Brian Walshe murder trial | Could Google searches make or break the defense case?

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential

Episode Title: Brian Walshe murder trial | Could Google searches make or break the defense case?
Host: NBC10 Boston
Date: December 3, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode shifts from the ongoing Karen Read trial to an in-depth look at the Brian Walshe murder trial, particularly focusing on how digital evidence—specifically, Brian Walshe’s chilling Google searches—could sway the jury and shape the outcome given the absence of the victim’s body. Legal experts, defense attorneys, and reporters weigh in, analyzing prosecution strategy, the impact of circumstantial evidence, and what it takes to secure a conviction without a body.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

The Power and Pitfalls of Digital Evidence

• Google Searches as Keystone Evidence:

  • The prosecution’s primary evidence revolves around a series of damning Google searches Walshe made in the hours and days after his wife Ana Walsh went missing (e.g., “10 ways to dispose of a dead body...” and “Can you be charged with murder without a body?”).
  • Legal experts argue these searches provide compelling circumstantial evidence difficult for the defense to refute.

• Defense Attempts to Reframe Motive & Timing:

  • Defense suggests Brian only made these searches after finding his wife dead, proposing an “unexplained sudden death” theory in hopes of negating premeditation required for first-degree murder.
  • However, guest legal analyst Peter Tragos and studio attorneys challenge this line, arguing that those “panic” searches don’t align with a husband’s shock or innocence.

“It’s just not something you would expect a loved one to search… this is gonna give the jury a very bad taste in their mouth with Brian Walsh, who they already know has committed fraud… Brian Walsh is a generally bad guy. That’s how the jury’s looking at him.”
— Peter Tragos, attorney (06:30)

Audio Evidence & Defendant Demeanor

• Walsh’s Own Words:

  • The jury heard extensive audio between Brian Walsh and investigators. In early interviews, Walsh denied any involvement and appeared calm—even somewhat affable—while deflecting questions about the searches and his wife’s fate.
  • Analysts note a distinct change in his demeanor (“looked and sounded sad”) when confronted about the damning iPad search history (04:02).

• Assessment of Demeanor:

  • Both studio guests agree Walsh’s composed, even “arrogant” attitude could count against him. His affect is strikingly inconsistent with how one might expect a spouse in crisis to behave (13:21).

“He really didn’t sound like somebody who was stressed that his wife had gone missing… and I mean, haven’t even touched that part yet. Yeah. And he has said he’s done it.”
— Morgietta Derucier, defense attorney (14:13)

The “No-Body” Hurdle: Can the Jury Convict?

• Historical Perspective:

  • The episode looks at Massachusetts’ precedent for “no-body” murder convictions, specifically referencing the 2002 conviction of Joseph Romano.
  • Ex-prosecutor Brad Bailey warns such cases are more challenging for first-degree murder and rely heavily on overwhelming circumstantial evidence and “what happened after the murder” (18:41).

• The Jury’s Mindset & Instructions:

  • Experts stress the challenge is higher without direct autopsy evidence; jurors typically expect a clearer narrative for cause of death.
  • The case hinges on whether prosecutors can convince jurors beyond reasonable doubt—especially regarding deliberation and premeditation necessary for first-degree murder (21:09).

Will Brian Walsh Testify?

• Legal Strategy on Testimony:
  • Debate centers around whether Walshe can or should testify to support the defense’s theory.
  • Some legal experts argue he must explain his actions if the sudden death scenario is to hold any weight (09:33), but studio attorneys doubt he’ll take the stand given his past lies and “unlikable” demeanor.

“I think he has to [take the stand] ... the only way to prove this theory is to have him take the stand.”
— Peter Tragos (09:33)

“I don’t think he’s going to take the stand… He will be obliterated on cross examination. There is no way he gets on the stand.”
— Morgietta Derucier (12:46)

Language, Tense, and Subtle “Tells”

• Analysis of Past Tense Usage:
  • The team notes that Walshe refers to his wife in the past tense when recounting events, which can unintentionally hint at foreknowledge of her fate and subconsciously influence the jury’s impression (22:04).
  • Both guests agree this could be a small, yet telling, piece of the evidentiary puzzle.

