Brian Walshe trial recap | DNA evidence presented to jurors

Summary

---

The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential

Episode: Brian Walshe Trial Recap | DNA Evidence Presented to Jurors

Date: December 10, 2025
Host: NBC10 Boston

---

Overview

This episode provides an in-depth recap of day seven in the Brian Walshe murder trial, focusing primarily on the DNA and forensic evidence presented to the jury. The episode examines the technical aspects of collecting and analyzing evidence, reactions within the courtroom, and how Walshe’s prior criminal history—specifically an art fraud scheme—has been woven into the current proceedings. Commentary from legal experts and live courtroom observations frame a vivid picture of both the legal intricacies and emotional undercurrents of the day.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Forensic Evidence Takes Center Stage

• Blood and DNA Testing:

  • Multiple forensic scientists from the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab testified, detailing the rigorous process of tracing and analyzing evidence found at both the Walsh home and a trash facility in Peabody.

  • Emphasis on chain of custody: Each step, from collection to analysis, was documented and explained to ensure no contamination.

    • “This was a sample of stained area C on the blade of a hacksaw.” (Host, 01:40)
    • DNA on various key items (basement floor stains, rug, hatchet, Tyvek suit, slippers) was found to be closely linked to Anna Walsh.
    • “The DNA profile from this item is at least 110 sextillion times more likely if it originally originated from Anna Walsh...” (Narrator, 04:21)

• Blood Spatter and Scene Cleanup:

  • No classic signs of blood spatter were found, which prompted questions about cleanup.
    • “And there was nothing in this home that you’re aware of that could be described as blood spattering?” — “That is correct.” (Reporter/Host, 03:17–03:24)
  • Experts testified that cleaning agents like bleach, ammonia, and even water can dramatically dilute or eliminate blood evidence.
    • “Virtually any type of cleaning material… bleach, alcohol, ammonia, anything, even water if it dilutes the sample to an extensive amount.” (Narrator/Legal Analyst, 03:30–03:44)
  • Surveillance footage of Brian Walshe buying cleaning products shortly after Anna’s disappearance supports the theory of a cleanup attempt.

2. Courtroom Strategy: Technical Foundations

• Prosecution’s Approach:

  • Eleven forensic scientists were called to painstakingly establish the chain of custody for each piece of evidence.
    • “It's really much more technical than it is strategy... there are certain rules that the lawyers have to follow. You have to lay the foundation…” (Martin Radner, 06:02)

• Necessity vs. Engagement:

  • Host and experts discuss the challenge of presenting technical details without losing the jury’s attention.
    • “We all have boring parts of our case... But in order to get there, we’ve got to lay the foundation, we've got to lay the chain of custody, everything we saw today.” (Martin Radner, 08:28)

• Jury’s Reaction:

  • Noted shift in jury mood after the conclusive DNA testimony linking evidence to Anna Walsh.
    • “When that last forensic scientist got up there and said that... there was a sidebar at one point, and they were just staring straight ahead, all of them, with a grim look on their face...” (Jury Expert, 12:31)

3. Brian Walshe’s Criminal Past and Its Impact

• Art Fraud Backstory:

  • The episode revisits Walshe’s earlier conviction for selling fake Andy Warhol paintings—fraud that led to both he and Anna giving DNA samples to the FBI in 2018.

    • “FBI Special Agent Tyler DeLorey obtained a DNA sample from Brian Walsh... Also on May 9, 2018... from Ana.” (Courtroom Reporter, 16:31–17:01)

  • “Every day that Brian Walsh walks into court on trial for killing his wife, he does so also serving 37 months for what federal prosecutors describe as a years-long international art fraud scheme...” (Narrator, 17:32)

• Character Portraits:

  • Anna Walsh previously defended Brian’s character in a letter to the judge during his fraud trial, describing him as kind but deeply shaped by a troubled upbringing.
    • “Brian has a big heart… he’s impacting everyone around him in ways that will surpass the present moment... a leader to our family and an inspiration...” (Anna Walsh letter, 20:08)
  • Panelists debate the significance and admissibility of such evidence, noting the contrast between public persona and criminal actions.
    • “Listen, you can’t be a successful con artist unless people like you and unless you actually have some ability to mimic good feelings. Right?” (Jury Expert, 21:20)

4. Courtroom Atmosphere and Emotional Undercurrents

• Support in the Gallery:

  • Sparse support for Anna was noted in the courtroom, with only Brian’s mother consistently present.
    • “There is no one there that I recognize as being a supporter of Ana. The only person there daily is... Brian Walsh's mother.” (Jury Expert, 21:53)

• Jury Impact:

  • The absence of a visible support network for Anna could potentially affect jury perception, contrasting with previous trials where visible grieving families made an emotional impression.
    • “Yes, it does have a jury impact. And you would want people to be there that they could look at, feel sympathy for them as well as the defendant.” (Michael Coyne, 22:38)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the magnitude of the DNA match:

  • “The DNA profile from this item is at least 110 sextillion times more likely if it originally originated from Anna Walsh and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown unrelated individuals.” (Narrator/Host, 04:21)

• On the grim realization for the jury:

  • “They were just staring straight ahead, all of them, with a grim look on their face, their mouths turned downward, as if this heaviness of what actually happened to Ana came to bear upon them.” (Jury Expert, 12:31)

• On the necessity of “boring” technical testimony:

  • “Sometimes you have to put on a three-hour deposition where everyone’s falling asleep. But then when it comes to closing argument... you wouldn’t be able to reference certain parts of the deposition...” (Martin Radner, 08:28)

• On Brian’s character, as described by Anna:

  • “Brian has a big heart, and he's impacting everyone around him in ways that will surpass the present moment...” (Anna Walsh letter, 20:08)

• On the impact of cleaning materials:

  • “Bleach, alcohol, ammonia, anything, even water if it dilutes the sample to an extensive amount.” (Legal Analyst/Expert, 03:39)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Forensic Evidence Overview: 01:35–07:37
• Expert Panel Discussion (Martin Radner): 05:34–11:17
• Jury Reactions & Legal Analysis: 12:09–14:39
• Brian Walshe’s Art Fraud and DNA Collection: 16:31–20:08
• Anna Walsh’s Letter to Judge: 20:08–20:51
• Courtroom Support & Emotional Dynamics: 21:46–23:37

---

Tone and Language

The episode maintains a serious, methodical, and sometimes technical tone, reflecting both the gravity of the charges and the complexity of modern forensic science. Occasional moments of empathy, especially when discussing jury reactions and Anna Walsh’s letter, add emotional depth to the analysis.

---

Conclusion

This episode detailed a pivotal day in the Brian Walshe murder trial, with the prosecution meticulously showing the scientific link between evidence and Anna Walsh—culminating in an emotional moment for the jury as the forensic case appeared to reach a grimly logical conclusion. The overlay of Brian Walshe’s history as an art fraudster highlighted the role of character and motive, while experts debated courtroom tactics and their effects on juror perception. The emotional isolation of Anna in the gallery underlined the personal tragedy at the heart of the proceedings.

---

Transcript

[Narrator/Host]

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.

[Commercial Announcer]

20Th Century Studios presents the upcoming comedy Ella McKay from Academy Award winning writer director James L. Brooks. Emma Mackey plays Ella McKay, an idealistic young woman who juggles her family and work life in a story about the people you love and how to survive them. Featuring an all star cast including Emma Mackey, Jamie Lee Curtis, Jack Loudon, Kumail Nanjani, Iowa Debery, Julie Kavner. With Albert Brooks and Woody Harrelson. Ella McKay Only in theaters Friday.

[Narrator/Host]

Hormones did that get your attention? It should. Your hormones affect everything from your mood to your fertility. PCOS impacts more women than you think. Period apps don't confirm you ovulated. Irregular periods are signs. The Mirror Hormone monitor measures four key hormones with clinical accuracy. At home, get answers about your body while navigating fertility hormone, health and menopause. Unwrap the gift of data. Get 17% off all mirror [e-mail] tonight.

[Legal Analyst/Expert]

Under the microscope, DNA and digital forensics takes center stage.

[Narrator/Host]

This was a sample of stained area C on the blade of a hacksaw.

[Legal Analyst/Expert]

Members of the state police crime lab reveal their findings.

[Narrator/Host]

The DNA profile from this item is at least 30 times more likely if it originated from Anna Walsh.

[Legal Analyst/Expert]

Plus, a closer look at the man on trial, the other legal battles he's faced for years. Commonwealth Confidential the Brian Walsh murder trial starts right now.

[Interviewer/Host]

Out of nearly a dozen forensic scientists from the state police crime lab, one of them finally revealed what we have been waiting to know and that is is honest DNA on any of the evidence in the case. Good evening everyone. I'm J.C. monahan.

[Reporter/Correspondent]

And I'm Glenn Jones. That answer was yes. But based on the forensics, stains on the basement floor, the rug, the hatchet, all DNA found was closely linked to Anna Walsh. Our Brianna Borgi joins us live outside Norfolk Superior Court in Denham. Brianna, tell us more.

[Courtroom Reporter]

Well, Glenn, JC on day seven of this trial, forensics really took center stage with both the defense and prosecution drilling down on blood stains and DNA evidence. Matthew Sheehan from the Mass. State Police Crime Lab returning to the stand today for cross examination.

[Narrator/Host]

Blood spatter in general is blood in.

[Reporter/Correspondent]

Flight.

And it results from somebody perhaps.

Stabbing someone with a knife. And in the movement of the knife, blood evidence flies off the knife and stabs onto a surface, correct?

[Legal Analyst/Expert]

Yes.

[Reporter/Correspondent]

And there was nothing in this home that you're aware of that could be described as blood spattering?

[Narrator/Host]

That is correct.

[Courtroom Reporter]

On redirect, prosecutors asked about how easily blood can be cleaned up.

