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

Episode: The Brian Walshe Trial: Criminal Defense Attorney Says Google Searches Worse Than A Confession
Release Date: December 2, 2025
Hosts: Amy Robach, T.J. Holmes
Guest: Allison Treasle, Criminal Defense Attorney

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the highly publicized Brian Walshe murder trial, now in its second day. Amy and TJ welcome experienced criminal defense attorney Allison Treasle to break down the legal and emotional complexities of the case. The discussion centers on the rare and sensational defense strategy, chilling evidence (especially Walshe's Google searches), and the major challenge posed by the absence of the victim’s body.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Case and Its Unusual Defense

• Background: Brian Walshe, a husband and father of three, is on trial for the alleged murder of his wife, Anna Walshe. Her body has never been found, but Brian has admitted to dismembering and disposing of her remains and to lying to investigators. However, he denies killing her.
  • Amy summarizes: “He's already pleaded guilty to dismembering her body...but he says he did not murder his wife.” (03:49)
• Defense Tactic: Walshe’s attorney, Alan Tipton, is arguing "sudden unexplained death" — asserting Anna died of natural causes and Brian only disposed of the body.
  • Allison Treasle calls it “an actual defense. This is a defense you only need one juror to believe. And my goodness, does it have legs. Well, the case is pretty bad.” (04:49)

2. Overwhelming Evidence: Search History and Lies

• The Google Searches: Walshe’s internet searches are a focal point for the prosecution. Searches included phrases like "can you be charged with murder without a body?", "how to dispose of a body after murder," "can you identify a body with broken teeth?", and "how to clean blood off pavement."
  • Treasle remarks: “If I'm the prosecutor and I say, wait a minute, someone who innocently discovers that his wife is dead is not going to type in the word murder, are they?” (11:12)
• Lying to Police: Walshe did not report his wife missing and misled authorities, demonstrating a calm and convincing demeanor that surprised both the public and the jury.
  • Amy observes: “How cool, calm and collected he is...He was so believable.” (10:12)

3. Legal Challenges in Court

• No Body, No Cause of Death: The absence of Anna’s body means prosecutors have no coroner to confirm cause or manner of death, complicating the burden of proof for murder.
  • Treasle: “You don't have a coroner that can get up and say, absolutely not, she was strangled…without a body, without an autopsy and without their client testifying.” (06:43, 14:03)
• Probability of Defense: Treasle discusses how statistically rare sudden unexplained death is in healthy adults, raising doubts about the defense's plausibility.
  • “In 100,000 cases of deaths in an adult that is Latin or white…the probability is like a 0.16 probability that that happens.” (14:03)
• Expert Witnesses: For the defense to work, they need an expert who can plausibly support sudden unexplained death, even with no body or autopsy.
  • Allison: “That’s an interesting evidentiary question…how is this expert, who has no body…going to explain that and make it believable?” (17:46, 42:56)

4. Risks of Defendant Testifying

• Witness Stand Hazards: Putting Walshe on the stand is deemed incredibly risky, as prosecutors would challenge him on his lies, his history of fraud, and press for the location of Anna's body.
  • Treasle: “He shouldn’t, because he is going to be skewered on the stand…as a defense attorney, you say, how in the world do I put him on?” (16:27)
  • “If I’m the prosecutor, I say, all right, you chopped her up. Where is she? ...He can never tell them where the body is.” (37:37)

5. Motive & The Importance of Context

• Potential Motive: The prosecution is expected to argue that Anna was having an affair, planned to leave Brian, and there was a life insurance policy on her—potentially establishing motive.
  • Treasle: “If the prosecution can give them a why and they don't have a body, that's important.” (25:58)
• Jury Psychology: Jurors want an explanation for "why"; even when not legally necessary, motive shapes perception.
• Upcoming Testimony: Anna’s lover is expected to testify, which could be pivotal if he can credibly show that Brian knew about the affair. Otherwise, it might not materially help the prosecution.
  • Treasle: “…unless he says, she told me that she told him about the affair...that doesn't get the prosecution anywhere.” (33:43)

6. The Role of Presentation & Performance

• Attorney Impact: Charismatic lawyering can affect jury outcomes. Tipton’s opening, described as “extemporaneous” with “hands in his pocket, head down,” left a strong impression.
  • Treasle: “The lawyer's performance…matters”, and jurors talk about it during deliberations. (39:53)
• Prosecution Approach: The hosts noted the prosecutor’s dull, monotone presentation weakened the dramatic effect of the search evidence.
  • Amy: “It takes away from the inherent drama of the searches themselves.” (42:15)

Notable & Memorable Quotes

• On the Defense’s Challenge:
  Allison Treasle: “You have the most damning searches I've ever seen in my life...That is tough stuff to overcome. But…you need one (juror). I don't need to convince everybody. I need to convince one.” (28:50)
• On the Power of Digital Evidence:
  Allison Treasle: “Maybe this is better than a confession because you can't even say it was a coerced confession, his searches. And he can't blame his 4 or 6 year old on it.” (44:36)
• On the Lack of a Body:
  Allison Treasle: “In Massachusetts, you don't need a body...they actually have a jury instruction about that where you don't need a body.” (30:59)
• On Jury Psychology:
  Allison Treasle: “Jurors always want to know the why…And if the prosecution can give them a why and they don't have a body, that's important.” (25:58)
• On Zealous Defense:
  Allison Treasle: “Everyone has a right to be defended. They do. And for our system to work, you deserve zealous advocacy. And that is what Tipton is giving him. Now, does that mean he's going to win? ...Not usually. But everyone has a right to be defended.” (24:08)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [03:03] Amy introduces the Brian Walshe case and guest Allison Treasle
• [04:49] Allison: Initial reaction to the defense’s “all or nothing” strategy
• [06:43] Detailed breakdown: What the prosecution and defense have – and lack – with no body
• [11:12] The significance of Walshe’s demeanor and the damning Google searches
• [13:33] TJ challenges Allison: "How do you overcome 'how to dispose of a body after murder' in Google search?"
• [14:03] Allison explains the statistical improbability of 'sudden unexplained death'
• [16:23] Should Walshe testify? The risks of taking the stand
• [19:44] Would Allison herself take such a difficult case?
• [25:58] The weight of search history evidence and motive in trial outcomes
• [28:50] Allison on owning the evidence: “You own it. You have to own it that he did it.”
• [30:59] Massachusetts law: no body, no problem?
• [33:04] Discussing upcoming testimony from Anna's lover
• [39:53] The impact of defense attorney Tipton’s presence in court
• [42:56] Looking ahead: Law enforcement to be cross-examined, questions about the defense expert
• [44:36] Allison: “These were probably the most damning searches you’ve ever seen ever.”

Conclusion & Takeaways

• Allison Treasle’s Perspective: The prosecution’s case appears overwhelming, but the lack of a body leaves a sliver of reasonable doubt the defense can target—albeit a very narrow one. The Google searches are uniquely damning, potentially more so than a confession.
• Dramatic, Complex Trial: The case is riveting, with legal, emotional, and psychological complexities. The rare defense strategy, the digital trail left by Walshe, and careful lawyering on both sides are all under scrutiny.
• Key Unanswered Questions: Can the defense stretch the absence of a body into reasonable doubt? Will expert testimony on sudden death make any real dent? How will the jury respond to unprecedented digital evidence?

For listeners and true crime followers, this episode delivers an informed, dramatic, and detailed deliberation on a disturbing and highly unusual murder trial—one that exemplifies the strengths and stresses of the American criminal justice system.