“He’s already apparently moved on. Not once, not twice, but repeatedly used past tense when talking about [Ana] ... Sounded like a slip up.”
— Co-Host (23:40)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the pivotal role of search history:

  • "This is the best evidence the Commonwealth has in this case. It's just not something you would expect a loved one to search."
    — Peter Tragos (06:30)

• On Walsh’s demeanor in interviews:

  • "He really didn't sound like somebody who was stressed that his wife had gone missing..."
    — Morgietta Derucier (14:13)

• On the challenges for the defense:

  • "You really just can't trust what he's saying. I think in the moment, anybody is going to be shocked ... But the evidence speaks for itself."
    — Morgietta Derucier (11:41)

• On first-degree murder in a no-body case:

  • "Can they get a conviction maybe of a lesser degree of murder? But first degree murder... if you can't meet that premeditation and those intent elements, it's going to be very difficult."
    — Morgietta Derucier (21:09)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Time | Segment | |-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 01:38 | Introduction: Focus shifts to Brian Walsh’s Google searches and defense theory | | 02:16 | Recap of key witness: Trooper Guarino’s testimony, walkthrough of digital evidence | | 03:06 | Brian Walsh’s police interview: denial and his demeanor as heard in recordings | | 03:31 | Cross-examination: Defense challenges explanations for Google search history | | 04:24 | Evidence: Discussion of items recovered from trash facility | | 05:36 | Legal experts join: Exploring impact of internet search evidence | | 06:30 | Peter Tragos on Google searches as pivotal prosecution evidence | | 09:33 | Should Brian Walsh testify? Legal debate on strategy | | 10:31 | Circumstantial evidence: Jury instructions and obstacles in no-body cases | | 13:21 | Analysis of Brian Walsh’s affect and potential impact on jury | | 17:37 | Segment on Massachusetts and “no-body” murder convictions | | 22:04 | Analysis of Brian Walsh’s use of past tense in interviews |

---

Conclusion

The episode expertly unpacks the intersection of digital forensics, demeanor, and the intricacies of prosecuting a murder without a body. The consensus among legal analysts and reporters is that Walshe’s incriminating search history, coupled with his shifty explanations and lack of visible grief, create severe challenges for the defense—though the lack of a body remains a significant hurdle for the prosecution. Whether Walshe will testify remains an open question, but both evidence and perception seem stacked against him as the trial proceeds.

Anna Walsh is remembered as a successful businesswoman and mother of three, whose mysterious disappearance continues to haunt her community.

---

For further details and daily coverage, listeners are encouraged to follow NBC10 Boston’s Commonwealth Confidential podcast and related resources.

Transcript

[Host/Interviewer]

This is Comedy Bang Bang the Podcast the promo and in 30 seconds I'm going to tell you why you should check out the show. I the host Scott Aukerman have a lighthearted conversation with famous celebrities like Jon Hamm, Alison Williams, Phoebe Bridgers, Jason Alexander, Natasha Lyonne, Bob Odenkirk, just to name a few things go a little off the rails when different eccentric characters and oddballs drop by to be interviewed as well. Each week is a blend of conversations and character work from your favorite comedians as well as some new hilarious voice. Comedy Bang Bang the Podcast Listen every Monday wherever you get your podcasts. The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online and more personal info in more places that could expose you more to identity theft. But Lifelock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our US based restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed your money back. Don't face drained accounts, fraudulent loans or financial losses alone. Get more holiday fun and less holiday worry with Lifelok. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com Specialoffer terms apply.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Just got a new puppy or kitten. Congrats. But also yikes. Between crates, beds, toys, treats and those first few vet visits, you've probably already.

[Host/Interviewer]

Dropped a small fortune.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Which is where Lemonade Pet Insurance comes in. It helps cover vet costs so you can focus on what's best for your new pet. The coverage is customizable, sign up is quick and easy, and your claims are handled in as little as three seconds. Lemonade offers a package specifically for puppies and kittens. Get a'llemonade.com pet your future self will thank you. Your pet won't. They don't know what insurance is.

