lay hidden at their feet. Or nothing incriminating was in those locations at that time. Or the detective failed to detect what was there. Each explanation has different implications for how the jury should weigh the rest of the evidence.
Trooper Guarino was technically competent but acknowledged significant limitations. He never wrote a summary report. He could not say how many records were relevant. He admitted to including evidence because of triggering words rather than substantive relevance. He acknowledged that he had access to earlier data but never sought a warrant to examine it. His testimony was devastating in its content but vulnerable in its methodology. The searches are real. The question is what they prove.
What the jury saw on Day 2 was the prosecution's best evidence and the defense's best attacks on that evidence. The searches are what they are. They cannot be unsearched. But what they prove, what they mean, whether they establish premeditated murder or panicked concealment: that remains contested. The prosecution believes the searches speak for themselves. The defense believes context matters. The jury will decide who is right.
The constitutional principle at the heart of every criminal trial is the presumption of innocence. Brian Walshe is presumed innocent until the Commonwealth proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered his wife. That presumption is not a courtesy extended to sympathetic defendants. It is not suspended when the evidence is disturbing. It is not relaxed when public opinion has already convicted the accused. It applies with full force even when a man's computer contains searches about dismembering bodies and disposing of remains. Especially then.
This case tests whether the presumption of innocence means anything when the defendant has essentially conceded everything except the killing itself. The defense has admitted Brian disposed of Ana's body. They have admitted he bought the tools, the cleaning supplies, the tarps. They have admitted he lied to police. They have admitted the searches happened. What they dispute is the single element that separates murder from obstruction of justice: did Brian kill Ana, or did he find her already dead?
The burden of proof is not just a legal technicality. It is the difference between a system that presumes guilt and one that protects the innocent. My father, Steven M. Askin, spent his legal career defending that principle. He was twice destroyed by a system that viewed constitutional protections as obstacles rather than foundations. He was held in contempt and imprisoned for refusing to violate attorney-client privilege. He was criminally convicted for helping people understand their constitutional rights. He understood, from the inside, what happens when systems decide guilt before trials begin.
The searches on Brian Walshe's MacBook are exactly the kind of evidence that makes presumption of innocence difficult to maintain. They are viscerally disturbing. They suggest consciousness of guilt. They paint a picture of someone who knew they had a body to dispose of and went about researching how to do it methodically, thoroughly, leaving a digital trail that investigators would later follow. But suggesting consciousness of guilt is not the same as proving murder. And the defense theory, while uncomfortable, is not impossible.
Consider what the prosecution must prove. Not just that Ana is dead, though that has been essentially conceded by both sides. Not just that Brian disposed of her body, though that has been admitted. The prosecution must prove that Brian caused her death. They must prove that he killed her with deliberate premeditation, the element that distinguishes first-degree murder from lesser charges. They must prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning the jury must have no reasonable alternative explanation for the evidence presented.
The digital evidence creates a timeline, but it is a timeline that begins after Ana was last seen alive. The first body disposal search is at 4:52 a.m. on January 1. Ana was last seen around 4:00 a.m., according to prosecution statements in opening. The searches begin less than an hour later. That is damning. But it is also consistent with the defense theory that something happened to Ana and Brian immediately began researching how to hide it. The timeline does not distinguish between these scenarios.
The absence of earlier searches matters because premeditation requires planning. First-degree murder in Massachusetts requires that the killing was committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought. If Brian planned to kill Ana, where is the evidence of that planning? Where are the searches about how to kill someone, how to stage a scene, how to create an alibi? The prosecution might argue that Brian was too smart to leave that trail. But that argument asks the jury to infer evidence that does not exist. It asks them to assume planning where no evidence of planning appears.
The digital privacy implications of this case extend beyond Brian Walshe and beyond this courtroom. The prosecution's use of search history assumes that searches reveal intent. But search history is complex. People search for disturbing things for many reasons. True crime enthusiasts research murders. Writers research crimes for fiction. The curious follow links down rabbit holes they would rather not revisit. Medical students search about decomposition. Hunters search about carcass disposal. Farmers search about animal remains. None of this means Brian's searches are innocent. But it does mean that context matters, and context is precisely what the prosecution's presentation lacked.
The warrant limitation to December 25, 2022 forward creates an incomplete picture that the jury must evaluate. The trooper admitted he never sought to look earlier. If Brian had been searching disturbing topics regularly for months out of morbid curiosity, the January 1 searches would look different than if they appeared from nowhere. If Brian had been researching divorce on and off for a year, the December 27 searches would look different than if they were a sudden aberration. We do not know what came before because investigators chose not to look. That choice has consequences for what conclusions the jury can fairly draw.
