I have covered hundreds of trials. I have watched defense attorneys try every strategy imaginable to create reasonable doubt. I have seen lawyers attack evidence, impeach witnesses, blame third parties, and challenge every link in the prosecution's chain. But I have never, in all my years of watching the criminal justice system operate, seen anything like what happened in Norfolk County Superior Court on the first day of testimony in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Brian Walshe.
Before the jury even heard opening statements, Brian Walshe stood before Judge Diane Freniere and pleaded guilty to two of the three charges against him. He admitted to misleading police in their investigation. He admitted to improperly conveying the remains of a human body. He admitted, in open court with his lawyers standing beside him, that he lied to investigators on January 4th, January 5th, January 7th, and January 8th of 2023. He admitted that he disposed of Ana Walshe's body without lawful authority.
Then, after taking those guilty pleas, the trial on the remaining charge began. First degree murder with deliberate premeditation. And defense attorney Larry Tipton stood before the jury and did something I have never witnessed a defense attorney do in a murder trial. He opened by conceding nearly every fact the prosecution had just outlined. Brian Walsh lied, Tipton told the jury. Brian Walsh went to Lowe's and bought tools. Brian Walsh went to Home Depot and bought tools. Brian Walsh, beginning about 4:54 a.m. on January 1st, began what Tipton called a frantic and tragic search on the internet.
The defense conceded the lies. Conceded the tool purchases. Conceded the Google searches. Conceded the disposal of Ana's remains. And then Tipton told the jury what he claimed really happened in that Cohasset home in the early hours of New Year's Day 2023.
This trial is no longer about whether Brian Walshe is a liar. He admitted that under oath. This trial is no longer about whether Brian Walshe disposed of his wife's body. He pleaded guilty to that charge. This trial is about one question and one question only: Did Brian Walshe murder Ana Walshe, or did she die of natural causes while he slept beside her?
That is the extraordinary legal gambit the defense has placed before this jury. And to understand why they made that choice, and what it means for the burden of proof the Commonwealth must meet, we need to walk through exactly what both sides told these twelve jurors in their opening statements.
The prosecution opened first, as is customary. Assistant District Attorney Greg Conor began not with the horrific allegations or the disturbing Google searches, but with a simple moment on January 4th, 2023, when Teresa Marquees returned to work after the New Year's holiday. Marquees works at Tishman Speyer, a global real estate management company with buildings all over the world. She is their director of human capital management, essentially the head of human resources for the Washington D.C. office. And when she arrived that morning, she learned that one of her colleagues' husbands was trying to find his wife.
The colleague was Ana Walshe. The husband was Brian Walshe. And according to what Conor told the jury, that was the first indication that something had gone terribly wrong.
Marquees knew Ana. She had hired Ana in February 2022 to work at the Washington D.C. office and manage some of Tishman Speyer's properties in the nation's capital. She knew that Ana commuted from Cohasset, Massachusetts to Washington for work, leaving her husband Brian and their three young children back in Massachusetts during the work week. She also knew where Ana lived in Washington because Ana had purchased a townhouse near Marquees' own neighborhood.
So when Marquees heard that Brian was looking for Ana, she got concerned. She and her boss, Jeff Chu, went into a conference room and called Brian directly. According to Conor's opening, Brian was calm on that call. He explained that on January 1st, Ana had left their Cohasset home for a work emergency and had to fly back to Washington D.C. He told Marquees that he hadn't spoken to Ana since then, and that this was the longest they had ever gone without talking.
Marquees drove to Ana's townhouse in Washington, bringing another employee with her. On the way, she had another conversation with Brian, who gave her the combination to the garage so she could get into the building. When she arrived, nothing was broken. Nothing was out of order. She found some cardboard boxes that hadn't been unpacked, some car seats, but no car and no Ana. The door from the garage into the home was locked, so she couldn't get inside.
Marquees called Brian back and told him she was going to loop in Tishman Speyer's global head of security, a man named Hugh Dun Levy who is a retired Secret Service agent. According to the prosecution, when Dun Levy joined the call, Brian's demeanor changed. He became very upset, demanding to know what was happening. Dun Levy calmed him down and asked a series of questions. Brian repeated the same story: Ana left the home in Cohasset on January 1st to come to Washington D.C. for a work emergency.
Dun Levy asked the obvious question: Have you called the police? Brian apparently had not. Dun Levy told him he needed to contact the Cohasset Police Department immediately. The call ended, and Dun Levy worked with Washington D.C. police to get access to Ana's townhouse. She wasn't there. Then Dun Levy did something that would set the investigation in motion. He called the Cohasset police himself, just before noon on January 4th, and reported Ana Walsh missing.
That was the first time anyone had reported Ana missing to law enforcement. It came from her employer's security director in Washington D.C., not from her husband in Massachusetts. And as the prosecutor told the jury, no one has seen Ana Walshe since January 1st, 2023.
