Ana Walshe wanted a Porsche. On December 28th, 2022, three days before she vanished, she texted her husband Brian about a plumbing problem. His response became a running joke between them. He would get her a plunger, he said. And a Porsche. They both start with P. Ana laughed. She told him to forget the plunger. Just get me the Porsche. So Brian Walshe went shopping for a luxury car for the woman he loved. He sent her screenshots of Porsches for sale. This is what Day 5 of his murder trial revealed in its first hours.
By the afternoon, the jury was looking at a hatchet.
This is the story of Day 5 in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Brian Walshe. It is the story of a prosecution that spent a week building a case on digital evidence, on Google searches about body disposal and dismemberment, on location data and timeline analysis, only to watch defense attorney Larry Tipton methodically dismantle nearly every sinister interpretation they offered. And it is the story of what happens when that prosecution pivots. When they stop talking about what Brian searched for on the internet and start showing the jury what investigators found in the trash.
Ana Walshe was 39 years old when she disappeared on New Year's Day 2023. She was a Serbian immigrant who came to America seeking opportunity and found it through relentless work ethic and intelligence. She rose to become a regional general manager at Tishman Speyer, one of the largest real estate development companies in the world. She managed prestigious properties in Washington D.C., commuting from Cohasset, Massachusetts, where she lived with Brian and their three sons, ages 2, 4, and 6. She structured her entire professional life around maximizing time with those boys, flying home whenever she could, video calling constantly when she could not.
Brian Walshe was a stay-at-home father under house arrest for federal art fraud when Ana vanished. He had pleaded guilty to selling fake Andy Warhol paintings and was awaiting sentencing, required to report his planned movements to federal authorities. The prosecution says he murdered Ana in the early morning hours of January 1st, 2023, while their three sons slept upstairs in their beds. They say he then dismembered her body and disposed of the remains in dumpsters across Massachusetts. Ana's body has never been found.
Brian says he is innocent. He has pleaded guilty to misleading police and improperly disposing of human remains, but he maintains he did not kill his wife. His defense team argues Ana died of natural causes, possibly Sudden Unexplained Death Syndrome, and that Brian panicked and disposed of her body rather than face scrutiny given his pending federal case. It is an extraordinary defense strategy. It is also the only one that makes sense given the evidence the prosecution has presented.
The plea to misleading police and improper disposal was strategic. By conceding those charges before trial, the defense took them off the table. There would be no fighting over whether Brian lied to police. There would be no debate about whether he disposed of remains. The only question for the jury is murder. Did Brian Walshe kill his wife, or did he find her already dead and make terrible decisions in his panic? That is the single question this trial must answer.
The concession changed everything about how this trial would unfold. In most murder trials, prosecutors must prove every element. They must prove the victim is dead. They must prove the defendant caused the death. They must prove intent. Here, the defense has stipulated to most of it. Yes, Ana is dead. Yes, Brian disposed of her remains. Yes, he lied about it. The only thing he contests is whether he killed her. This narrow focus is either brilliant strategy or a desperate gamble. We will not know which until the verdict comes back.
Day 5 began with the final cross-examination of Trooper Keith, a Massachusetts State Police digital forensics specialist who had spent the previous day on the stand while Tipton exposed the context the prosecution had omitted from their presentation of the digital evidence. The morning continued that demolition. By the time Trooper Keith stepped down, the jury had learned that Brian made a dinner reservation at Nightshade restaurant for himself and Ana on New Year's Day. That he searched for champagne and wine dozens of times because they were throwing a New Year's Eve party. That the search for "I'm good" that prosecutors highlighted was a movie title, searched while Brian was party planning. That the searches for "Ana Walsh found dead" and "Christmas Day plane crash" occurred before Ana texted him that her flight was cancelled and she was driving up through a snowstorm.
The Nightshade revelation deserves attention. This is a restaurant on the town line between Marblehead and Lynn, Massachusetts. Brian searched for it on December 30th, the day before New Year's Eve. According to evidence the defense introduced, he made a reservation there for himself and Ana for New Year's Day. The trooper on the stand admitted he had no idea about this. He was unaware that Brian had made plans for them to celebrate together. No one from the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office had investigated whether the reservation was actually made. No one had called the restaurant. No one had checked their records. The defense simply found a text message showing the reservation and brought it into evidence.
Think about what this means for the prosecution's theory. They say Brian Walshe planned to murder his wife. They say he premeditated this killing. But on December 30th, he made a dinner reservation for them at a nice restaurant for January 1st. He expected them to be eating together on New Year's Day. He expected Ana to be alive. Either Brian Walshe is the most incompetent premeditated murderer in history, making dinner reservations for victims he plans to kill, or the prosecution's theory about premeditation has serious problems.
The prosecution's digital evidence had been reframed. What they presented as a husband researching how to kill and dispose of his wife now looked like a husband shopping for luxury cars, planning a celebration, and worrying about his wife's safety during dangerous weather. The text messages between Brian and Ana in the days before she disappeared showed a couple exchanging "I love yous," joking about plungers and Porsches, sharing photos of their children, discussing investment properties they might buy together. "Love you," Brian texted on December 28th. "Love you too," Ana replied.
Defense attorney Tipton walked the jury through the champagne and wine searches in meticulous detail. Record 445 through record 495, pages 30 through 34 of the search history exhibit. Champagne. Wine. Varieties. Brands. Then more champagne searches at record 924 through 943, pages 62 and 63. More at record 953 through 1016. All on December 30th, 2022. All in the evening hours. Brian Walshe was shopping for alcohol for their New Year's Eve party. Ana had invited their friend Jim Mutloo to celebrate with them. They were planning a festive evening.