[Host/Interviewer]

Tonight the search for answers turns to Internet inquiries. Ways to dispose of body parts after murder. You gotta research results. Dozens of entries made in the hours after Anna Walsh vanished. Read aloud in court. How to sar body Google Search Could Brian Walsh's search history make or break his defense strategy? Plus, is it the no body case? Hard to prove. We explore that and more with our legal experts. Commonwealth Confidential the Brian Walsh murder trial starts right now.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

He was a familiar face during the Karen Reid trials. Today. State Police Trooper Nicholas Guarino returned to the witness stand for the Brian Walsh case. Good evening everyone. I'm J.C. monahan. Glenn Jones is off tonight. Guarino went over Walsh's web history around the time of his wife's death disappearance. We also heard Walsh's response when he was confronted by police about those searches. Our Brianna Borgi was in court today. She's joining us live outside Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham to walk us through today's developments. Brianna. JC we heard more from Brian Walsh in his own words today as he told investigators that he would never do anything to hurt his wife and that he still planned to spend the rest of his life with her. This as the defense worked to shut.

[Host/Interviewer]

Down any theories about a possible motive, I asked if you could do anything.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

To hurt your wife.

[Host/Interviewer]

No, I would never do that.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Day two of testimony picking up with audio recordings between Brian Walsh and investigators where they grilled him about the disappearance of his wife, Anna Walsh.

[Host/Interviewer]

In your mind, were you confused right now? You know, I, like a lot of people have said maybe she's at a spa, you know, and she was under a lot of pressure. Doesn't remind, doesn't really track with my wife.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

They also asked about those Google searches.

[Host/Interviewer]

How do you explain at 4:54 in the morning, the I've had any issues. 10 best ways to dispose of even 54. I don't have no idea.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

The defense bringing up that exchange in cross examination.

[Host/Interviewer]

When you listen to the questions that are posed to Mr. Walsh and you ask him about that mini pad, his demeanor changed, didn't he?

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Yes.

[Host/Interviewer]

In fact, it's fair to say, isn't it? I don't want to mischaracterize, but he basically sounded, he looked and sounded sad, didn't he? Correct.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Another focus, Walsh's apparent calm participation during the walkthroughs of his home.

[Host/Interviewer]

It's just fair to say that when you were looking around and you looked at that Volvo, Mr. Walsh didn't keep you from looking inside, did he? Correct.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Earlier in the day, prosecutors shared photos of items recovered at a trash facility in Peabody the day after Brian Walsh was arrested, including hunter boots and Anna Walsh's COVID vaccine card.

[Host/Interviewer]

Contents of the bags were opened. It was spread out on the ground. We'd look at the contents, see if it was important. If it was, those were moved to like a tarp. And when it comes to a possible.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Motive, the defense working to counter the prosecution's theory that Walsh killed his wife because she was having an affair.

[Host/Interviewer]

You are unaware of any forensic evidence that establishes that Mr. Walsh saw eye messages that may have been sent between Anna Walsh and William Fast. I don't recall any digital forensics related to what you're describing.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

The defense there seeming to argue that if Brian Walsh was angry about the situation between his wife and William Fastow, that he would not have shared Fastow's name with police when they Asked about contacts in D.C. for fear that could be seen as a possible motive. William Fastow is expected to take the stand at some point this week. For now, we're live in debt.

[Host/Interviewer]

And Brianna Borg, NBC10 Boston.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Okay, Brianna, thank you. We want to take a closer look at Walsh's Internet history and searches. But we do want to warn you, some of the topics can be disturbing. So on January 1, the following was allegedly researched by Walsh. It includes 10 ways to dispose of a dead body if you really need to, and how long before someone to be missing to inherit the next day. More web inquiries, one of them asking, can you be charged with a murder without a body? Well, joining the conversation now is Peter Tragos, a Florida based attorney covering this case on his Lawyer, you know, YouTube channel. Welcome, Peter. Glad to have you with us. All right, a big focus today, as we just mentioned, was the Google searches made by Walsh. These are the searches we've been talking about for years. Do you think they are the most pivotal evidence the prosecution has, the type that could sway the jurors to be. Without a doubt.