Conor then laid out the prosecution's theory of motive. He explained that Ana had recently gotten what Brian called her dream job at Tishman Speyer, making more money than she had ever earned in her career. She was the breadwinner for the family. Brian, meanwhile, had previously pleaded guilty to a count of fraud in the Boston Federal District Court but had not yet been sentenced. He was accused of owing over $400,000 in restitution for an art fraud scheme involving fake Warhol paintings. At the time of Ana's disappearance, Brian was on home confinement with an ankle monitor, waiting to learn whether he would go to prison.
The prosecutor then revealed something that will be central to this trial: Ana had been having an affair. The man's name is William Fastow, a real estate agent who had been introduced to Ana by her former boss. Fastow had helped Ana purchase the townhouse in Washington D.C. Their professional relationship became a friendship, and according to what the jury will hear, that friendship became romantic.
The affair carried on into November 2022, when Ana needed to visit her sick mother in Belgrade, Serbia. She flew first to Dublin, Ireland over Thanksgiving weekend, and Fastow joined her there. Ana then continued on to Serbia to visit her mother while Fastow returned to Washington D.C. The result was that Ana missed Thanksgiving with Brian and their three children.
Then came Christmas Eve 2022. Ana went out to dinner with Fastow and another couple, and she stayed the night in Washington. She was supposed to catch a flight on Christmas Day to get back to Cohasset, but she couldn't get a flight. So she had to drive from Washington D.C. to Massachusetts, missing Christmas Eve and most of Christmas Day with Brian and the children. She would fly back to Washington D.C. on December 29th, and according to the prosecutor, she went to dinner with a friend who will testify that Ana was uncharacteristically tired and emotional that night.
Ana returned to Cohasset on December 30th, intending to stay with the family until January 3rd. She went to a barre class and got her nails done on New Year's Eve. That evening, a man named Jim Mutloo came over to the Walshe family residence for dinner. Three adults were there: Mutloo, Brian, and Ana. Mutloo brought snacks for the kids and even got to play with the oldest child. According to the prosecutor, Mutloo characterized the evening as joyful. They shared champagne. They weren't drunk. They were enjoying the new year. Brian cooked. Brian was attentive. Brian also mentioned to Mutloo that he had lost his phone and felt free as a result.
Mutloo left the home at 1:30 a.m. on New Year's Day. And according to the prosecutor, there was no mention whatsoever of a work emergency in Washington D.C. that would require Ana to leave the family home at 6 or 7 a.m. that morning.
The Cohasset police dispatched Officer Greg Lawrence to speak with Brian after receiving Hugh Dun Levy's call on January 4th. Brian met the officer outside and told him that Ana had left on January 1st, taking an Uber or Lyft to Logan Airport to fly to Washington D.C. for a work emergency. He described Ana as approximately 5 feet 2 inches tall, 39 years old, about 115 pounds. Officer Lawrence went back to the police department and worked with other officers to try to find any connection to rideshare companies or local taxi cabs. There was none. Ana Walsh never boarded any flight from Logan Airport. Her phone last interacted with the Verizon network shortly after 3:00 a.m. on January 2nd, and when it did, it was in the area of the Walshe residence.
Detective Schmidt was tasked with the investigation, and on January 4th, he and Officer Lawrence went back to the Walshe home to interview Brian. That interview was recorded, and the jury will hear it. Brian talked about how Ana commuted back and forth between Cohasset and Washington for work, how there were some issues with his federal case, how Mutloo had come over for dinner on New Year's Eve, and how Ana had to leave between 6 and 7 a.m. on January 1st. He described what Ana was wearing when she left the house: blue gray Hunter boots, a black jacket, and an Hermes watch.
The police conducted extensive searches. On January 5th, they searched the woods near the family home. On January 6th, they called in a task force from several different police departments to conduct further searches. They contacted the state police for additional resources. And Detective Schmidt continued to interview Brian on January 5th, 7th, and 8th, accompanied by state police detectives. All of those interviews were recorded.
According to the prosecutor, Brian told police in those interviews that he and Ana were happily married. He claimed he had no knowledge of any extramarital affair. He said Ana had her dream job and that she was the one taking care of the family financially. He admitted that he didn't take a salary from his consulting company that year. He told police he owed over $400,000 in restitution on his federal matter. He acknowledged that the case was causing stress on his marriage and that he might have to go to jail. But he insisted they were very happy and that the biggest problem was that they were apart because of Ana's commute.
Brian told investigators that Ana's job had caused her to miss Christmas Eve and Christmas Day with the family. He said her trip to visit her sick mother had caused her to miss Thanksgiving. And he told police he did not want to have an argument with Ana about missing another holiday on January 1st. He said he had discussed Christmas Day with her and was concerned that by looking around trying to find her, he might embarrass her. So, as Brian explained to police, he didn't want to have an argument. He understood she was going to come back, and she left for an emergency at work.
The prosecutor told the jury that Ana Walsh had approximately $200,000 in accounts at Fidelity and that there was over a million dollars in life insurance policies naming Brian Walsh as the beneficiary.
Then Conor turned to the digital evidence. He explained that two state police troopers, Nicholas Torino and Connor Kee, are digital forensic specialists who examined the computers, tablets, and phones at the Walshe residence. And what they found on those devices will be at the center of this trial.