The "I'm good" search that prosecutors highlighted was buried in the middle of these champagne searches. Record 1069, page 72, at 8:38 PM on December 30th. The prosecution presented it without context, letting the jury imagine sinister implications. But Tipton showed what surrounded it: record 1078, just below on the same page, was another champagne search. "I'm good" is the title of a movie. Brian was searching for entertainment options while party planning. At record 1128 through 1147, there were more movie searches. Stage tone. Movie clips. Then at record 1148, back to champagne. The prosecution cherry-picked a search and stripped it of its innocent context.
Even more damaging to the prosecution's narrative was Tipton's examination of the searches on Christmas Day. The prosecution had emphasized that someone searched "Ana Walsh found dead" and "Christmas Day plane crash" on December 25th, 2022. They presented these as evidence that Brian was already contemplating Ana's death. But Tipton showed the timeline. Those searches occurred at 12:45 PM. Ana's text saying "My flight got cancelled, driving up" did not arrive until 12:57 PM. Brian was worried about his wife. A snowstorm had hit the northeast. Flights were being cancelled. He could not reach her. He searched to see if something terrible had happened to her plane. Then she texted that she was safe and driving. After that text, no more searches about plane crashes or Ana being found dead. The concerned husband had gotten his answer.
But there was one revelation from the morning that cut deeper than any search result or text message. Defense attorney Tipton asked Trooper Keith a simple question: Who was the case officer who managed this investigation? The answer: Trooper Michael Proctor. The same Michael Proctor who was later fired from the Massachusetts State Police for misconduct in the Karen Read murder case. The same Michael Proctor whose vulgar text messages about Karen Read and investigative bias led a judge to declare a mistrial. The same Michael Proctor whose conduct has now put every case he touched under scrutiny.
This matters. It matters because Michael Proctor will not testify in this trial. His credibility is so damaged that calling him as a witness would likely do more harm than good for the prosecution. But his fingerprints are all over this investigation. He was the case officer. He made the decisions. He directed the analysis. And now the jury knows his name, even if they will never hear him explain himself.
The Karen Read case became a national story because of what it revealed about Proctor's conduct. He sent text messages to friends calling Read a "whack job" and a "babe" whose "ass" he would "nail." He shared information about the investigation with civilians. He made jokes about the victim. When confronted with these messages on the stand, he could not explain them. The jury deadlocked. The judge declared a mistrial. And Michael Proctor was fired.
Now every case he worked is under review. Defense attorneys across Massachusetts are seeking access to his communications in their clients' cases. They want to know if the same bias, the same cavalier attitude toward evidence and defendants' rights, infected other investigations. Brian Walshe's defense team is among them. They have secured access to examine Proctor's communications in this case. What they find may or may not reach the jury, but the shadow of doubt is already cast.
This is what it looks like when investigator misconduct poisons the justice system. It is not just about the cases where the misconduct is proven. It is about every case the investigator touched. It is about the doubt that attaches to every piece of evidence he gathered, every witness he interviewed, every decision he made. Michael Proctor will not testify in this trial, but his absence speaks as loudly as his presence would. Why is the case officer not here? What is the prosecution hiding? These questions will hang in the air whether anyone asks them aloud or not.
The morning also exposed significant gaps in the investigation itself. Tipton pressed Trooper Keith on why investigators never sought expanded search warrants to look back before December 25th on Brian's devices. If the goal was to determine whether Brian had been planning his wife's murder, wouldn't you want to see what he was searching for in November? October? The trooper had no good answer. He had not applied for any such warrant. Neither had anyone else.
This is a fundamental question about investigative completeness. The prosecution's theory is premeditated murder. They say Brian planned this killing. But they only obtained search history starting December 25th, 2022. If Brian had been planning for weeks or months, that planning would have left traces on his devices. Searches for weapons. Research about methods. Communications with potential accomplices. The absence of such evidence from the pre-December 25th period could mean it does not exist. Or it could mean no one looked. We cannot know because the investigation did not go there.
Tipton also exposed failures to follow up on specific leads. The charity and 501(c)(3) searches on December 31st, for example. Record 1250 through 1270 showed searches about how to donate lottery winnings tax-free, how to file for a charity, how to file a 501(c)(3) for a church. These occurred on New Year's Eve morning. Did anyone investigate what Brian was planning with regard to charitable giving? No. Was there a church he was thinking about supporting? No one knows. The investigation did not pursue it.
The Maza building searches were another missed opportunity. The prosecution presented Brian's searches for buildings Ana managed as sinister. But Tipton revealed that there had been a Legionnaire's disease outbreak at one of those buildings in October 2022. Ana, as regional general manager, had received letters from the DC Department of Public Health about the situation. Brian's searches might have been about helping his wife deal with a professional crisis, not about planning her murder. Did investigators look into this? The trooper did not know. The objection was sustained before the question could be fully explored, but the point was made: there were innocent explanations the investigation never considered.
Even more damaging was the questioning about communications between Ana and William Fastow, the man Ana was allegedly having an affair with. The defense asked whether finding communications between Ana and Fastow on Brian's phone would be important evidence. The trooper agreed it would be "pretty important evidence." He confirmed he did everything he could as a digital forensics specialist to find such communications. He found nothing. Ana's phone has never been recovered, so we cannot know what was on it. But Brian's phone showed no evidence that he was monitoring or intercepting his wife's communications with her lover.
This matters for the prosecution's motive theory. They have argued that Brian killed Ana because he discovered her affair and was enraged. But if Brian was monitoring Ana's communications with Fastow, there would be evidence of it. If he had access to her messages, if he was reading them, if he was tracking her affair, that would show on his devices. There was nothing. Either Brian was entirely unaware of the affair's details, or he knew about it and was remarkably unbothered, or there is simply no digital evidence either way.