The Trooper Proctor problem looms over this entire investigation, even though Proctor himself has not testified and likely will not. Michael Proctor, who was present at the January 8 interview where Brian was confronted with the searches, was later fired from the Massachusetts State Police for misconduct in the Karen Read case. His vulgar text messages about Karen Read, his investigative bias, his inappropriate conduct have put every case he touched under scrutiny. The defense has secured access to Proctor's communications related to the Walshe investigation. We do not yet know what those communications contain. But the prosecution's decision to proceed without calling Proctor as a witness tells us that his involvement is a liability they would rather not explain to the jury.
Investigative integrity matters because constitutional protections depend on fair procedures. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination. The Sixth Amendment guarantees confrontation of witnesses. These protections are not technicalities that clever prosecutors can circumvent. They are not obstacles to justice. They are the foundation of a system that distinguishes democratic justice from authoritarian prosecution. When investigators cut corners, when they make choices that limit the evidence available, when they fail to look at data that might exonerate as well as incriminate, the entire system is compromised.
The question for this jury is not whether Brian Walshe is a sympathetic figure. He is not. The question is not whether his behavior after Ana disappeared was despicable. It was. The question is not whether the searches are disturbing. They are. The question is whether the Commonwealth has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Brian killed his wife. The searches suggest it. The behavior suggests it. The entire picture suggests it. But suggestion is not proof. And the burden never shifts to the defendant to prove innocence. That burden remains with the Commonwealth from opening statement through deliberation. If they have not met it, if reasonable doubt exists, the law requires acquittal regardless of what the jury suspects.
Day 2 follows Day 1's opening statements and the beginning of Sergeant Schmidt's testimony. In those opening statements, the prosecution laid out a circumstantial case built on Google searches, surveillance video, DNA evidence, and alleged motive. ADA Lynn Beland told the jury about the disturbing searches, the purchases of cleaning supplies and tools, the biological evidence found in dumpsters. She painted a picture of a calculated killer who murdered his wife and then methodically disposed of her remains.
The defense made the extraordinary decision to concede almost everything while contesting only the murder itself. Larry Tipton told the jury his client disposed of Ana's remains. He admitted Brian bought the cleaning supplies, the tarps, the tools. He acknowledged the Google searches about body disposal. He told them Brian lied to police. But he insisted, and will continue to insist throughout this trial, that Brian did not kill Ana. That she died suddenly and unexpectedly from causes Brian did not cause. That everything that followed was a panicked attempt to hide a death, not cover up a murder.
This strategy is unprecedented in my experience covering trials. Defense attorneys typically fight every piece of evidence, create doubt about every link in the chain, force the prosecution to prove each element beyond reasonable doubt. They challenge forensic techniques. They question witness credibility. They offer alternative suspects. They make the prosecution work for every inch of progress. Tipton has taken a radically different approach. He has given the prosecution most of the ground and is defending only the high ground of causation.
The risk of this strategy is obvious. By admitting so much, the defense has made the jury's path to conviction much shorter. They do not need to decide whether Brian bought the cleaning supplies. He did. They do not need to decide whether he made the Google searches. He did. They do not need to decide whether he disposed of Ana's remains. He did. They do not need to decide whether he lied to police. He did. The only question is whether he killed her first. That one question is all that separates murder from something else.
The advantage of this strategy is that it forces the jury to focus on burden of proof. The prosecution cannot rest on the admitted misconduct. They cannot point to the cover-up as proof of the crime. They must prove the murder itself. And for first-degree murder, they need more than searches about disposal. They need evidence of killing. They need evidence of premeditation. They need to show not just that Brian covered up a death but that he caused the death he was covering up.
After Day 2, the state of the case is mixed, which is probably the best the defense could hope for after the prosecution's most damaging evidence was presented. The prosecution has successfully gotten its most devastating material before the jury. The searches are in the record. The timestamps are documented. The progression from body smell to dismemberment to avoiding prosecution is clear. This is powerful evidence of consciousness of guilt. It suggests that whoever made those searches knew they had a body to hide and was systematically researching how to do it well.
But the defense has landed meaningful blows. The trained detective who saw nothing suspicious in two walkthroughs of the house. The absence of any disposal searches before 4:52 a.m. on January 1. The Pornhub evidence that turned out to be a video title rather than a search term. The warrant limitation that prevented examination of earlier data. The lack of any summary report from the digital forensics expert. The acknowledgment that investigators never sought to look at pre-December 25 data even though they had access to it. These are not fatal problems for the prosecution, but they are cracks in the foundation that the defense will continue to exploit.