On Christmas Day, when Ana missed Christmas Eve and was driving up from Washington D.C. after spending the evening with Fastow, the cell phone Brian Walsh was using searched for William Fastow on the internet. On December 27th, a MacBook using Brian Walsh's Apple ID searched between 8:30 and 9:00 for "best strategies to divorce for a man," "best state to divorce for a man," and "Washington DC divorce laws." On December 29th, Brian Walsh's cell phone searched for buildings that Ana managed for Tishman Speyer and emergencies she had handled for them in the past.
Then came the searches that began at 4:54 a.m. on January 1st. The MacBook searched for the best way to dispose of a body, then went to similar websites for more than an hour. At 6:24 a.m., the same device searched "how long for someone to missing to inherit," "how long missing to be dead," and "can you throw away body parts." Later that morning at 9:33 a.m., the MacBook searched "how long does DNA last" and then an article titled "is it possible to clean DNA off the knife." Thirty minutes later, it searched "disposal of a cell phone." At 10:28 a.m., it searched "I am the user of my wife's credit card, she is missing." And at 11:28 a.m., it searched "best way to dispose of body parts after a murder."
The searches continued throughout January 1st and into January 2nd. Websites about cleaning blood with ammonia, bleach, and hydrogen peroxide. Whether it's better to throw away crime scene clothes or wash them. One site the prosecutor mentioned was entitled "You want to get away with murder? Use a special deterrent." On January 2nd, the searches became even more specific: "how long does Lowe's keep security footage," "how to saw a body," "how to dismember a body," "can you be charged with murder without a body," "can you identify a body with broken teeth." The MacBook also visited websites for apartment complexes in Brockton and Chelsea, including one called Chatham West.
Brian told investigators that his iPhone 13 mini had been misplaced and not found until the afternoon of January 2nd. But when investigators examined that phone, they found it had been connected to a power source and unlocked four times using either the face or passcode during the time Brian claimed it was lost. The location data from that phone showed it remained in the Walshe residence until the afternoon of January 2nd.
But there was another phone in the house. An iPhone SE belonging to one of the children. And the location data from that phone told a different story. On January 1st, that phone traveled to a Walgreens, then to a liquor store near Brian's mother's apartment complex in Swampscott, then to a CVS in Danvers, then to a Lowe's in Danvers, and then to a Stop and Shop in Swampscott.
The prosecutor told the jury they will see surveillance video from each of those stores. At the Walgreens, a white man with dark hair using a credit card bought band-aids and antibiotic ointment. At the CVS in Danvers, a white man with dark hair, now wearing a mask, bought hydrogen peroxide with cash. At the Stop and Shop, a white man bought ammonia with cash. And at the Lowe's in Danvers, a white man wearing a mask bought several items totaling more than $400 in cash, including a Tyvek suit and cutting instruments such as shears, snips, and a hacksaw.
On January 2nd, the child's iPhone SE went to a HomeGoods in the morning, and Brian's iPhone 13 mini went to a Home Depot in Rockland in the afternoon. At HomeGoods, a white man with dark hair bought scented candles and rugs. At Home Depot, a white man with dark hair bought more cleaning supplies, 20 pounds of baking soda, mops, buckets, and a hatchet.
On January 3rd, Brian Walsh's cell phone was located near apartment complexes in Brockton. The jury will see surveillance video from some of those complexes, including Chatham West, showing someone going to a dumpster and then leaving. On January 5th, Brian Walsh's phone was in the area of dumpsters and a trash compactor near his mother's apartment complex in Swampscott. This was before he was interviewed by Detective Schmidt that night.
On January 9th, police went to those dumpsters. They took the trash compactor and the dumpster contents to a facility in Peabody, where they searched through everything. And what they found in those bags became the physical evidence in this case: an Hermes watch, blue gray Hunter boots, a black coat, a COVID vaccination card with Ana Walsh's name on it, rugs, a Tyvek suit, a hammer, shears, snips, a hatchet, and a hacksaw.
Those items were packaged and brought to the state laboratory for DNA examination. Scientists from the state DNA lab will testify that they found DNA from both Brian Walsh and Ana Walsh on a Tyvek suit. Ana Walsh's DNA was found on rugs, on the hatchet, and on the hacksaw.
The prosecutor concluded with a simple summary. Jim Mutloo said goodbye to Ana Walsh about 1:00 to 1:30 a.m. on New Year's Day. When he left, she was home. She was alive. She was with her husband. No one has seen her since. Her husband says she left on January 1st. She has not accessed her finances. She has not accessed her email. Her phone has made no calls. And no one has found her body.
He asked the jury for two things. First, to keep an open mind and not rush to judgment, but instead see how all the evidence fits together and pay careful attention to the timing of certain events. Second, to use their common sense. And at the end of the trial, he told them, the Commonwealth will ask them to find the defendant guilty of murdering his wife with deliberate premeditation.
Then Judge Freniere called for a break. And when the jury returned, they heard something that challenged everything they thought they understood about defense strategy in a murder trial.