The prosecution introduced evidence earlier in the trial that Brian searched for "William Fastow" on Christmas Day. They presented this as evidence he knew about the affair. But Tipton had already provided context for those searches too. They occurred when Ana was supposed to arrive for Christmas and had not yet communicated that her flight was cancelled. Brian was searching for information about the man Ana had been with in Washington. That could be jealous surveillance. It could also be a concerned husband trying to figure out where his wife was and who might know.
The affair is a double-edged sword for both sides. For the prosecution, it provides motive: Brian discovered his wife was cheating and killed her in rage or calculated revenge. For the defense, it provides an alternative explanation for Ana's state of mind: she was involved in a complicated love triangle, despondent about her choices, possibly stressed and unhealthy in ways that contributed to a natural death. Neither side has fully exploited this angle yet. The affair will continue to be a battleground.
This is what reasonable doubt looks like. Not proof of innocence. Not an alternative explanation that answers every question. Just enough uncertainty that a reasonable person cannot say with moral certainty that the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to prove Brian is innocent. They do not have to explain what happened to Ana. They simply have to show that the state has not met its burden. And after the morning session on Day 5, they had made significant progress toward that goal.
My father used to explain reasonable doubt to his clients this way: Imagine you have to decide whether to bet your house on a coin flip. You would want to be very sure the coin was fair before making that bet. Now imagine the coin flip determines whether someone goes to prison for life. That is the burden of proof. The state must prove its case so convincingly that you would bet your house on it. If you would not make that bet, if there is any reasonable doubt, you must acquit.
After the morning of Day 5, would you bet your house that Brian Walshe premeditated his wife's murder? He made a dinner reservation for them on New Year's Day. He was shopping for a Porsche to give her. He texted her "I love you" three days before she vanished. The Google searches the prosecution highlighted were party planning and movie searches when viewed in context. The searches that seemed to show concern about Ana's death occurred before she told him she was safe. Michael Proctor, the disgraced trooper, ran this investigation, and no one sought warrants to look at Brian's devices before December 25th.
These are not small issues. These are fundamental questions about whether the prosecution has proven what it set out to prove. And the morning of Day 5 raised all of them.
Then came the afternoon. Then came the tools.
Retired Trooper Heather Sullivan took the stand after the lunch break. She spent 20 years with the Massachusetts State Police, the last six in Crime Scene Services in Danvers. Her job was to go to homicides, suicides, unattended deaths, any crime scene where she needed to collect evidence, process it for fingerprints, document items of interest. She described the training required for that work: proficiency tests in crime scene documentation, videography, evidence collection, tire tracks, footwear, fingerprints. She passed all of them.
Sullivan had retired in July, just months before this trial began. Her testimony was matter-of-fact, professional, detached. She was not there to tell a story. She was there to establish that the items about to be shown to the jury were the same items she collected from the trash facility in Peabody. Chain of custody. Foundation for admission. The nuts and bolts of evidence law that make trials work.
On January 9th, 2023, Sullivan responded to an apartment complex at 3:30 Paradise Lane in Swampscott. This was the address of Brian Walshe's mother's apartment. Two trash receptacles there had been identified as potentially containing evidence. Sullivan documented them with photographs, then watched as they were transported to a transfer station in Peabody for searching.
At Greenworks Republic's transfer station at 300 4th Street in Peabody, the contents of the dumpster and compactor were dumped and spread out so investigators could go through them methodically. It was January. It was cold. The facility was half indoor, half outdoor. A special emergency response team of about 10 people was there to search through individual trash bags. They had been briefed on what to look for. When they found something potentially relevant, they would flag Sullivan. She would photograph it. If detectives wanted to collect it, they would spread it out for further documentation.
The conditions were brutal. January in Massachusetts, outdoors, sorting through garbage. The CERT team members wore protective equipment and worked bag by bag, item by item. Each bag was given a placard number so investigators could track which items came from which bag. This is how you build a case when your evidence is mixed in with household trash. Methodically. Painfully. One piece at a time.
Sullivan collected seven items that day. One by one, the prosecutor brought them out in brown paper evidence bags. One by one, Sullivan opened them, confirmed the contents, and placed them back inside. One by one, they were admitted into evidence and shown to the jury.
Exhibit 171: Tin snips. Metal cutters with red handles, found by placard 8.
Exhibit 172: A hacksaw. The kind you use to cut through metal. Or bone.
Exhibit 173: A hammer.
Exhibit 174: Packing tape.
Exhibit 175: A hatchet. The blade was visible as Sullivan pulled it from the bag.
Exhibit 176: Craftsman shears.
Exhibit 177: A measuring cup with dark powder on it. Sullivan recognized it as black fingerprint powder, meaning the cup had been processed for prints at the crime lab.
The courtroom was silent as these items were displayed. There is something visceral about seeing tools of potential violence in person. It is different from hearing about them. It is different from seeing photographs. The physical presence of a hatchet, its weight implied by the way Sullivan handled it, its blade visible when the bag opened, makes abstract allegations concrete. This is not a theory. This is metal. This is real.
Sullivan's testimony was brief. She did not describe what was found on these tools. She did not explain why they mattered. She simply established the chain of custody, confirmed she collected them, confirmed she entered them into the evidence system, confirmed they were transported to the lab for further analysis. The tools spoke for themselves. A hacksaw. A hatchet. Tin snips. Shears. These are not the instruments of an innocent man disposing of his wife's naturally deceased body. These are the instruments of dismemberment.
