E (2:03)

The key moments that stood out from.

C (2:05)

This high profile case.

B (2:07)

Commonwealth Confidential the Brian Walsh murder trial starts right now.

F (2:14)

Brian Walsh will be spending the rest of his life behind bars for the 2023 murder of his wife Ana. Good evening everyone. I'm J.C. monahan.

C (2:22)

And I'm Glenn Jones. Today, jurors announced their verdict. They found him guilty of first degree mur. Here's the moment Brian Walsh learned his fate.

E (2:31)

Mr. Borkhouse. In the matter of the Cromwell Oath versus Brian Walsh new for Superior Court criminal indictment number 2023 0091. As to count one, wherein the defendant Brian Walsh is charged with murder in the first degree, what say the jury? Is the defendant guilty or not guilty?

B (2:47)

Guilty.

E (2:47)

Guilty of what, sir? Murder in the first degree. Murder in the first degree. So say you, Mr. Floorperson?

C (2:52)

I do.

E (2:53)

Guilty of murder on the first degree. So say all delivery and jurors? I do.

F (2:58)

The jury in this trial consisted of six women and six men. The four alternates who sat in the jury box for the entirety of the trial did not participate in deliberations.

C (3:07)

And here's a look at the verdict slip signed by the jury foreman. The jurors had two other options, second degree murder and not guilty. But of course, they chose to convict Brian Walsh of first degree murder.

F (3:18)

Walsh was originally facing three charges in total, but on day one of jury selection, he decided to plead guilty to misleading police and disposing of his wife's remains.

C (3:28)

So here's what's next for Walsh. On Wednesday morning at 9am he's due to be sentenced on all three charges. According to state law, a first degree murder conviction for an adult carries a sentence of life in prison without parole.

F (3:42)

All right, let's bring now our panel in. We're joined by NBC 10 Chief Legal Analyst Michael Coyne, as well as defense attorney Morgietta De Russia. Michael Morgietta, let's talk about the verdict. Do you agree with it and why do you think it should have been first degree murder? Morgetta, let's start with you.

G (3:58)

I do agree with it and I think at one point I did say it might have been second degree just because again, we're looking at a case of circumstantial evidence and it's really hard to look into the minds of the jury. But I think there was enough information that they could have rested their minds on the first degree. I think the circumstantial pieces that probably pushed them was the gruesome details that they saw that they heard that led them to that first degree conviction.

F (4:24)

Michael, do you agree?

B (4:24)

I do agree. I think there was enough. There wasn't a mountain of evidence that would support premeditation, but there was enough. And especially when you looked at the gruesomeness of his activities that he admitted to doing, he was not going to get a sympathetic ear on that jury.

C (4:40)

The big question throughout the trial was whether Brian Walsh would take the stand. But ultimately, Walsh chose not to testify in his own defense. Lead prosecutor Greg Connor addressed that decision after the verdict was announced. I think it's always up to the defendant to make that decision. I think it's the hardest decision the defendant can make. And so I'm sure he put a lot of thought into it. We were prepared that if he did testify, we had a number of questions we wanted to have answered, but we understand it's his right not to listen. Many of us thought that Walsh would take the stand, including the judge, of course. So now that we have the benefit of hindsight, Michael, is there anything Walsh could have done to help himself on that standard, or might he even have made it worse?

B (5:21)

Oh, I think he would have definitely made it worse. What was left unsaid by the prosecutors? He was dying to do that cross examination.

C (5:28)

Yeah, I think that's true.

B (5:29)

It would have been a brutal cross examination, his attempt to try and suggest to the jury he was going to testify by way of the opening statement. I think now that that was likely a ruse. I think that he had plotted this defense all along, and that's why we had questions about his competency that his lawyers asked the court to weigh in on. I think if you're a con man, you continue the con to the end. And that's what I think he did was.

C (5:54)

Yet you thought this was a bad idea from jump.

G (5:57)

I did. And let me be clear that it is a difficult decision to have your client get on the stand and testify. I think it is likely that they wanted to have him testify or plan to have him testify. But as that information was coming out, even the length of the interview, just sitting there hearing that information, watching the jury hear the information about him lying to the police with his kids in the background, I think that game day decision not to have him testify, I just knew right away that that wasn't going to happen.