Defense attorney Larry Tipton stood before the jury and did not deny a single fact the prosecutor had just laid out. Instead, he opened with an extraordinary concession. Brian Walsh lied to police on January 4th, he told the jury. Lied on January 5th. Lied on January 7th. Brian Walsh went to Lowe's and bought tools. Brian Walsh went to Home Depot and bought tools. Brian Walsh, beginning about 4:54 a.m. on January 1st, began a frantic and tragic search that the jury will hear evidence about.
Tipton told the jury that the evidence of those searches will be hard to understand, but it is true. He told them that the searches evolved from how best to dispose of a body to even darker subject matter as Brian wrestled with the fact that Ana Walsh was dead.
Dead. Not murdered. Dead.
That single word is the entire defense case. And what Tipton told the jury next is the theory he will ask them to believe.
Jim Mutloo left the Walshe family home sometime between 1 and 1:30 in the morning on January 1st. Ana and Brian Walsh continued to celebrate the new year. They went upstairs to the bedroom. About an hour later, Brian got up and went back downstairs to clean the kitchen. The jury will see evidence that he looked at his email. He then returned to the bedroom, intending nothing more than to crawl into bed with Ana Walsh, the woman he loved.
And then, according to Tipton, Brian sensed something was wrong. He nudged Ana. She didn't respond. He nudged her again, harder. She didn't respond. He nudged her in a frantic, panicked reaction, and she actually rolled off the bed. Brian was panicking. He didn't understand what had happened or what was happening. It didn't make any sense to him. It didn't make sense that somebody he had just been with and enjoyed New Year's Eve with would suddenly be dead.
That is the defense theory. Sudden unexplained death.
Tipton told the jury they will hear evidence about sudden unexplained death. That it is rare. That it happens in young people and old. That it happens in males and females. That it happens during the day and during the night. That it happens to trained athletes. That it can be the result of mechanical or electrical problems within the body. That it might be cardiovascular, pulmonary, neurological, or from other causes. That it occurs in people who have never manifested a symptom that something might be wrong. And that sometimes the first manifestation that something was wrong with someone is the sudden, unexplainable death itself.
Sudden unexplained death is known within the medical and forensic communities, Tipton told the jury, but it is not well understood. And it is not well known to non-medical professionals. Brian Walsh never imagined somebody would suddenly die. One hour he was with her. He cleaned the kitchen. He came back upstairs. And she was dead.
Tipton then turned to the marriage. He told the jury that Brian Walsh and Ana Walsh loved each other. Yes, there was stress in the marriage. But that stress was born out of a simple problem that took its toll: Brian's pending federal case that had begun in 2018 and was still unresolved. Over time, Ana got the job in Washington D.C. with Brian's support. It was a huge stepping stone in her career, paying twice her previous salary. But they had to make a decision. Brian could not leave Cohasset because of his pending federal case. So who would take care of the children while Ana worked in D.C.? Brian would. And he did.
Tipton acknowledged the affair between Ana and William Fastow. An affair does not make someone a bad person, he told the jury. It does not make someone a bad mother. But yes, there was an affair. Not between Brian Walsh and anyone, but between Ana Walsh and William Fastow. And the evidence will show that Ana did everything she could to hide that affair. She did not tell her closest friends. She did not tell her confidants in D.C. She hid it even from Alyssa Kirby, the woman she spent December 29th with, drinking and talking about her life.
William Fastow will testify, Tipton said, that he was unaware of any plans by Ana to ever tell Brian about the affair. Fastow will testify that he and Ana behaved differently in public in D.C. to make sure there was no appearance of the relationship. Fastow will testify that Ana told him she would be devastated if Brian ever learned about it.
And Brian Walsh didn't know about the affair. He knew Ana had a crush on Fastow because she told him. But the defense will argue that Brian did not react with jealousy. Over the close to decade that these two people were in love, Tipton said, it was not unusual for Ana to mention to Brian that some man had looked at her that day, that he seemed to like her. That didn't upset Brian. Not over a period of 10 years. And when she told him she had a crush on Fastow, the man who had sold them their $1.3 million townhouse in D.C., it didn't upset Brian. He trusted Ana. In fact, the jury will hear evidence from Alyssa Kirby that Ana told her she wished Brian would be more jealous.
The defense attacked the financial motive theory. Tipton told the jury there were no financial problems. Ana had just gotten the job in early 2022 that paid close to $300,000 a year. They owned the townhouse in D.C. worth over a million dollars. They owned whole life insurance policies on their sons in the amount of $1 million each, policies the jury will hear you can borrow against if you need cash. Brian's mother gifted them money. The landlord of the home where Brian was living while taking care of the three boys will testify that Brian's mother was paying the rent. That's what grandmothers do, Tipton said.
Then Tipton painted a picture of a loving marriage. He told the jury they will hear evidence that Ana spoke of Brian in glowing terms to William Fastow. That she said she wanted people to see the Brian that she knew. That she described their relationship as open and honest to her friend Alyssa Kirby, even while conducting an affair that Brian allegedly did not know about. She described Brian as her best friend.