Consider what each tool is designed to do. Tin snips cut through sheet metal. Hacksaws cut through pipes, metal bars, and, if necessary, bone. Hatchets chop wood, or anything else that needs chopping. Shears cut through fabric, plastic, carpet, or flesh. A hammer can break things apart. Together, these tools tell a story of someone who needed to cut, chop, and break things into smaller pieces. Together, they are a dismemberment kit.
The defense has conceded that Brian disposed of Ana's remains. They have not explained how. They have not explained what he did with her body. They have not explained why he needed these tools. Their theory is that Ana died naturally and Brian panicked. But panic does not explain a hacksaw. Panic does not explain methodical acquisition and use of cutting tools. Whatever Brian did after Ana's death, it was not simple panic. It was deliberate. It was planned, at least after the fact. The tools prove that much even if they do not prove murder.
This is the prosecution's pivot. They spent days on digital evidence that the defense successfully recontextualized. They showed searches that could be explained as party planning, car shopping, concern for a wife in a snowstorm. They showed text messages that revealed a loving couple. Now they were showing metal. Now they were showing blades. Now they were showing the jury things that cannot be explained away by alternative interpretations.
A husband does not need a hacksaw to dispose of his wife's body if she died of natural causes. A husband does not need a hatchet, tin snips, and shears if he simply panicked and made bad decisions. The tools tell a story. The prosecution does not need a body to tell that story. They need the jury to look at these instruments and ask themselves: What were these used for?
The final witness of Day 5 was Dr. Richard Atkinson, a medical examiner at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Boston. He had been there for eleven and a half years. He held a four-year bachelor's degree from Stony Brook, a four-year MD from Columbia, a three-year anatomic pathology residency at New York Presbyterian and Stony Brook, and a one-year fellowship in forensic pathology at the OCME. He was board certified in both anatomic pathology and forensic pathology. He had performed over 1,500 full autopsies, 2,700 additional examinations that were not full autopsies, and supervised 300 more.
Dr. Atkinson's credentials matter because expert testimony carries weight. When a medical examiner with his qualifications tells a jury what he found, they listen. He is not a police officer with an agenda. He is not a prosecutor building a case. He is a doctor whose job is to determine what killed people and what evidence their bodies reveal. His opinions are based on science, training, and experience. Juries trust that.
Dr. Atkinson explained what happens to a human body within the first hour of death. Rigor mortis begins within a couple of hours, sometimes almost immediately. The muscles tighten in the position the person died in. Lividity sets in as blood settles to the lowest point once the heart stops beating. If you are lying on your back, your back becomes pink, your front becomes white. The body begins to tell its story the moment life ends.
He described what an autopsy involves. External examination first: looking at the clothing, examining the surface of the body, taking photographs, drawing findings on a body diagram, looking for signs of injury or disease. Then internal examination: removing organs, looking for signs of disease or injury, sometimes removing items like bullets. He described the protective equipment he wears: a full Tyvek suit, extra sleeves, an apron, a mask and face shield, three pairs of gloves. Autopsies are messy, dangerous work.
But Dr. Atkinson was not called to testify about Ana Walshe's body. Ana Walshe's body has never been found. He was called to testify about items taken from a trash facility in Peabody. Normally, medical examiners examine bodies of people who have died. In this case, the objective was to determine whether there was any human tissue on these items.
That sentence should sit with you. A medical examiner, a doctor trained to examine human bodies, was brought in to examine trash items to determine whether they contained human tissue. The prosecution is building toward a specific conclusion: that pieces of Ana Walshe were found on these items. That her remains were distributed across multiple trash facilities. That she was not simply buried or hidden but dismembered and disposed of in parts.
The first items Dr. Atkinson examined were seven pieces of blue and white carpet. The prosecution showed photographs of these carpet pieces, rolled up, stained. There were pieces of debris visible on some of them. Dr. Atkinson placed rulers in the photographs to show scale. He examined them on January 10th, 2023, at the OCME in Boston.
Day 5 ended before Dr. Atkinson could describe what he found on those carpet pieces. The judge noted the case was moving efficiently, estimated it would conclude within three weeks total, two weeks remaining. He thanked the jurors for their work and sent them home for the weekend with the usual admonitions: do not speak to anyone about the case, do not go on social media, do not do any research, keep open minds.
Those jurors went home with images in their heads. A hacksaw being pulled from an evidence bag. A hatchet blade catching the light. Rolled carpet with stains that might be blood. They went home knowing that next week they would learn what Dr. Atkinson found when he examined those items. They went home with the weight of what they have been asked to decide.
This is the burden of jury service in a murder trial. You cannot unsee what you have seen. You cannot unknow what you have learned. You carry the evidence with you, into your home, into your weekend, into your dreams. The jurors in this case have seen a husband's desperate texts to his wife after she vanished. They have seen the Google searches that began at 4:52 AM on New Year's Day. They have seen photographs of trash facilities and dumpsters. They have seen a hacksaw. They have seen a hatchet. They have seen carpet with stains.
And they have not yet heard what was on those items. They have not yet learned what the medical examiner found when he examined them. They went home knowing that next week the testimony would become more graphic, more detailed, more impossible to forget. They went home knowing they would have to decide whether Brian Walshe murdered his wife.
For the jurors who paid attention during the morning session, they also went home with questions. Why did Brian make a dinner reservation if he was planning to kill Ana? Why were the prosecution's searches so different with context than without it? Who is Michael Proctor, and why is he not testifying? What did investigators not look for? These questions will compete with the visceral images from the afternoon. The battle between reasonable doubt and damning evidence has only just begun.
Day 5 was a day of whiplash. The morning gave the defense its best day yet. The afternoon gave the prosecution its most visceral evidence so far. If you are trying to understand what happened in that courtroom, you have to hold both realities in your mind simultaneously.