[Host/Interviewer]

Without a doubt. I think this is the best evidence the Commonwealth has in this case. It's just not something you would expect a loved one to search. If it was an unexpected, unintended, shocking death and you're responding in shock and don't know what to do, this is just not what most normal people would do. And I think it's gonna give the jury a very bad taste in their mouth with Brian Walsh, who they already know has committed fraud, who the defense has admitted he lied to the police and you're admitting he's lied in the past. And now you see these searches and they're piling on to a point where it's basically a generally bad guy. Brian Walsh is a generally bad guy. That's how the jury's looking at them. And it's very difficult to overcome that as a defense attorney.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Well, let's talk about the fact that he's charged with murder in the first degree, which falls under the deliberate premeditation theory by the Commonwealth. However, Walsh's defense team claims those searches were made after finding on a dead a move seemingly made right to avoid that premeditation element, which has us circling back to one of the searches made on January 2, 2023. Can you identify a body with broken teeth, Peter, that does not come off like a panic reaction of a husband finding his wife dead. That shows some form of awareness that there's been an injury inflicted upon her. Is that enough to show deliberate premeditation. Why or why not?

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah, I mean, making decisions like this after you find a loved one dead is exactly the way to never prove what happened, Never prove that that's actually true, Never prove that you're innocent, because there's no autopsy, there's no reason for the sudden death. But from the defense's point of view, this is a guy who Googles everything before he commits any crime. Look at it. He Googled how to get rid of the body. He googled, does DNA go away? He Googled everything before he did it. Yet there are no Google searches on committing the crime of ending her life before that happened. So if this is a guy that's a pretty dumb criminal, if you want to call him that, he didn't leave any footsteps or breadcrumbs to committing the ultimate crime. Meaning there was no plan for it. There was no premeditation. If he wanted to plan this out, he would have used Google and YouTube, because those are the two tools he uses to plan out every other crime he's ever committed.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Okay, but then what is your legal opinion of the defense's unexplained death, sudden unexplained death theory for what happened to Ana?

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, first off, there's no way, in my opinion, they can get a jury to believe that unless Brian Walsh takes the stand and explains exactly what he saw and what he found that morning and why he made these unimaginable decisions that he made after the fact to not only Google these things, but then take part in dismembering and spreading her body all around the county. So that's going to be very difficult. But additionally, what did she look like? How did she move? What did it seem like when you saw her? And how did you know that she was dead? Why didn't you call 911 to see if they could resuscitate her, to see if there was anything that could have been done? He has to answer those questions, and he's really the only one that can answer them to convince the jury that that actually is what happened. Because if there's no body, it's difficult to prove. Was there an aneurysm? Was there something that caused her to die unexpectedly? You really can't prove it.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

So do you think he does take the stand? A lot of people are asking that.

[Host/Interviewer]

I think he has to. Usually you don't. In a case like this, especially with this many recordings and this many crimes he's admitted to in the past, he's going to get sh on Cross examination. I think the only way to prove this theory is to have him take the stand.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Peter Tragos, the lawyer. You know, we love getting your insight on this. Thank you so much for joining us. And undoubtedly we're going to ask you to come back again. So we will see you then.

[Host/Interviewer]

I appreciate it.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

I'll be here. All right. Also with us tonight is defense attorney Morgietta Derucier and our courtroom insider, Sue o'. Connell. Welcome to both of you. My pals. We're back at it. Here we go. We want to talk about the, the Internet and the damning sort of searches that were made today. We heard more recordings about Walsh from the police for the first time that they met and they were interviewed. That was something we didn't hear in the Karen Reid case. We didn't have these on tape. Do you think that these searches that we were just going over, is that the damning piece of information that's going to sway the jury?

[Defense Attorney Morgietta Derucier]

Absolutely. We're talking about a case here which you'll hear from the jury instructions in the beginning and jury instructions at the end, which we call circumstantial evidence, which is you take one piece here, one piece there, and you put it all together because unfortunately, they don't have the prize of the body and how the death actually happened. So, yes, this is pretty damning piece of evidence. And the defense is doing the best that they can, you know, attacking the technicalities of the searches and how you can prove this and that, but you really can't shy away from the actual searches themselves.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

All right, let's, you know, we're going to hear some of that. We heard those recordings, like I said, the interviews between Walsh and the police, and we heard the moment officers confronted him about all these Google searches they found on his son's iPad.

[Host/Interviewer]

I mean, I don't use an iPad. So that's good news.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

He's denying in that moment that he has no idea who did these searches. But years later, here we are and he's saying, you, yeah, I did these things. What does that tell you, Morgieta, about his state of mind or anything about who this defendant is?