The defense pointed to text messages between Ana and Brian in the week before her death. On December 25th, just seven days before New Year's Day, Ana was sending Brian property listings from Zillow, seven properties in the greater D.C. area, Bethesda, Annapolis. They were searching for future investment properties together. On December 27th, they texted about one of their properties that had sold and discussed what to do with the proceeds. On December 28th, Ana texted Brian that she wasn't feeling well and was going to work from home in D.C. They joked back and forth. Brian said something about getting her a plunger, and Ana responded that she would buy the plunger if he would buy her a Porsche.
Because Ana Walsh wanted a Porsche. And what the jury will see in those text messages is that Brian had been shopping for Porsches for the woman he loved. On December 29th, they texted about a three-story brownstone Ana had found as a possible investment property. They discussed the cost, the square footage, potential renovations. They were talking about the future. On December 30th, simple texts about Ana catching her flight from D.C. to Cohasset for New Year's. She texted that she had landed. And then she began sending Brian pictures of herself playing with the boys. Brian sent back seven pictures he had taken of Ana playing with their sons.
How did they sign off those texts? Love you. Love you too.
And then came New Year's Eve. Jim Mutloo was invited by Ana to celebrate at the house. He was thrilled to be with two people he had known for years but hadn't seen in some time. He knew their kids. He drove up the driveway, and Ana ran down to meet him in her heels, no coat, on a cold winter day, to hug him. They all went into the house, where Brian was cooking New Year's dinner. They ate. They talked for four or five hours. They talked about the future. About investments. Ana told a story about how Brian had found a ring for her, the whole adventure of finding and buying it, and she talked about it in glowing terms.
Mutloo will describe the atmosphere as jovial, festive, loving. They celebrated with wine and champagne. The jury will see that champagne box where they signed their names. And what Ana wrote on that box will be etched in the minds of every juror who sees it: Let's make 2023 the best one yet. Courage, love, perseverance, compassion, joy, and above all, love. Nothing was more important to both Ana and Brian than their three beautiful boys.
They had talked about the problem of the federal case. It was stressful. The defense explained the divorce search that the prosecution mentioned. That singular search occurred on December 27th between conversations between Ana and Brian about the sale of their property. The only time Ana talked about divorce with William Fastow, she talked about it in terms of her and Brian attempting to preserve the family assets. Because yes, there was $400,000 of restitution coming due, and yes, Brian might have to go to prison for some time. And what did that mean? The boys would have to move up to D.C. because Brian could no longer take care of them, and there would be added expenses. They had even talked to their babysitter, Robin Hal, about whether she would consider moving up. So when you talk about preserving family assets, Tipton told the jury, you have to understand what that means. Brian Walsh was trying to figure out how to make sure his wife and three sons were financially secure if he had to go to prison for a day, for a week, for a month, for years.
In all the digital data the Commonwealth has been examining for two years, Tipton told the jury, you will not hear evidence of any other conversation about divorce. You won't hear it from William Fastow. In fact, Fastow will testify that he had resigned himself to believing Ana was never going to leave Brian, the father of her children.
Then Tipton returned to that moment. Jim Mutloo left around 1:30 a.m. Brian Walsh and Ana Walsh went upstairs. About an hour later, Brian went back down to the kitchen to clean it up. And then the impossible. The unimaginable. Something that didn't make sense to Brian Walsh. Something confusing. He never thought anybody would believe that Ana Walsh was alive one minute and dead the next.
All he could think about were those three boys. What would happen to their three boys now that Ana was no longer here? What would happen if they thought he did something bad to Ana? Where would those three boys go?
And so, Tipton told the jury, Brian told the story. He tried to hide what had happened. Not because he killed Ana Walsh. Not because he ever thought about killing Ana Walsh. But because he wanted to hang on to those three beautiful boys.
Brian Walsh never killed Ana Walsh. Brian Walsh never thought about killing Ana Walsh. That is the defense case.
What the defense did in this opening statement is one of the most audacious strategic gambits I have ever witnessed in a murder trial. By conceding virtually every fact the prosecution presented, Tipton has done something that seems counterintuitive but may be legally brilliant: he has taken all of the prosecution's most inflammatory evidence and said, essentially, yes, and?
Think about what the prosecution wanted this jury to feel when they heard about the Google searches. Horror. Disgust. Certainty of guilt. How could anyone search for how to dismember a body unless they had already killed someone or were planning to? How could anyone search for whether you can be charged with murder without a body unless they knew they had committed murder and hidden the evidence?
Tipton's strategy takes the opposite approach. Yes, Brian searched for those things. Yes, he bought the tools. Yes, he lied to police. Yes, he disposed of Ana's body. But WHY? Not because he murdered her. Because he found her dead and panicked. Because he loved his three boys more than anything and couldn't bear the thought of losing them. Because he made the worst decisions imaginable in the grip of panic and grief.