B (6:25)

But the decision was his at the end of the day.

H (6:28)

Sure.

B (6:28)

And that's what he ultimately chose not to do. But at least initially, I believe he told both his lawyers and the court against the lawyer's advice. I would think that he wanted to testify.

F (6:39)

Interesting. I'd love to know why he pivoted himself, not the lawyers, but why he chose not to testify in the end, if he thought going in it would make a difference.

B (6:48)

I'm not.

G (6:49)

I think if you look at his demeanor and the way that he acted throughout the trial and prior to the trial, he was very arrogant. And unfortunately, arrogant people think that they can convince more people than they really can. And I think it came down to that wire. He realized there was no convincing at that point.

F (7:06)

Let's Talk about the fact that not only did Brian Walsh not take the stand, his defense team did not call any witnesses. One of our viewers is wondering if that was a strategic move. Katrina Fisher asks if the defense didn't call any witnesses, is this leaving the door open for an appeal? Is Brian Walsh hedging his bet that he'll be acquitted, but in case he's convicted, he can appeal on grounds that his defense was insufficient? In other words, let's go back to the strategy of it. They didn't put any witnesses. He didn't take the stand. Does that at all bolster an appeal for him?

B (7:39)

Well, he can't appeal on the, on the two charges that he's acknowledged he has committed. He still will appeal on the first degree murder.

F (7:46)

It's automatic, right?

E (7:47)

Well, it's automatic.

B (7:48)

And what most criminal defendants do and general tell us this is that they'll blame the lawyer and say it's ineffective assistance of counsel. But these were highly experienced and very able lawyers that represented him.

G (8:01)

And just to focus on appeal, just so that people understand you don't get to retry the facts. The facts are just what the facts are. You have to look at maybe the objections, maybe the instructions. Instructions that were given to the, to the jurors so he doesn't get a redo. It just really focuses on very narrow specifics. And of course he's going to appeal.

C (8:19)

And he has a really bad fact pattern for anything that he's going to try to do next. This Wednesday, Brian Walsh will be sentenced for his crimes for expecting to hear victim impact statements from the loved ones of Anna Walsh. There's also the possibility the voices of their three sons will be heard in some manner. Here's what Judge Frenier had to say in court the other day.

I (8:39)

Has the Commonwealth heard back from the.

F (8:42)

Department of Children and Family Services?

E (8:45)

Your Honor, we've been in touch with them. They are working on their impact statement. They were hoping to have the impact statement impounded.

C (8:54)

Soon after Brian Walsh's arrest, DCF took custody of the three boys who were 2, 4, and 6 at the time. Thomas, Brian and William. I have to tell you guys, I thought a lot about those kids, even though we didn't see them during this trial. So I wanted to ask both of you, is it possible we hear from these three boys in some manner via dcf? Is that typical in a situation like this?

G (9:18)

I think the witness advocate is going to speak to them probably privately. Right. And they're going to understand not only the complexity of what's happening here, but the sensitivity. So you may hear from them perhaps in writing, perhaps through the witness advocate, but I highly doubt we'll hear from them directly. Directly going into the courthouse.

C (9:37)

And Michael, let's not tiptoe here because this is really, really sensitive. Do you have any experience of how a court handles a situation where for the children one parent is convicted of killing another?

B (9:49)

I don't have any experience. I don't think most of us do.

F (9:52)

I'm glad to hear that.

B (9:54)

What you do have though is with the child witnesses generally and I think Jed is absolutely right. Again, you're not going to see them testify in any fashion. I think the victim witness advocate will gather some information from them and then tell the court how it's affected their lives. I mean, they had a pretty nice life living in Cohasset before this. And now at 10, 8 and 6 they're in state custody and God knows what the rest of their life will look like.

F (10:20)

Morgietta just quickly as we're running out of time here. But usually when I think of impact statements for victims, yes, it's cathartic, perhaps for the people who get up to speak, but it also can influence what the judge does in terms of sentencing. But this is a mandatory life without parole, correct?