If you are the victim's family, watching this trial from the gallery, you are seeing the evidence mount against the man you believe killed your daughter, your sister, your friend. The searches are confirmation of what you already believe. The defense admissions are confession by another name. The technicalities the defense lawyer raises are insulting distractions from the obvious truth. You want justice for Ana, and justice means conviction. Every day in that courtroom must be agonizing.
If you are Brian Walshe, sitting at the defense table, you are watching your own words and your own computer history used against you in ways you perhaps never imagined when you were making those searches in the dark hours of New Year's Day. You know what you did after Ana died. Your lawyers have admitted it to the world. But if you are telling the truth about not killing her, you are watching a system try to convict you of a murder you did not commit while you have already confessed to the cover-up that makes you look guilty. You need one juror, maybe two, to believe that reasonable doubt exists. The math is not in your favor.
The prosecution will continue building its case in the days ahead. They will call witnesses to testify about the blood evidence found in the home and basement. They will present the items recovered from dumpsters: Ana's personal belongings, biological material, the tools allegedly used for dismemberment. They will call DNA experts who will connect those tools to Ana's remains. They will try to show that Brian's behavior was consistent with planned murder, not panicked concealment. They will argue that the totality of the evidence eliminates any reasonable doubt.
The defense will continue attacking. They will emphasize what is missing: no body, no definitive murder weapon, no eyewitnesses, no confession to the killing itself. They will highlight investigative choices that limited the evidence available. They will remind the jury, again and again, that the burden of proof never shifts, that Brian does not have to prove his innocence, that reasonable doubt means acquittal even if they suspect he is guilty. They will try to keep the focus on that single question: has the prosecution proven that Brian killed Ana, or only that he disposed of her?
This trial is far from over. The searches were the prosecution's most powerful evidence, their nuclear weapon deployed early to establish the narrative. But nuclear weapons do not guarantee victory. They guarantee destruction. What remains to be seen is whether the destruction is complete enough to eliminate reasonable doubt, or whether something survives in the rubble.
As this trial continues, several key issues will demand attention. Understanding what to watch for helps viewers engage with the evidence critically rather than passively accepting conclusions from either side. This is what my father believed legal education should provide: the tools to think like a lawyer, to question what you are told, to understand why the rules exist and whether they are being followed.
First, watch for how the prosecution connects the searches to actual physical conduct. The Google searches suggest planning for disposal. But the prosecution must show that Brian followed through on that planning. They will need to present evidence that he actually used the tools he researched, that he actually disposed of the body in the manner he searched about, that the searches were preparation for action rather than mere research. If the hacksaw search led to an actual hacksaw with Ana's DNA, that connection strengthens the case. If the dumpster searches correlate with where remains were actually found, that pattern matters. The prosecution needs to bridge the gap between digital research and physical reality.
Second, watch for how the defense continues to exploit the timeline gap. The absence of pre-January 1 searches is significant. Expect the defense to hammer this point with every witness who addresses the digital evidence. They will ask repeatedly: if this was planned, where is the evidence of planning before Ana was dead? They will suggest that the sudden appearance of disposal searches at 4:52 a.m. is consistent with someone who just discovered a problem, not someone who created it. They will argue that premeditation requires evidence of premeditation, and that evidence is absent.
Third, watch for the blood evidence. Prosecutors have indicated that blood was found in the Walshe home, including in the basement. The location and pattern of that blood may help establish what happened and where. If blood was found in areas consistent with violence, patterns consistent with struggle or injury, that strengthens the murder theory. If blood was found only in areas consistent with post-mortem handling, that might support the defense theory that Brian dealt with a body rather than creating one. The forensic testimony about blood will be critical.
Fourth, watch for the DNA evidence on tools. The prosecution has indicated that DNA evidence was recovered from items like hacksaws. Whose DNA? Ana's? Brian's? Both? Where were these items found? How do they connect to the searches about best tools for dismembering? This physical evidence may bridge the gap between internet research and actual conduct. But the defense may also challenge the chain of custody, the testing methodology, or the conclusions that can fairly be drawn.
Fifth, watch for any Proctor problems. Michael Proctor was present at the critical January 8 interview. His involvement in the investigation cannot be erased even if he does not testify. If defense counsel introduces communications showing bias or improper conduct related to the Walshe investigation, that could undermine the integrity of the evidence gathered. The prosecution is already proceeding without calling Proctor as a witness. His absence speaks volumes about how problematic his involvement has become. The question is whether that problem stays buried or gets exhumed.