[Defense Attorney Morgietta Derucier]

I think Peter said it quite clearly. This is an individual that the jury already cannot trust. Right. His defense attorneys have said it in the opening statement. You can see the fact that, you know, as he said that, his demeanor changed and things like that. You really just can't trust what he's saying. I think in the moment, anybody is going to be shocked if you're sitting with A police officer right across from you and something dangerous or heinous has happened, you're going to go into the defense mode where it says, I don't know, I don't know what happened, I have no idea. But the evidence speaks for itself. Right? And you can't really shy away from that. And I think it's going to be hard to overcome this piece of information.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

I think a lot of people agree with that. There's also, as I mentioned before with Peter, a lot of people are asking, will Brian Walsh take the stand? We had one viewer write to us, Sandy, she sent us this email asking, do you think Brian Walsh will take the stand since he is the only, quote, witness to her alleged sudden death? And again, that's the defense team saying that really happened to Anna Walsh was she just died suddenly, which is something that you know can happen. What do you. Let's start Morgietta and then. Sue, I need you to chime in.

[Defense Attorney Morgietta Derucier]

I don't think he's going to take the stand. I agree with Peter in the sense that he will be obliterated on cross examination. There is no way he gets on the stand. And pieces of information that didn't come out in the Case in Chief for the prosecution doesn't come out when he goes up there and testifies. I think they have to use the tapes that they have to their advantage as best as they possibly can. But I don't think he's going to.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Take the stand and he's unlikable. I mean, you know, that's an important part of this. Again, listening this morning to that interview tape and thinking, what would I be doing if a loved one of mine was missing?

[Host/Interviewer]

Would I be that calm?

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Would I be that, you know, cool.

[Host/Interviewer]

And collected around it?

[Co-Host/Reporter]

It's, you know, he's got a lot.

[Host/Interviewer]

To overcome to convince this jury that.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

We all react to, you know, dangerous situations and grief in different ways, but most of us don't react this way. And that's the common sense part of this.

[Host/Interviewer]

He's going to be unlikable. And I don't know, you know, I.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Don'T really know if he's going to.

[Host/Interviewer]

Be able to talk his way out of this.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Well, here's a big chunk that we didn't, like I mentioned before, have in the Karen Reid trial, which was demeanor, tone, attitude, answers, everything that happened in those first initial hours and days after she went missing. In this case, did you, Morgietta, having been a part of court trials and such, did you. Were you able to get anything about who he is based on his composure. He was quite affable. I mean, he really didn't sound like somebody who was stressed that his wife had gone missing or that he just disembombed her. And, I mean, haven't even touched that part yet. Yeah. And he has said he's done it.

[Defense Attorney Morgietta Derucier]

He's admitted to that. He's admitted to that. And I think the problem is that all of what we're talking about is arrogant. And nobody likes an arrogant person. Whether you're trying to prove you're innocent or guilty, if you come off as arrogant, it's a really hard pill to swallow. And I think that for me as a defense attorney, that was the most difficult thing. If you're gonna act a certain way, you can't be arrogant. You can't have a cloud around you about it, you know, And I think that was difficult.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Yeah, it's harder than ever.

[Host/Interviewer]

And just buy some stuff after this.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

I mean, there's so much to dive into. Don't go anywhere. I need both of you. Thank you so much. Anna Walsh's body, as we mentioned, has yet to be found. But without it, what does that mean for a conviction? So up next, we take a closer look at one nobody case that made waves across New England and how that case was prosecuted. And as we go to break, we are taking a moment to remember Anna. Anna Walsh. She grew up in Serbia, later immigrated to the U.S. she ended up settling Cohasset with her husband, Brian. She became a successful businesswoman who was raising three young sons. @ the time of her disappearance, she was just 39 years old. You're watching Commonwealth Confidential, the Brian Walsh murder.