In the morning, the jury saw a marriage. They saw text messages between two people who said "I love you" to each other three days before one of them vanished. They saw a husband shopping for a Porsche because his wife asked for one. They saw champagne searches for a New Year's Eve party. They saw a dinner reservation at a nice restaurant for New Year's Day. They saw concern about a wife's cancelled flight during a snowstorm. They saw the context the prosecution had omitted.
The text messages were particularly powerful. On December 27th, 2022, the phones assigned to Ana and Brian exchanged messages about a property deal they were working on. Someone had signed something. "Let's get this deal done," Brian's phone texted. They discussed Venmo payments and confirmation from someone named Steven. This was a couple managing their affairs together, making plans, conducting business. On December 28th, Ana's phone said she was not feeling well and would work from home in DC. Brian's phone said "Feel better" and offered to get the boys ready. Then came the Porsche exchange, the "love you" texts, the joking about plungers.
The jury also heard about the phone calls between Ana and Brian during Christmas weekend. On December 25th, as Ana drove up from Washington after her flight was cancelled, the call logs showed three significant calls: one for an hour and 22 minutes, one for 6 minutes, and one for an hour and 27 minutes. Ana was on the road for hours. Brian was on the phone with her for hours. This is not the pattern of a man who hates his wife or wants her dead. This is the pattern of a married couple staying connected during a long drive.
They also saw the flaws in the investigation. They learned that Michael Proctor, the disgraced trooper fired for misconduct in another murder case, was the case officer running this investigation. They learned that no one sought search warrants to look at Brian's devices before December 25th. They learned that no one investigated the dinner reservation or the restaurant. They learned that the trooper admitted finding communications between Ana and her alleged lover on Brian's phone would have been "pretty important" but he found nothing.
Defense attorney Tipton was methodical and devastating. He took each piece of digital evidence the prosecution presented and showed what surrounded it. He revealed that searches the prosecution framed as sinister were actually innocent when viewed in context. He showed that Brian Walshe was behaving like a man who expected his wife to be alive, not a man planning to murder her. The restaurant reservation alone is powerful: Why would a man planning to kill his wife on January 1st make a dinner reservation for them on that same day?
Tipton also scored points on the web history versus search history issue. The prosecution introduced the Safari search history, which shows what was typed into search bars. But they limited the Safari web history, which shows what websites were actually visited, to just a few minutes on December 31st. The trooper admitted that the web history provides more context and more detail. Why would the prosecution limit it? The implication is clear: the web history might have shown even more innocent context for the searches the prosecution presented as sinister.
But then came the afternoon. Then the prosecution showed the jury what was found in the trash outside Brian's mother's apartment. The physical evidence is harder to explain than the digital evidence. You can argue about what a search query means. You can provide alternative context for text messages. You cannot easily explain why a hacksaw, a hatchet, tin snips, and shears were found in trash linked to the investigation of your wife's disappearance.
The defense will try. They have conceded that Brian disposed of Ana's remains. Their theory is that he found her dead and panicked. But if Ana died of natural causes, why did Brian need these tools? What was he cutting? The prosecution does not need to prove exactly what Brian did with each instrument. They need the jury to understand that these are tools of dismemberment, and that Brian's own defense team has admitted he disposed of human remains.
The juxtaposition was stark. In the morning: a husband texting "I love you." In the afternoon: a hatchet in an evidence bag. In the morning: shopping for a Porsche as a gift. In the afternoon: tin snips designed to cut through metal. In the morning: a dinner reservation for New Year's Day. In the afternoon: rolled carpet examined by a medical examiner for human tissue. The jury has to reconcile these images. They have to decide which tells the true story.
Retired Trooper Sullivan's testimony was deliberately bare. She established chain of custody. She identified the items. She confirmed they were collected from the trash and entered into the evidence system. She did not sensationalize. She did not editorialize. She let the tools speak for themselves. And they spoke loudly.
The prosecution's strategy is becoming clear. They know the defense has done significant damage to their digital evidence case. They know the Google searches can be explained as party planning and car shopping. They know the text messages show a loving couple. So they are pivoting to physical evidence that is harder to reframe. Blood evidence. DNA evidence. Tools found in trash. Carpet pieces examined by a medical examiner for human tissue.
This is smart prosecution. When one angle is not working, you shift to another. The digital evidence may have reasonable doubt attached to it. But the physical evidence is harder to explain away. A hacksaw is a hacksaw. A hatchet is a hatchet. No amount of context changes what those tools are designed to do.
Dr. Atkinson's testimony was just beginning when Day 5 ended. The jury saw photographs of rolled carpet with stains. They heard him explain that his job was to determine whether there was human tissue on items recovered from the trash. They did not yet hear what he found. That will come next week. But they went home knowing that something was on those items. Something significant enough that a medical examiner was called to examine them.
If you are on this jury, what are you thinking as you drive home Friday evening? You have seen a week of evidence. You have seen disturbing Google searches and innocent explanations for them. You have seen a husband's voicemail to his wife's secret boyfriend and text messages saying "I love you." You have seen surveillance footage of a Volvo at dumpsters and a dinner reservation for New Year's Day. And now you have seen a hacksaw pulled from an evidence bag.
The prosecution is betting that the physical evidence will overwhelm the reasonable doubt the defense has created around the digital evidence. The defense is betting that reasonable doubt about how Ana died will survive even the most damning physical evidence about what happened after. This is the tension that will define the rest of the trial.
Day 5 raised questions that go beyond this case. Questions about how investigations are conducted. Questions about what prosecutors choose to show juries and what they leave out. Questions about the weight we give to different types of evidence.