Sixth, watch for character evidence about Ana. The defense has hinted at alternative theories without fully committing to any of them. They mentioned the Serbian land dispute involving Ana's family. They established that Brian gave up the name of Ana's alleged affair partner without hostility. They may attempt to suggest that someone else had motive to harm Ana, or that Ana had health issues that might explain a sudden death. Such evidence faces significant evidentiary hurdles, but watch for attempts to introduce it and how the judge rules.
Seventh, watch for expert testimony about the cause of death. In a no-body murder case, establishing how the victim died is unusually difficult. Medical examiners typically determine cause of death by examining remains. Without remains, the prosecution may rely on circumstantial evidence or expert inference. The defense may argue that without knowing how Ana died, the jury cannot determine who caused her death. If the prosecution cannot prove how Ana died, can they prove that Brian killed her? This gap in the evidence may be the defense's strongest argument.
Finally, watch for the jury. Their questions during deliberations, if any are submitted to the judge, will reveal what issues they are struggling with. Their body language during testimony may indicate which witnesses they find credible. Their attention during cross-examination may show whether defense attacks are landing. The jury is the ultimate audience for this trial, and their conclusions are the only ones that legally matter. Everything else is commentary.
This trial asks fundamental questions that do not have easy answers. After Day 2, consider these questions as you watch the evidence continue to unfold. Engage with them not as someone who has already decided, but as someone who is learning to think like a juror, which is to say, like a citizen responsible for the most serious decision our system asks ordinary people to make.
Could you convict based on what you have seen so far? The searches are devastating. The timeline is damning. The defense has admitted the cover-up in terms that leave no room for doubt about what Brian did after Ana died. But they have not admitted the killing. Is what you have seen enough to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt, or do you need more? What more would you need? What would convince you that Brian killed Ana rather than finding her already dead?
Do you believe Brian Walshe when he said he loved his wife and would never hurt her? Those recordings were made before he knew what police had found on his computer. Was he lying? Was he in denial? Was he telling the truth about his feelings while hiding what he had done? Or was he telling the truth about everything, a husband who loved his wife and panicked when he found her dead? The same words can support different conclusions depending on what you believe about the man speaking them.
Does the absence of pre-January 1 searches matter to you? If Brian planned this murder, why is there no evidence of planning before Ana was dead? If he researched divorce on December 27 but did not research murder, does that suggest the killing was not premeditated? Or does it simply mean he was careful about what he searched before acting and careless afterward? The gap in the digital record can be interpreted different ways. How do you interpret it?
How much weight do you give to the detective who saw nothing suspicious? Sergeant Schmidt walked through that house twice. He is trained to notice signs of violence, sensitive to things ordinary people might miss. He noticed nothing. Either Brian was extraordinarily good at concealment, or there was nothing to conceal at that point, or the detective missed what was there. Which explanation makes the most sense to you? Does it matter that criminalists later found things Schmidt missed, or does that just mean they had better equipment?
What do you make of the Pornhub evidence? The prosecution introduced it. The defense attacked it. A video title contained the words "cheating wife." The trooper never watched the video, never knew what it was about, included it only because of those triggering words. Is this evidence of Brian's state of mind about his marriage, or is it inflammatory prejudice masquerading as relevant evidence? How should jurors treat evidence that sounds damning but may prove nothing?
What would you need to see to be convinced either way? What evidence would prove to you, beyond reasonable doubt, that Brian killed Ana? What evidence would create enough doubt that you could not convict? Knowing your own threshold helps you evaluate whether the prosecution is meeting it. It also helps you understand why different jurors might reach different conclusions from the same evidence.
Re-watch the key moments. Brian's declaration of love for Ana. His confrontation with the Google searches. The first disposal search at 4:52 a.m. The defense's point about no pre-January 1 searches. Watch his face in the courtroom. Listen to the recordings of his voice. Apply your judgment. That is what jurors do. That is what citizens in a democracy must do when their system puts someone's life and freedom in the hands of twelve ordinary people who are asked to find the truth.
The trial continues. Ana Walshe deserves justice. Brian Walshe deserves a fair trial. Their three sons deserve the truth, whatever it turns out to be. These statements are not in conflict. Justice is a process, not an outcome. The process requires that we watch carefully, think critically, and respect the burden of proof even when the evidence is disturbing. Especially when the evidence is disturbing. That is when constitutional protections matter most.