[Host/Interviewer]

Trial. This is Comedy Bang Bang, the podcast, the promo. And in 30 seconds, I'm going to tell you why. You should check out the show. I, the host, Scott Aukerman, have a lighthearted conversation with famous celebrities like Jon Hamm, Allison Williams, Phoebe Bridgers, Jason Alexander, Natasha Lyonne, Bob Odenkirk, just to name a few. Things go a little off the rails when different eccentric characters and oddballs drop by to be interviewed as well. Each week is a blend of conversations and character work from your favorite comedians as well as some new hilarious voices. Comedy Bang Bang the Podcast. Listen every Monday wherever you get your.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Podcasts. If you're an experienced pet owner, you already know that having a pet is 25% belly rubs, 25% yelling drop, and 50% groaning at the bill from every vet visit. Which is why Lemonade pet insurance is tailor made for your pet and can save you up to 90% on vet bills. It can help cover checkups, emergencies, diagnostics, basically all the stuff that makes your bank account nervous. Claims are filed super easy through the Lemonade app and half get settled instantly. Get a'@lemonade.com pet and they'll help cover the vet bill for whatever your pet swallowed after you yelled drop.

[Host/Interviewer]

It. Hiring isn't just about finding someone willing to take the job. Count on Indeed sponsored Jobs to find the right person with the right background who can move the business forward. Stop struggling to get your job post even seen on other sites. Give your job the best chance to be seen with Indeed sponsored jobs. They boost your post for quality candidates so you can reach the exact people you want faster and it makes a big difference. According to Indeed data, sponsored jobs posted directly on indeed are 90% more likely to report a hire than non sponsored jobs. Plus, with Indeed sponsored jobs, you only pay for results. No monthly subscription, no long term contracts. Just a boost whenever you need to find quality talent Fast. Join the 1.6 million companies that sponsor their jobs with Indeed. Get a $75 sponsored job credit to help get your job the premium status it deserves@ Indeed.com podcast Welcome.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Back. The big question surrounding the Brian Walsh case is how do prosecutors get a conviction without a body? A conviction is possible, but legal experts say these cases rely on an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence. Our Robert Goulston looks into how other similar cases were resolved and what kind of evidence will be key in the Walsh.

[Host/Interviewer]

Trial. Brian Walsh is not the first in Massachusetts to go on trial for murder without a.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Body. This defendant told neighbors, friends, co workers, family that Kathy Romano had simply.

[Host/Interviewer]

Joseph Romano was charged with his wife's murder after investigators found evidence including a bloody mattress. Based on the items that we found in the house, based on the testing that's been conducted, we are treating this as if it was a homicide investigation. Romano's defense attorney at the time was Larry Tipton, who now represents Brian Walsh. There are no body parts in the basement of this house. There were never any body parts in garbage bags or dump trucks. There were. There is no body. Romano was convicted of second degree murder in 2002. Former prosecutor and now criminal defense attorney Brad Bailey says the Romano case relied on what happened after the murder. You certainly had bodily matter on one of the instruments which the prosecution argued was used to at least destroy the body and get rid of the body. Bailey says bodyless crimes rarely get first degree murder convictions. Whether or not that blood evidence is just indicative of an Injury or whether it's the type of evidence that could come through after cleaning up a crime scene. Those are the types of things that juries can struggle with. Autopsies being conducted here at the office of the Chief Medical examiner in Boston are critical to all criminal cases because they help establish the cause and manner of death. What information can the body provide after the person.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Dies? We provide the final.

[Host/Interviewer]

Diagnosis. This is how you know what actually happens. Dr. Kanarik Arkin is the director of autopsy service at Tufts Medical Center. She conducts medical autopsies to help families find answers when there is no suspected foul play. I had cased myself that I can't forget. Dr. Arkin recalls an autopsy where the body's toxicology helped determine the cause of.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Death.

[Host/Interviewer]

Nice. Grandma Nice. Found in her apartment, which was locked and secure. Everything looked okay. And then toxicology report came back. She had overdose, cocaine overdose. A jury sometimes probably has trouble visualizing without a cause of death. They expect that kind of evidence, particularly in cases this serious. And sometimes when they don't have it, they can hold that against the.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Prosecution. That was Robert Goulston reporting. Now, according to prosecutors, Brian Walsh has wondered whether someone can be convicted of murder without a body because today it was revealed he used Google to ask the following questions. Best ways to dispose of body parts after murder. Can you be charged with murder without a body, Murder conviction without body, and details of dismemberment discussion in murder trial. We're back now with defense attorney Morgie derisier and courtroom insider Sue o'. Connell. We just saw no body convictions do happen. They seem more challenging, more difficult, given how the prosecution has come out of the gate looking at data and DNA. Is that the right path, you think, to get a.