The morning cross-examination exposed a pattern that should concern anyone who cares about fair trials. The prosecution presented digital evidence selectively. They showed the jury searches about body disposal without showing the champagne searches that surrounded them. They showed the "I'm good" search without mentioning it was a movie title. They showed "Ana Walsh found dead" without noting it occurred before Ana texted that her flight was cancelled. Context matters. And the prosecution omitted it.
This is not necessarily misconduct. Prosecutors are advocates. They are allowed to present their case in the light most favorable to their theory. It is the defense's job to provide context. And Tipton did that job effectively. But it raises a question: If the digital evidence looks so different with context than without it, what does that tell us about the strength of the prosecution's case?
The Michael Proctor revelation is more troubling. Here is a man who was fired from the Massachusetts State Police for egregious misconduct in another murder investigation. His text messages about Karen Read were vulgar and biased. His handling of that investigation led to a mistrial. And he was the case officer in this investigation. He managed the case. He directed the analysis. His decisions shaped what evidence was gathered and how it was interpreted.
Proctor will not testify in this trial. His credibility is too damaged. But his absence creates its own problem. The jury knows his name now. They know he was fired for misconduct. They do not know whether similar bias infected his work on this case. The defense has secured access to his communications to examine that question, but what they find may never reach the jury if it is deemed inadmissible. This is what it looks like when investigator misconduct poisons the well. Even if Proctor did nothing wrong in this case, his conduct in another case has created doubt that cannot be fully resolved.
The search warrant issue is equally concerning. Trooper Keith admitted that no one sought expanded search warrants to examine Brian's devices before December 25th, 2022. If you are investigating whether a husband premeditated his wife's murder, wouldn't you want to know what he was searching for weeks or months before? Wouldn't you want to see if there was a pattern? The failure to seek those warrants could mean there was nothing to find. Or it could mean investigators did not look. The jury will never know.
But the physical evidence changes the calculus. Whatever gaps exist in the digital investigation, whatever context the prosecution omitted, whatever questions remain about Michael Proctor, there are tools in evidence bags. A hacksaw. A hatchet. Tin snips. Shears. These items were found in trash linked to Brian Walshe. They were examined by crime scene specialists and medical examiners. They will be connected to DNA evidence. They tell a story that does not depend on Google searches or text messages.
The burden of proof in a murder trial is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard exists because we have decided as a society that it is better to let guilty people go free than to convict innocent ones. My father spent his career defending that standard. He was destroyed twice by the system for insisting it be honored. He taught me that constitutional protections are not technicalities. They are the difference between justice and injustice.
But the burden is not impossible to meet. Circumstantial evidence can prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. You do not need a body. You do not need a confession. You do not need an eyewitness. You need evidence that, taken together, leaves no reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. The question in this case is whether the prosecution's evidence, despite its gaps and despite the defense's effective cross-examination, meets that standard.
The tools complicate the defense's theory. If Ana died of natural causes and Brian simply panicked, why did he need a hacksaw? What did he cut with tin snips? The defense has conceded that Brian disposed of Ana's remains. They have not explained what he did with them or why these tools were necessary. That gap in their theory is where the prosecution will drive.
We are now five days into testimony in Commonwealth v. Brian Walshe. The prosecution has presented its digital evidence case and begun its physical evidence case. The defense has scored significant points on cross-examination. The shape of the trial is becoming clear.
The prosecution's theory is that Brian Walshe murdered Ana in the early morning hours of January 1st, 2023, after researching how to dispose of a body on the family's devices. They point to the Google searches starting at 4:52 AM as evidence of premeditation or immediate post-killing research. They point to Brian's movements in the days that followed, his purchases of cleaning supplies, his trips to various locations, as evidence of cover-up. They point to Ana's belongings found in trash, blood found in the home and car, and the tools found outside Brian's mother's apartment as physical evidence of dismemberment and disposal.
The motive they allege is multifaceted. Brian was facing federal prison for art fraud. His wife was allegedly having an affair. She had millions of dollars in life insurance. He wanted out of the marriage but chose murder over divorce. Each element of this motive theory has been presented to the jury, though the defense has challenged each one.
The defense's theory is that Ana died of natural causes, possibly Sudden Unexplained Death Syndrome, and that Brian panicked and disposed of her body rather than face scrutiny given his pending federal case. They have conceded virtually everything except the murder itself. They have pleaded guilty to misleading police and improper disposal of remains. They are betting everything on creating reasonable doubt about the cause of death.
This is an extraordinary strategy. Most defense attorneys fight on every front, challenging every piece of evidence, creating doubt wherever possible. Tipton has chosen to concede almost everything and focus the entire case on one question: Did Brian kill Ana, or did he find her already dead?
The strategy has historical precedent. There have been cases where defendants admitted to disposing of bodies but were acquitted of murder because the prosecution could not prove the cause of death. The absence of Ana's body makes this defense more viable than it would be if her remains could be examined. Without an autopsy, without a determination of cause of death by a medical examiner who actually examined her body, the prosecution has to prove she was murdered through circumstantial evidence alone.
The strategy has risks. By conceding that Brian disposed of Ana's remains, the defense has already established that Brian Walshe is the kind of man who would dismember his wife's body rather than call 911. That is not a sympathetic portrait. Jurors may find it difficult to believe that a man who would do that would not also kill her. The defense is betting that the jurors can hold two thoughts in their minds: Brian did terrible things after Ana died, but that does not prove he killed her.
Day 5 showed both the strength and the risk of this strategy. The morning cross-examination was devastating for the prosecution's narrative. The dinner reservation, the Porsche shopping, the champagne searches, the "I love you" texts, all of it painted a picture of a husband who expected his wife to be alive. If Brian was planning to kill Ana, why make a dinner reservation for them? If he wanted her dead, why shop for a luxury car to give her?