G (10:35)

Correct. But we still have two other charges that the judge has to weigh in on sentencing and that could be whether or not she goes to the max on the sentences for the remaining charges, whether she runs them concurrent. And even though it may be irrelevant, she could do a from and after. You know, that's also very possible and I think it just is just the, the weight of what she's trying to achieve. Not necessarily that it would give him additional time, but just the impact of what those sentences could be.

C (11:03)

Okay, Michael, thank you very much for your insights. You'll be sticking around. We'll be recapping Brian Walsh's sentencing on Wednesday here at 7 o' clock on Commonwealth Confidential. But coming up next, the DA speaks out. Minutes after the verdict, Norfolk County District Attorney Michael Morrissey spoke in a rare news conference conference what he had to say about the jury's decision. You're watching Commonwealth Confidential, the Brian Walsh murder trial.

D (11:31)

Hey, this is Jeff Lewis from Radio Andy live and uncensored. Catch me talking with my friends about my latest obsessions, relationship issues and bodily ailments. With that kind of drama that seems to follow me, you never know what's going to happen.

G (11:43)

You can listen to Jeff Lewis live at home or anywhere you are. Download the SiriusXM app for over 425 channels of ad free music, sports, entertainment and more. Subscribe now and get 3 months free. Offer details Apply.

D (12:01)

CIDP can make your daily routine feel not so routine. The good news? With a self injection for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, you have the option to treat at home. Discover more@cidpselfinjection.com and talk to your doctor. That's CIDP self injection.com brought to you by Argenics. I can't tell you how often I hear, oh, I'm a little ocd. I like things neat. That's not ocd. I'm Howie Mandel and I know this because I have ocd. Actual OCD causes relentless unwanted thoughts. What if I did something terrible and forgot? What if I'm a bad person? Why am I thinking this terrible thing? It makes you question absolutely everything and you'll do anything to feel better. OCD is debilitating, but it's also highly treatable with the right kind of therapy. Regular talk therapy doesn't cut it. OCD needs specialized therapy. That's why I want to tell you about NO C D. NOCD is the world's largest virtual therapy provider for ocd. Their licensed therapists provide specialized therapy virtually and it's covered by insurance for over 155 million Americans. If you think you might be struggling with OCD 50 visit nocd.com to schedule a free 15 minute call and learn more. That's n o c d dot com.

E (13:31)

Last year Is that your verdict? Yes. Your all jurors answer affirmatively that the guilty of first degree is their verdict.

C (13:38)

The verdict may be recorded.

F (13:40)

Please be seated.

C (13:41)

That's another look at the moment. Jurors convicted Brian Walsh of first degree murder for the death of his wife Anna.

F (13:47)

The jury came to their decision following testimony from dozens of witnesses over two weeks. Brianna Borghe has been covering it from Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham. She joins us live with a look back at the trial. Brianna?

I (13:59)

Well, it only took the jury about five hours to reach their verdict and find Brian Walsh guilty of first degree murder. Now we await sentencing later this week, but first let's take a look back at how we got here.

E (14:11)

Use your common sense.

C (14:13)

Don't leave at home.

E (14:14)

Find Walsh. Never killed him.

I (14:16)

Exactly two weeks ago we heard opening statements in this high profile case. Brian Walsh on trial for the murder of his wife Ana, now found guilty of killing her on New Year's Day in 2023. Security cameras tracking his movements in the days following the crime.

C (14:32)

And you'll see the surveillance video from the Lows and Danders, where a white man wearing a mask and dark hair buys several items that cost more than $400 using cash, including a Tyvek suit, any cutting instruments such as shears, snips, and a hacksaw.

I (14:54)

The defense, however, laid out a different story, saying Ana died suddenly and unexpectedly, leading Brian to panic and act out of fear.

D (15:02)

You will hear evidence that it is real.

C (15:06)

You will hear evidence that it happens.

E (15:08)

In young people and old.

I (15:10)

The defense made that promise, even suggesting Bryan himself may testify, but instead chose not to call any witnesses. By comparison, the prosecution called 47 witnesses over eight days, including the man Ana was said to be having an affair with down in Washington, D.C. we'd had.

B (15:28)

A number of conversations about what a.