This strategy does something critical from a burden of proof perspective. By conceding the lies, the purchases, and the disposal, Tipton has narrowed the trial to a single contested fact: the cause of Ana Walsh's death. The prosecution can no longer spend days proving that Brian lied to police or that he disposed of remains. He pleaded guilty to those charges. They can no longer spend hours establishing that he bought cleaning supplies and tools. The defense stipulated to it. They can no longer argue that the Google searches prove consciousness of guilt. The defense agrees the searches happened and offers an alternative explanation for why.
Every piece of circumstantial evidence the prosecution presents now has a ready-made alternative interpretation. The jury doesn't have to choose between believing Brian and believing the prosecution. They only have to find reasonable doubt about whether Ana was already dead when Brian found her.
The prosecution's tactical challenge is now immense. They must prove not just that Brian disposed of Ana's body, but that she was alive when he allegedly killed her. Without a body, without an autopsy, without a time of death determination, how do they prove that? The Google searches that began at 4:54 a.m. could support the prosecution's theory that Brian killed Ana and then searched for how to dispose of her. But they could also support the defense theory that Brian found Ana dead around 2:30 a.m., panicked, and two hours later started searching for how to handle the impossible situation he found himself in.
The defense's reference to sudden unexplained death is calculated. Tipton is not claiming that Ana definitely died of a specific medical condition. He is planting the seed that people do sometimes die suddenly and without explanation. That it happens to young, healthy people. That sometimes there is no warning. If the jury accepts that this is medically possible, and if they cannot definitively rule it out, then they have reasonable doubt.
The prosecution's motive theories have also been significantly undermined. The affair? The defense says Brian didn't know about it. The life insurance? The defense says the family had no financial problems. The federal case and restitution? The defense reframes it as a stressor that Ana and Brian were managing together, not as a reason to commit murder. The divorce search? The defense provides context: it was part of a conversation about protecting family assets if Brian went to prison, not evidence of premeditation.
But here's the risk for the defense. If the jury doesn't believe the sudden death theory, then Brian has admitted to everything except the actual murder. He has conceded that he disposed of his wife's body. He has conceded that he lied repeatedly to investigators. He has conceded that his behavior was that of someone covering up a crime. And if the jury concludes that the only rational explanation for that behavior is that he killed Ana, the concessions become confessions.
This trial presents one of the most challenging burden of proof questions in criminal law: Can the prosecution prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt without a body?
The answer, legally, is yes. Corpus delicti, the Latin term that literally means "body of the crime," does not actually require a physical body. It requires proof that a crime occurred. In a homicide case, the prosecution must prove that the victim is dead and that the death was caused by criminal means, not accident or natural causes. Prosecutors have obtained murder convictions in "no body" cases before, but they are among the most difficult prosecutions to bring.
The reason is simple: without a body, there is no autopsy. Without an autopsy, there is no medical examiner's finding on cause and manner of death. Without that finding, the prosecution must rely entirely on circumstantial evidence to prove that the victim died, that she died from criminal violence rather than natural causes, and that the defendant caused that death.
This is where the defense's sudden unexplained death theory becomes legally significant. In a typical murder case, the medical examiner testifies that the victim died of blunt force trauma, or strangulation, or gunshot wounds, and the manner of death is homicide. The defense then has to challenge that finding or provide an alternative theory. Here, there is no such testimony. The prosecution cannot put a medical examiner on the stand to say Ana Walsh died of violence because no one examined her body.
The defense only needs to create reasonable doubt. They do not have to prove that sudden unexplained death occurred. They do not have to prove what medical condition might have caused Ana to die suddenly. They only have to plant enough doubt in the minds of jurors that they cannot be certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Brian Walsh murdered his wife.
Consider what the prosecution must prove for first degree murder with deliberate premeditation. They must prove that Brian Walsh caused Ana's death. They must prove he intended to kill her. And they must prove he deliberated on that decision before acting. Without a body, without a time of death, without evidence of how Ana died, can they meet that burden?
The prosecution will argue that the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. The Google searches beginning at 4:54 a.m. on January 1st demonstrate consciousness of guilt. The purchase of cleaning supplies and tools demonstrates planning and cover-up. The disposal of remains demonstrates an attempt to hide evidence of murder. The lies to police demonstrate guilty knowledge. All of this, taken together, proves beyond reasonable doubt that Brian Walsh killed Ana and then methodically covered up the crime.
But here is the constitutional reality. The burden of proof never shifts to the defense. Brian Walsh does not have to prove he didn't murder Ana. He does not have to prove sudden unexplained death occurred. He does not have to take the stand and explain himself. The Fifth Amendment protects his right to remain silent, and the jury will be instructed that they cannot draw any inference of guilt from his silence.
The prosecution must prove its case. And in this case, that means proving not just that Brian acted like a murderer after the fact, but that he actually committed murder. The defense's position is that everything Brian did, as horrific as it was, is equally consistent with a man who found his wife dead and panicked.
My father understood this dynamic better than most. Steven M. Askin spent his career forcing prosecutors to meet their burden, not to cut corners or assume guilt. He was criminally convicted for teaching people from a coffee shop that the burden of proof means something, that presumption of innocence is real, that the state cannot simply point to suspicious behavior and call it murder.