But the afternoon showed the limits of that narrative. Whatever Brian was planning before January 1st, something happened that led to a hacksaw and hatchet in the trash. Whatever loving texts he sent before New Year's Eve, something happened that led to rolled carpet with stains being examined by a medical examiner. The prosecution does not need to prove Brian's state of mind before the murder. They need to prove what happened during and after.
The jury has now heard from multiple witnesses over five days. They have seen digital forensics specialists explain the search history and location data. They have seen Detective Schmidt describe his initial interactions with Brian and the confrontation over the Google searches. They have heard William Fastow testify about his affair with Ana and Brian's voicemail asking for help finding her. They have watched crime scene technicians describe the search of trash facilities. They have begun to hear from a medical examiner about what was found on items recovered from that trash.
The coming days will bring more physical evidence. DNA testimony will connect the biological material found on tools and in dumpsters to Ana. Medical examiner testimony will describe what was found on the items recovered from trash. The prosecution will try to paint a picture so graphic and so damning that the jury cannot imagine an innocent explanation.
The defense will continue to create doubt. They will remind the jury that no one saw Brian kill Ana. They will point to the gaps in the investigation. They will question whether the evidence proves murder or merely proves disposal. They will ask the jury to consider whether Brian, facing federal prison and finding his wife dead, might have made the worst decision of his life without actually being a murderer.
For Ana's family, every day of this trial must be agony. They lost Ana. They lost her in a way that defies comprehension. And now they must sit in a courtroom and watch defense attorneys argue that maybe she just died naturally. They must look at the man they believe killed their daughter, their sister, their friend, and watch him claim innocence. They deserve answers. They deserve justice. They deserve to know what happened to Ana.
Ana's mother, Milanka, wrote a letter to a federal judge in 2021 crediting Brian with saving her life during a medical emergency. She called him her son-in-law with apparent warmth. Now she must reckon with the possibility that the man she thanked murdered her daughter. The betrayal, if the prosecution is right, is beyond imagination.
For Brian's family, this trial is equally devastating. His mother is in that courtroom. The same mother who reportedly hired a private investigator to follow Ana. The same mother outside whose apartment the tools were found. Whatever she believes about her son, she must watch prosecutors describe him as a murderer and dismemberer. Brian's three sons have already lost their mother. They may lose their father to prison for the rest of his life. They are 4, 6, and 8 years old now. They will grow up with the weight of this trial, regardless of its outcome.
And for Brian himself, sitting at that defense table, Day 5 was a day of extremes. The morning suggested hope. The context revealed by his defense team painted him as a loving husband, not a calculating killer. The afternoon suggested doom. The tools entered into evidence painted him as something far worse than a grieving man who panicked.
Brian has not testified. He may or may not. The Fifth Amendment protects his right to remain silent, and jurors are instructed not to hold silence against defendants. But there is a story only Brian can tell: what happened in the hours after midnight on January 1st, 2023. Whether he chooses to tell it, and whether the jury believes him if he does, may determine whether he spends the rest of his life in prison.
The trial continues next week with Dr. Atkinson's testimony. The medical examiner was just beginning to describe what he found when court adjourned Friday. The jury has seen photographs of rolled carpet with stains. They know something was on those items. They will learn exactly what next week.
This testimony will be critical. Medical examiner findings are the kind of expert testimony that carries significant weight with juries. If Dr. Atkinson testifies that he found human tissue on the carpet, on the tools, on other items recovered from the trash, that becomes very difficult for the defense to explain. You cannot dismiss expert testimony the way you can reframe Google searches.
The prosecution will likely present Dr. Atkinson's findings in graphic detail. They will want the jury to understand exactly what was found and what it means. They will want the jurors to see, in clinical terms, what happened to Ana's body. This is a deliberate strategy. The more visceral the testimony, the harder it is for the defense's natural death theory to gain traction. How do you argue someone died of Sudden Unexplained Death Syndrome when a medical examiner is describing human tissue found on a hatchet?
DNA evidence is also coming. The prosecution will connect the biological material found at various locations to Ana Walshe. They will show the jury that blood found in the home, blood found in the car, material found on the tools, material found in the dumpsters, all of it came from Ana. This evidence will be technical and detailed, but its conclusion will be simple: Ana's remains were found in places linked to Brian.
The defense will challenge the DNA evidence where they can. They may question collection procedures, chain of custody, interpretation of results. But they have already conceded that Brian disposed of Ana's remains. They cannot argue that Ana's DNA should not be found in the places Brian put her. Their only argument is that finding her DNA does not prove he killed her.
This is the bind the defense has created for itself. By conceding disposal, they have no basis to challenge the physical evidence connecting Brian to Ana's remains. They can only argue about what that evidence means. They can only argue that disposal does not equal murder. It is a narrow argument, and it gets narrower with every piece of physical evidence the prosecution introduces.
Watch for more testimony about the investigation itself. The Proctor revelation on Day 5 was significant but not fully explored. We may learn more about what communications the defense obtained and what they show. We may learn more about decisions Proctor made that shaped the investigation. If there is evidence of bias or misconduct similar to what was found in the Karen Read case, it could be explosive.
The judge has limited some of the defense's attempts to explore the investigation's flaws. There were sidebar conferences throughout Day 5 where Tipton sought to ask questions the prosecution objected to. Some of those questions were allowed, some were not. The defense may continue to push on these boundaries, looking for ways to introduce doubt about the investigation itself.
Watch for testimony about the timeline on January 1st and the days that followed. The prosecution's theory depends on showing that Brian's movements and purchases are consistent with killing Ana and disposing of her body. The defense will try to show those movements and purchases are also consistent with finding Ana dead and disposing of her body in panic. The details of those days matter.