C (15:30)

Life together might look like, what merging.

B (15:35)

Two families would look like.

I (15:37)

Ana had been commuting from Cohasset to D.C. for work, but Brian was on home confinement as he awaited sentencing in a federal art fraud case, which was banned based on him being the primary caregiver for their three children. A close friend telling the jury that was all taking a toll on Ana.

E (15:53)

My memory of the conversation is that they had marital issues and that she was seeking counseling. I specifically remember telling her, I don't want you to be too strong.

I (16:06)

Closing arguments came on the 10th day of this trial as each side made their final case.

E (16:11)

And he cut up on his body the woman that he claimed to love, and he threw her into dumpsters. He was hiding her body. There's no evidence that he ever intended to kill Anna Walsh. None whatsoever. There is only one verdict. Find his defendant was guilty.

I (16:39)

And that they did. Now, the jury could have also found him guilty of either second degree murder or of course not found him guilty at all. But they convicted him of murder in the first degree, meaning they found some element of premeditation in all of the evidence that was presented to them. For now, we're live in dead. I'm Brianna Borghe, NBC 10 Boston.

E (16:59)

I would be remiss if I didn't thank the jury. This is a very difficult case from the beginning. Take time out of their schedule to hear such days of evidence, complex evidence and a difficult case and to come up with a decision. They did.

F (17:12)

That was Norfolk County DA Michael Morrissey's reaction to the verdict. His office prosecuted the case, but his reaction was a bit of a surprise considering his lack of response to the Karen Reid case. After Reid's first trial ended in a hung jury last year, his office only released a statement saying they would pursue a retrial. And. And then when Reid's second trial ended with an acquittal of the three most serious charges, Morsi's office released a statement to the media saying, quote, the jury has spoken. He did not respond to our repeated requests for comment. But today, Morsi made one especially interesting remark at the news conference. Here's his exchange with our NBC10's Eli Rosenberg.

C (17:50)

A lot has been made of you personally. Obviously, over the last couple years, we haven't really had a chance to hear from you.

E (17:56)

If I speak out that I interfere with an individual's right to a fair trial, then that obviously weighs heavily upon me. So I am now free to speak today on this trial.

F (18:06)

Okay. But Morrissey himself, he spoke publicly before the two Reid trials. Here's a video from 2023.

E (18:13)

This will be the first statement of its kind in my dozen years as Norfolk District Attorney. The harassment of witnesses and the murder prosecution of Karen Reed is absolutely baseless. It should be an outrage. Outrage to any decent person, and it needs to stop.

F (18:32)

Okay, so it feels like there's a finger on the. On the jury here on the scales of justice. We're back now with Michael Cohen, as well as courtroom insider Sue o'. Connell. So let me get the professional opinions of Michael Morrissey, his comments today, the appropriateness of it, and reflect back on what happened with the Karen Reid case as well.

B (18:50)

Well, as we said, as he pointed out, it's improper for the DA to be prejudging the case and giving statements in advance of the defendant's right to a fair trial. Better late than never to have recognized that issue.

J (19:04)

And she.

F (19:04)

When he came out today and spoke, you know, very quickly. No, it seems like he was prepped and ready to go for this.

H (19:11)

Well, in some regard, this is what district attorneys are supposed to do. Right? I mean, I think it's just jarring that he didn't come out after the Karen Reid trials, and jarring that he came out before the Karen Reid trial talking about, of course, another case of harassment, the Aidan Kearney Turtle Boy case, which is being adjudicated, which he's already calling harassment of the witnesses, you know, two years ago. So he did have his thumb and does have his thumb on the scale there. But this is normal to come out and have a press conference when you win. Right. And it's just sort of surprising. I know our Eli and Ryan Kath and Matt Pritchard, our reporters here at NBC 10, have been trying to get statements from DA Michael Morrissey for years. And have not gotten a call back, have not gotten an email back. And now suddenly, here he is. Of course, his office is up for reelection this coming year, 2026. He has not said he's going to run yet.

C (20:06)

Actually, let's talk about that right now, because DA Morrissey has been in office since 2011. It's still not clear whether he will seek reelection next year. And we had sue today doing sue like things. She asked him the question. Take a listen.

