Podcast Summary: Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes Present

Episode: The Brian Walshe Trial: “Can Baking Soda Make A Dead Body Smell Good?”

Date: December 3, 2025
Hosts: Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes
Podcast: Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes Present (iHeartPodcasts)

Episode Overview

This episode features Amy Robach and T.J. Holmes dissecting Day 2 of the Brian Walshe trial, a Massachusetts man accused of murdering and dismembering his wife, Ana Walshe. The episode delves into the prosecution’s case—centering on a series of chillingly specific Google searches made by Walshe—and the defense’s attempts to counter them. Amy and T.J. candidly react to the seemingly overwhelming digital evidence presented and discuss the challenges faced by Walshe’s attorney.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Prosecution’s Evidence: Damning Google Searches

(03:10–13:49)

• T.J. introduces the case's shock factor, emphasizing how strong the prosecution’s case appears after just two days of testimony.

  • “Just on day two, folks, be honest with you, I don’t know how the hell this guy is not guilty.” — T.J. Holmes (03:13)

• Amy highlights the unusual circumstance: a “no-body” case that feels almost open-and-shut because of the detailed digital trail.

  • “I never thought that I would say this about a murder trial where there is no body ... but on day two, I would say the prosecution probably could rest its case.” — Amy Robach (03:41)

• The bulk of the episode is devoted to reading and reacting to the list of Brian Walshe’s internet searches, which span New Year’s Eve 2022 into New Year’s Day 2023, progressing through a chilling set of queries:

  • “10 Ways to Dispose of a Body If You Really Need To”
  • “How long before a body starts to smell?”
  • “How long for somebody to be missing for inheritance?”
  • “Is it possible to clean DNA off a knife?”
  • “How to dispose of a cell phone?”
  • “Your spouse is missing and you want a divorce”
  • “Best way to dispose of body parts after a murder that’s hard to explain”
  • “Patrick Kearney” (the ‘Trash Bag Killer’)
  • “Cleaning up a dead body”
  • “How to clean blood from a wood floor”
  • “Can baking soda make a dead body smell good?”

• T.J. and Amy marvel at the specificity and volume, noting that some searches have never been publicly revealed before.

• The prosecution’s approach—having Trooper Nicholas Guarino monotonously read through dozens of searches—was contrasted with the explosive nature of the evidence:

  • “They found a way to make the most jaw-dropping text messages or searches seem as boring as they could all be.” — Amy Robach (06:16)
  • “This was jaw-dropping after jaw-dropping moment.” — T.J. Holmes (05:30)

2. Host Reaction & Analysis

(07:10–13:49; 17:08–17:20)

• Literary dissection of search terms:

  • Amy and T.J. joke uncomfortably about the absurdity of searching “Call 911” or “My wife is missing, what should I do?” as if Walshe were trying to simulate what an innocent person would do.
    • “Is he trying to Google what a normal person would do if their wife was missing so he could try to mimic the actions of a normal person?” — Amy Robach (09:15)

• Mentions of “murder” in search queries increase suspicions of premeditation.

  • “Now, the one that maybe most damning—Robes—is this next one ... best way to dispose of body parts after a murder that’s hard to explain.” — T.J. Holmes (09:40–10:11)

• The Trash Bag Killer search (Patrick Kearney) is cited as particularly incriminating, suggesting research into previous methods of body disposal.

• The hosts repeatedly state that the searches tell the entire story.

  • “We don’t know what happened to her, but he just told the story.” — T.J. Holmes (16:49)

3. The Defense’s Position

(22:07–26:57)

• Brief coverage of the defense’s arguments, largely recited and critiqued by the hosts:

  • Walshe’s defense attorney (Larry Tipton) claims the specificity of the term “murder” in the searches was to narrow down results, not to admit guilt.
    • “He was trying to say ... that it was too generic, that he could have gotten advertisements for cemetery plots or something ... so by saying ‘murder,’ it would make more sense that he wanted to figure out how to get rid of a dead body.” — Amy Robach (23:25)

• T.J. and Amy acknowledge the plausibility that search terms can be refined, but both remain deeply skeptical about this line of defense.

  • “I’ll give Tipton, Larry Tipton, a bit of a slow clap for that, but it doesn't mean that I'm buying it.” — Amy Robach (24:17)

• Defense challenges prosecution’s motive narrative (that Walshe killed Ana after learning of an affair), suggesting the Google searches about divorce may be innocuous—possibly about dividing assets.

• The hosts are sympathetic to the defense attorney’s unenviable position.

  • “You feel bad for him as you’re watching him because you know he’s trying and we know what he’s up against.” — T.J. Holmes (26:59)
  • “This is the sort of case where defense attorneys earn their money ... they find a way to defend the seemingly undefendable.” — Amy Robach (27:14)

Memorable Quotes

• On overwhelming prosecution evidence:

  • “I've never seen a trial where I just thought they could—the prosecution can rest right now.” — T.J. Holmes (22:07)
  • “Wrap it up right now. And the jury, I would feel pretty confidently ... I can't imagine what would change my mind into thinking that this man clearly killed his wife.” — Amy Robach (22:22)

• On the defense’s task:

  • “He doesn’t have a lot to work with. ... It’s almost you feel bad for him as you’re watching him, because you know he’s trying and we know what he’s up against.” — T.J. Holmes (26:59)
  • “She called it a poop sandwich of a case ... and yet, you know, this is the sort of case where defense attorneys earn their money.” — Amy Robach (27:14)

• On the specificity of the Google searches:

  • “He’s telling us what happened.” — T.J. Holmes (12:53)
  • “We talk, we don’t know what happened to her, but he just told the story.” — T.J. Holmes (16:49)
  • “I don’t know how you defend yourself.” — Amy Robach (17:08)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [03:10] – Start of substantive trial commentary
• [03:41] – Hosts acknowledge astonishing strength of the prosecution’s case
• [05:30] – Trooper Nicholas Guarino’s evidence presentation
• [08:05–14:53] – Extensive rundown and reaction to incriminating Google searches
• [13:01] – “Can the FBI tell when you access your phone?”
• [16:07] – “Can baking soda make a dead body smell good?” search
• [22:07–23:49] – Hosts discuss defense attempts to explain the incriminating search terms
• [26:57–27:39] – Reflection on defense strategy and trial implications

Tone & Delivery Notes

• The hosts are candid, at times incredulous, and maintain a conversational, accessible style.
• T.J. and Amy both express skepticism of the defense’s explanations, employing irony and wit as they lay out the immense challenge facing the defense.
• Their breakdown is detailed but sprinkled with humor to cope with the grimness of the story—making the coverage engaging and digestible for the average listener.

Conclusion & Next Steps

Amy and T.J. wrap up expressing near-certainty in the prosecution’s case but underscore the need for due process. They tease ongoing coverage for the duration of the trial, promising daily updates and more dissection of what stands as an utterly gripping, horrifying, and highly publicized legal case.

Listeners interested in true crime, legal drama, or current high-profile court cases will find this episode both shocking and informative, with remarkable attention given to digital forensic evidence and the courtroom’s attempts to grapple with it.