[Defense Attorney Morgietta Derucier]

Conviction? It is the right path, but I think, as we all have talked about, we really have to focus on this intent. I know we're, you know, going over it over and over again, but it's really important because when the jury gets those special instructions, they have to follow it to the law. They are the ones that are determining if the prosecution met their burden of proof based upon the words that are in front of them. So can they get a conviction maybe of a lesser degree of murder? But first degree murder is the highest one that we have on that list. So if you can't meet that premeditation and those intent elements, it's going to be very difficult. Are they doing a great job so far? Yes, but, you know, time will only tell if they can meet all of those elements at this.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Time. All right, we're going to play. I want to play just a little bit here because one thing I picked up on, and I know I'm not alone on this, was in one of the interviews that police had with Brian Walsh, he used the past tense when referring to his wife. Take a.

[Host/Interviewer]

Listen. My wife and I got along very, very well. The only stress we were having together, but my wife and I were very good team. We greet on him and all we greet on. I have to get to D.C. just. Just didn't feel like we were authors of our own lives. She doesn't really track with my wife. She loved their job, she loved her family, so she would always be focused on.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

That. Okay, so all. Not all past tense. I mean, is that something, sue, do you think, you know, will. Will they do that in closing, or do you hope that they've picked up on.

[Host/Interviewer]

That? Well, I think that's something the jury picks up on because we all.

[Defense Attorney Morgietta Derucier]

Have loved ones in our life who.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Have passed, who we still refer to in present.

[Host/Interviewer]

Tense. You know, my mom has been dead over 25 years, and I still.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Sometimes refer to her as being here. Right. And that's something I think jurors, and, you know, you'll tell me if I'm right or wrong. They. They pick up on that. Especially, remember, they've been sitting in.

[Host/Interviewer]

That courtroom listening to that audio without any.

[Defense Attorney Morgietta Derucier]

Visual.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Right. Looking at him, hearing it very clearly, experiencing. And, you know, I know they're.

[Host/Interviewer]

Not necessarily supposed to think, what would I have done? But, you know, if your loved.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

One is missing or and you're talking to police, you want them to be alive, you're willing them to be.

[Host/Interviewer]

Alive.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

That's. That's the outcome you want. And he's already apparently moved on. Not once, not twice, but repeatedly used past tense when talking about. He did correct himself at one point because he said something like. And this is not an exact quote, but it was something like I had planned to say, spend the rest of my life with her. I plan to spend the rest of my life with her. Sounded like a slip.

[Defense Attorney Morgietta Derucier]

Up. Yeah. And I think, again, in the moment, we can't go back those few years and what he was thinking, but you can't get around the interview. I think there are ways that the defense you'll see is going to spin how he talks and how he could have Googled it and, you know, that he's this dumb person just trying to figure it out. But, you know, it's only time will tell.

[Co-Host/Reporter]

Really. All right, well, this is just day two, so we have a lot more to parse through when it comes to this. More Jared Doris, thank you as always for your insight. Sue o', Connell, we know you'll be in the courtroom helping us as well. Before we go though, just a quick note. We will have a show tomorrow night at 7. It will not be here on NBC 10. Instead it will air live on our sister station necn. You can also find the full episode on YouTube and if you have the questions about the case we want to hear from you, just send them to commonwealth.confidentialbcuni.com and be sure to catch the NBC 10 award winning podcast the Searches for Anna Walsh. You can find it on our website or wherever you get your podcasts. You're watching Commonwealth Confidential the Brian Walsh Murder.

[Host/Interviewer]

Trial. Hi there, it's Andy Richter and I'm here to tell you about my podcast, the three Questions with Andy Richter. Each week I invite friends, comedians, actors and musicians to discuss these three where do you come from, where are you going, and what have you learned? New episodes are out every Tuesday with guests like Julie Bowe and Ted Danson, Tig Notaro, Will Arnett, Phoebe Bridgers and more. You can also tune in for my weekly Andy Richter Call in show episodes where me and a special guest invite callers to weigh in on topics like dating, disasters, bad teachers and lots more. Listen to the three Questions with Andy Richter wherever you get your podcasts.