H (20:19)

Going to run for reelection, Mr. Morrissey.

C (20:24)

There are a number of declared candidates for DA, including Democrats Craig McClellan, Judah Perkins and Jim Barakat. There's also former federal prosecutor Adam Deitch. Interestingly, while working for the U.S. attorney's office, he led the office's investigation into the handling of the Karen Reed case. So, sue, considering what you did there, you told us all along this was a case that it was necessary for Michael Morrissey's office to win, but it still might not be enough after seeing a little bit of maybe fight in him today. What are you thinking?

H (20:59)

Well, he does have over $400,000 in his campaign fund, so let's just be clear about that. And this is a primary, which is always a difficult thing for challengers to win if he decides to run. But, you know, I said it today, and I keep saying it, in a way he dodged something because Brian Walsh did him the favor of pleading guilty to the parts, to the, you know, getting rid of the body and all that evidence that would have brought Michael Proctor to the stand, that would have allowed the defense to pick at issues that the office may or may not have had.

F (21:31)

The investigation went away.

A (21:33)

Right.

H (21:33)

So that didn't. That's not part of the play here. So we'll see what happens. It's going to be the Karen Reid case and what happened from it, what we Learned about the DA's office, the state police. That's going to continue through this election year in 2026.

C (21:47)

Yeah, we'll cover that race very closely, I suspect, soon. Michael, thank you very much. On verdict day, be sure to stay with us throughout the sentencing part of this trial. But before we go, we want to take a moment to remember the victim in this case, Ana Walsh.

F (22:01)

Today's guilty verdict comes nearly three years after the mother of three young children was last seen.

J (22:07)

Anna Walsh was the epitome of the American dream. Born Anna Lubicek in 1983, she was raised by her mother in Serbia, then part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. She grew up surrounded by economic hardship, political unrest, and Multiple wars in 2005, at 22 years old, Ana emigrated to the United States, eventually becoming a dual citizen. By 2013, she was dating Brian Walsh. Calling it love at first sight, their relationship wasn't without its problems. In 2014, ANA filed a police report saying Brian threatened to kill her and her friends. The case was closed. The relationship continued. They married in 2015. Ana worked in real estate, buying and selling homes around Massachusetts. Eventually, the couple settled in the small coastal town of Cohasset. A colleague described Ana as full of light and energy.

E (23:05)

The kind of person, when you walk.

F (23:07)

Into a room, you feel her energy.

J (23:11)

Like that's just who she is.

E (23:12)

This is a loving person, person who loves life.

J (23:15)

Ana had three sons. But soon after, she wanted more from her career. She took a job in Washington, D.C. with the real estate company Tishman Spire. So weekdays would be spent in D.C. weekends in Cohasset with Brian and the boys. The goal was to raise their family together in D.C. but they had to wait until Brian dealt with his legal problems and possible prison time for alleged crimes here in Massachusetts. Meanwhile, Ana made connections in D.C. friendships. Abdullah Al Mahtari calls Ana his best friend. He last heard from her late December 2022.

C (23:53)

She reached out and she said she was gonna. She was going to call me right at midnight to wish me Happy New Year, and then that she bought me a gift that I would like and. And she was looking forward to seeing me when she gets back to D.C. and hanging out.

J (24:08)

She was at Brian's side in Cohasset on New Year's Eve, celebrating in their kitchen with a friend. By all indications, Ana was happy that night, the last night anyone saw her. When Ana didn't show up to work January 3, the company became concerned. She wasn't answering her phone. Police got involved. Ana had disappeared. She was 39 years old.

C (24:32)

Hi, I'm Jenny Slate, and believe it or not, someone is allowing us to have a podcast.

D (24:37)

I'm Gabe Liedman.

C (24:38)

I'm Max Silvestri, and we've been friends for 20 years, and we like to reach out to kind of get advice on how to live our lives. It's called I need you guys. Should I give my baby fresh vegetables? Can I drink the water at the hostel? My landlord plays the trombone and I can't ask him to stop. You should make sure that you subscribe.

I (24:58)

So that you never miss an episode.