The Home Depot purchases are particularly significant. Brian bought cleaning supplies on January 2nd, the day after Ana allegedly died. He bought items that could be used to clean up a crime scene. But he also bought items that could be used to clean up the aftermath of finding someone dead. The interpretation depends on what you believe happened before the purchases.
Watch for testimony about Ana herself. The prosecution has been building the case against Brian. They have not spent much time humanizing Ana. At some point, they will. They will show the jury who Ana was, what she accomplished, what she meant to the people who loved her. They will make her more than a victim. They will make her a person the jury cares about.
This humanization matters. A jury that sees Ana as a real person, a mother, a daughter, a professional, is more likely to want justice for her. A jury that sees her as just a victim in a case is more likely to focus on procedural questions about burden of proof. The prosecution will try to make the jury feel Ana's loss. The defense will try to keep the focus on whether the evidence actually proves murder.
And watch for any testimony about the alleged affair. William Fastow has already testified about his relationship with Ana. The prosecution used that testimony to establish motive: Brian knew about the affair and wanted Ana dead. The defense used it to show that Ana was not planning to leave Brian imminently. This thread is not finished. The affair will come up again, and how jurors interpret it may shape how they view the entire case.
The affair is complicated evidence. It can support the prosecution's motive theory, but it can also raise questions about Ana's state of mind, her stress levels, her health. Defense attorneys in cases like this sometimes suggest that victims under extreme emotional stress can suffer sudden cardiac events. Whether they pursue that angle here remains to be seen.
Finally, watch for Brian Walshe himself. He sits at the defense table every day, watching the evidence against him accumulate. He has not testified, and he may not. But his demeanor, his reactions, his composure or lack thereof, are visible to the jury. Jurors watch defendants, even when they are not supposed to draw conclusions from silence. What they see in Brian's face may influence how they view the evidence.
This trial asks you to hold competing realities in your mind. A husband who bought his wife a Porsche and a hacksaw in the trash. Text messages saying "I love you" and rolled carpet with stains. A dinner reservation for New Year's Day and a medical examiner examining items for human tissue.
This is what it means to be a juror. You cannot choose the reality that feels more comfortable. You cannot ignore evidence that does not fit your preferred narrative. You have to take it all in, weigh it, and decide what it proves. You have to live with competing interpretations and find the truth somewhere between them.
So here are the questions for you:
Do you believe a man who made a dinner reservation for New Year's Day was planning to kill his wife that same day? Or does the reservation suggest he expected her to be alive? Think about it from both angles. The prosecution would say a dinner reservation is a perfect cover, a way to appear normal while plotting murder. The defense would say no one makes dinner reservations for people they plan to kill. Which interpretation makes more sense to you?
Does the context revealed on Day 5, the champagne searches, the Porsche shopping, the movie title, change how you view the prosecution's digital evidence? Or do you still believe those searches show a guilty mind? Remember what you heard before Day 5: searches about body disposal, dismemberment, how long before a body smells. Now remember what you learned on Day 5: those searches were surrounded by party planning and gift shopping. Does the context change the meaning? Or is the context just a smokescreen?
If Brian found Ana dead and panicked, why would he need a hacksaw and a hatchet? Can you imagine any innocent explanation for those tools? The defense theory requires you to believe that Brian, faced with his wife's sudden natural death, made a series of terrible decisions that included dismembering her body. Is that believable? Would you, in that situation, reach for a hacksaw? Or would you call 911?
Does Michael Proctor's involvement in this investigation concern you? Does knowing the case officer was later fired for misconduct change how you view the evidence he helped gather? You do not know what Proctor did or did not do in this case. You only know what he did in another case. Is that enough to create doubt? Or should each case be judged on its own merits?
If you were on this jury, could you vote to convict based on what you have seen so far? Or would you need more? Remember the standard: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Not certainty. Not beyond all doubt. But beyond reasonable doubt. Can you say with moral certainty that Brian Walshe murdered his wife? Can you bet your conscience on it?
These are not easy questions. They are not meant to be. This is what reasonable doubt looks like in practice. This is what juries wrestle with when they retire to deliberate. This is the process my father spent his life defending: the requirement that the state prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt before it can take someone's freedom.
My father believed that asking hard questions was the only way to find the truth. He believed that the system only works when we force it to work. He believed that constitutional protections exist for everyone, even people accused of terrible crimes. He believed that watching, questioning, and demanding answers was the duty of every citizen. He was destroyed twice for those beliefs. But he never stopped believing them.
This is why we cover trials like this one. Not to predict outcomes or declare guilt or innocence. But to watch the system operate. To see whether investigators followed the rules. To see whether prosecutors played fair. To see whether the defense got a real opportunity to challenge the evidence. To see whether the burden of proof actually means something.
Watch Day 5, Witness 1. Watch Day 5, Witness 2. Watch Day 5, Witness 3. See the evidence for yourself. Watch Tipton's cross-examination and the context he reveals. Watch Sullivan pull a hatchet from an evidence bag. Watch Dr. Atkinson describe his role examining items for human tissue.
Form your own opinions. Draw your own conclusions. But remember: you are not the jury. You do not bear the weight of deciding Brian Walshe's fate. The people who do are sitting in that courtroom, watching the same evidence you are watching, and they will have to live with their decision forever.
Ana Walshe deserves justice. Her three sons deserve the truth. Brian Walshe deserves a fair trial. These things are not in conflict. They are all part of the same system that only works when we hold everyone to the standard.
Then ask yourself: What do you believe happened on January 1st, 2023? And can you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?