This case is exactly the kind of case that tests those principles. Brian Walsh's behavior after January 1, 2023 is deeply disturbing. The Google searches are horrifying. The disposal of his wife's remains is unfathomable. And yet, the question for this jury is not whether Brian Walsh is a good person or a bad person. It is not whether his behavior was inexcusable. It is whether the prosecution can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he committed murder.
The Fourth Amendment issues that arose pretrial also loom over this case. The defense fought to suppress the Google search evidence, arguing that investigators exceeded the scope of Brian's consent when they examined the family's devices during what was initially a missing person investigation. Judge Freniere ruled the evidence admissible, finding that Brian's consent was valid and that the incriminating searches were in "plain view" during the authorized search.
But think about what that means. When Brian voluntarily handed over his phone and the family iPad to help police find his missing wife, he made a decision that would lead to murder charges. This is the tension at the heart of Fourth Amendment law in the digital age. Our devices contain our entire lives. When we consent to a search for one purpose, what else are we consenting to? The defense lost this motion, but the broader question remains: in a world where our searches, our messages, our locations are all recorded on devices we carry everywhere, what privacy remains?
The Michael Proctor issue also remains present in this case. Proctor was the lead investigator on the Walshe case before being fired for misconduct in the Karen Read case. The prosecution has announced they will not call Proctor to testify, presumably to avoid the credibility problems his misconduct creates. But the defense has access to Proctor's communications and has indicated they may call him as a witness.
This creates an unusual dynamic. The lead investigator who built the case will not testify for the prosecution. If he testifies at all, it will be for the defense, presumably to demonstrate investigative bias or shortcuts. This is exactly the kind of systemic integrity issue that demands scrutiny. When an investigator exhibits bias and misconduct in one case, every case he touched must be examined. Did Proctor approach the Walshe investigation with the same tunnel vision he showed in the Read case? Did he lock onto Brian as the suspect immediately and work backward to build a case? The jury may never hear the answer, but the question matters.
To understand the full significance of these opening statements, we need to place them in the context of everything that has happened in this case over nearly three years.
Ana Walsh disappeared on January 1, 2023. She was reported missing on January 4th, not by her husband but by her employer's security director in Washington D.C. Within four days, Brian Walsh was arrested for misleading police. Within two weeks, he was charged with murder. The Google searches were revealed at his arraignment in January 2023, generating national headlines and widespread public judgment.
For nearly three years, Brian Walsh has been presumed guilty in the court of public opinion. The details of the searches were so disturbing, the allegations so horrific, that many people concluded he must be guilty long before a jury was ever seated. Defense attorneys fought to move the trial out of Norfolk County, arguing the publicity made it impossible to find impartial jurors. Judge Freniere denied that motion, ruling that while there was extensive coverage, it didn't rise to the level of presumed prejudice.
Brian Walsh was also dealing with his federal art fraud case during this period. He had pleaded guilty in 2021 and was awaiting sentencing when Ana disappeared. His sentencing was delayed repeatedly as complications arose regarding restitution and allegedly hidden assets. He was finally sentenced in February 2024 to 37 months in federal prison, a sentence that will run concurrently with any state sentence if he is convicted of murder.
In September 2024, Brian was stabbed by another inmate at the Norfolk County jail in what was described as a completely unprovoked attack. His attorney claimed the stabbing left Brian unable to participate in preparing his defense, leading to a competency evaluation at Bridgewater State Hospital. In November 2025, Judge Freniere ruled Brian competent to stand trial, and the case finally proceeded.
The Michael Proctor situation developed during this same period. Proctor was the lead investigator on the Walshe case before his misconduct in the Karen Read case came to light. During Read's trial, Proctor was forced to read aloud vulgar text messages he had sent about the defendant. He was fired from the Massachusetts State Police. The defense in the Walshe case secured access to Proctor's communications to examine whether similar bias infected their client's investigation.
All of this history now converges in this courtroom. The defense's stunning concession strategy must be understood in this context. For three years, Brian Walsh has been publicly accused of horrific crimes. For three years, the details of the Google searches have been reported and analyzed. For three years, the presumption of innocence has been tested by public opinion.
The defense cannot undo that publicity. They cannot pretend the Google searches don't exist. They cannot claim Brian didn't buy the tools or dispose of Ana's remains. So instead, they have chosen to embrace all of it and offer an alternative explanation. Yes, this happened. Yes, it is horrible. But it happened because Brian found his wife dead, not because he killed her.
This strategy also makes sense given the prosecution's decision not to call Michael Proctor. If the lead investigator's work is too tainted to present to the jury, perhaps the case itself has weaknesses the prosecution doesn't want examined too closely. The defense can point to this and ask: if the investigation was solid, why won't they put their investigator on the stand?
The absence of Ana's body remains the central challenge for both sides. For the prosecution, it means they cannot prove cause of death with medical certainty. For the defense, it means they cannot prove sudden unexplained death occurred. Both sides are asking the jury to infer what happened in that Cohasset home in the early hours of January 1, 2023, based on circumstantial evidence. Both sides are asking the jury to believe a story about events no one witnessed.
The prosecution will now begin presenting evidence, starting with Sergeant Harrison Schmidt's testimony, which is expected to take the entire first day. The jury will hear the recorded interviews Brian gave to police on January 4th, 5th, 7th, and 8th. They will hear Brian's own words explaining where Ana went, what she was wearing, why he didn't report her missing sooner.
These recordings are critical for both sides. The prosecution will use them to demonstrate Brian's lies and the evolution of his story. The defense will use them to show Brian's demeanor, his emotional state, and perhaps to suggest that his behavior was consistent with grief and panic rather than calculated deception.
The digital forensic evidence will follow. The jury will see the Google searches in detail. They will hear expert testimony about when the searches were made, on which devices, and using which accounts. The prosecution will argue the searches prove premeditation and consciousness of guilt. The defense will argue they prove a man in crisis trying to figure out how to handle an impossible situation.
The surveillance videos will be shown. The jury will watch Brian at Walgreens, at CVS, at Stop and Shop, at Lowe's, at HomeGoods, at Home Depot. They will see what he bought and when. They will see his demeanor. The prosecution will argue this is the systematic behavior of a man covering up murder. The defense will argue this is the frantic behavior of a man who found his wife dead and made terrible choices.
The DNA evidence will be presented. Scientists will testify about whose DNA was found on which items recovered from the dumpsters. Ana's DNA on the hacksaw. Ana's DNA on the hatchet. Both Ana's and Brian's DNA on the Tyvek suit. The prosecution will argue this proves Brian dismembered Ana. The defense has already conceded he disposed of her remains; the question is whether she was dead before he found her.
At some point, the defense must decide whether to call their sudden unexplained death expert. Tipton told the jury they will hear evidence about sudden death. But will the defense actually present a medical expert to explain how this could happen? Or will they simply argue that the prosecution cannot eliminate the possibility? This is a critical strategic decision. An expert witness can be cross-examined, and if their testimony seems speculative or desperate, it could backfire. But without expert testimony, the sudden death theory may seem like a lawyer's invention rather than a medical reality.
The question of whether Brian will testify looms over everything. He has the absolute right to remain silent. The prosecution cannot comment on his silence, and the jury cannot draw any inference of guilt from it. But if Brian does not testify, the jury never hears him explain what happened. They never hear him describe finding Ana dead. They never hear him explain why he made the choices he made. The defense is betting that the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof are enough. They are betting that reasonable doubt can be created through cross-examination and argument without putting their client on the stand.
This trial presents the ultimate test of our criminal justice system's foundational principles. After hearing both opening statements, I want you to think about these questions as you follow the evidence:
First, consider the burden of proof. The prosecution must prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Not that Brian's behavior was suspicious. Not that his cover-up was horrific. Not that no reasonable person would act the way he acted unless he was guilty. They must prove that Ana Walsh was alive when whatever happened to her happened, and that Brian caused her death. Without a body, without an autopsy, without a time of death determination, can they meet that burden? Watch the evidence with this question in mind: at what point, if ever, does the prosecution prove cause of death rather than simply prove cover-up?
Second, consider the presumption of innocence. Brian Walsh has been publicly accused of horrific crimes for three years. The Google searches have been reported in detail. The allegations of dismemberment have been repeated endlessly. Can you truly presume him innocent? Can you set aside what you have heard and evaluate only the evidence presented in court? This is what we ask jurors to do. It is the hardest thing we ask of citizens in our justice system. Watch yourself as you follow this trial. Notice when you assume guilt. Notice when you conclude he must have done it. And ask yourself: is that conclusion based on evidence proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or on assumption and inference?
Third, consider the defense's theory. Sudden unexplained death. Is it possible? Is it plausible? Or is it a desperate lawyer's invention designed to explain the inexplicable? This is not a question of whether you believe Brian Walsh. It is a question of whether the prosecution has eliminated this possibility beyond a reasonable doubt. If you cannot say with certainty that sudden death did not occur, can you convict?
I invite you to go back and watch the moment when Tipton describes Brian finding Ana dead. Watch his delivery. Consider whether this is the story of a desperate defense or the story of what actually happened. Then watch the prosecution's presentation of the Google searches. Consider whether these searches prove premeditation or panic.
These are the questions that will define this trial. And they are the questions that define our justice system. We ask twelve citizens to set aside everything they have heard, to presume innocence, to require proof beyond reasonable doubt, and to reach a verdict based only on evidence. It is an extraordinary burden we place on jurors. And it is the only thing standing between accusation and conviction.
My father spent his life defending these principles. He was criminally convicted for teaching people their rights. The prosecutor who opposed his law license reinstatement said she feared he would "disrupt the legal system" by training young lawyers to insist on constitutional protections and demand due process.
This is that disruption. This is watching every step of the process. This is demanding that the burden of proof be met, not assumed. This is insisting that presumption of innocence means something, even when the allegations are horrific. This is Justice Is A Process.
The trial continues. We will be watching.