[Narrator/Host]

What type of cleaning materials would impact your ability to find blood or trace materials? Virtually any type of cleaning material.

[Legal Analyst/Expert]

Bleach, alcohol, ammonia, anything, even water if.

[Narrator/Host]

It dilutes the sample to an extensive amount.

[Courtroom Reporter]

The defense also focusing on potential cross contamination relating to items found at the trash facility in Peabody.

[Reporter/Correspondent]

You have no idea that hair was on the slipper when it was put into the bag. RFM came to be on the slipper because of the compression that resulted from being compressed by compact.

[Commercial Announcer]

That is correct.

[Courtroom Reporter]

We then heard from several people who were involved in the DNA testing process of various items, including a hatchet, slippers, unknown human tissue and a Tyvek suit, all of which had a strong link to Anna Walsh's DNA.

[Narrator/Host]

The DNA profile from this item is at least 110, sextillion times, more likely if it originally originated from Anna Walsh and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown unrelated individuals. And this provides support for an inclusion. And what is sextillion? A sextillion is one followed by 21 zeros.

[Courtroom Reporter]

Here's the defense. On cross examination, you can't say how.

[Reporter/Correspondent]

Any of the biological material was deposited on any of these items, correct?

[Narrator/Host]

That's correct.

[Courtroom Reporter]

At the end of the day, we saw more surveillance video of Brian Walsh in the days after ana's disappearance. On January 2, he bought and rugs at home goods in norwell. And on January 4th he returned to buy towels and bath mats.

Now tomorrow, Jim Mutloo is expected to take the stand. He is the friend who was at the Walsh's home on New year's Eve in 2022, making him one of the last people to see Ana before she disappeared. The day will start with a voir dire of Mutlu, meaning that the lawyers will question him before the jury comes into the courtroom. And jurors were told to expect a bit of a later start tomorrow at 10:00am for now, we're live. Brianna Borghe, NBC10 Boston.

[Interviewer/Host]

Brianna, thank you. Joining us tonight is Martin Radner. He's a Michigan based Attorney known as brother counsel on YouTube, covering the Walsh trial on his channel. Martin, thank you for being with us tonight. When we look at.

[Legal Analyst/Expert]

Nice to see you this time.

[Interviewer/Host]

I know, it's great to be back with you. When we look at today's proceedings, there were 11 people who testified from the state police crime lab, all basically saying the same thing, talking about the process of collecting DNA evidence. On what was the strategy, you think behind this?

[Legal Analyst/Expert]

Okay, well, I mean, it's really much more technical than it is strategy. I mean, there are certain rules that the lawyers have to follow. And this really gets into the more technical part of the trial where you have to lay the foundation. You have to show how each of those items and materials that were collected from the dumpsters, every single one of them, how is it traced through the lab? What's the chain of custody, who touched it, who did what? And then where did it ultimately get to the final person who's able to give us that opinion about whose DNA is on that specific material? So this is very technical. It's. It's just we're bound by the rules of evidence. This is not much of a strategy. It's just some parts of trial are boring, and then this is just one of them. Kind of getting the technical stuff out of the way.

[Interviewer/Host]

That was the question. Like, was the number necessary? Did we have to have all 11 people walk us through the same set of steps to complete their job, albeit, you know, slight differences? Take a listen. We just have a little example in case people weren't tuning in today. What is DNA?

[Narrator/Host]

DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. How do you prepare your work area?

[Interviewer/Host]

So, first I clean the area and.

[Reporter/Correspondent]

All the tools I'm going to use.

[Interviewer/Host]

I cleaned my bench space with bleach and wiped everything down, every instrument that I was using. Obviously, some of the questions were fairly basic. What are the tools you're using? Have you, you know, you heard the clarification? What does DNA mean? Is it typical for attorneys? Again, is this just the law to ask these basic questions for the jury?

[Legal Analyst/Expert]

Yeah, it's all foundational questions. And each person has to be able to say, yes, I kept my area clean. And by the way, if you noticed each person, we're talking about different materials, different items. So it wasn't just each person talking about the item, you know, the same item over and over and over. They're all a little bit of differences. Or some person touched white on one item for one purpose and then moved it on to the next person. The Next person touched that, that item for a different purpose, all the different steps in order to extract the DNA and be able to compare it with other DNA. So it's, it's super, super technical, but it's all foundational stuff. It's all very basic and technical and it's just lawyers stuck with the rules as they are. And unfortunately, sometimes it's a little boring for the jury.

[Interviewer/Host]

So, Martin, how do you get around that? It's the law. You have to go through these steps. But you could also lose the jury in this and they may not even take in anything that you just said.

[Legal Analyst/Expert]

Yeah, I mean, this is, this is something that all lawyers have to deal with. I mean, we all have boring parts of our case and what we have to do, unfortunately, sometimes is bore the jury. And then during closing arguments, that's when you focus on the specific parts of each person's testimony which was relevant. There's just no way around this. I mean, it's just. We wish there was, but sometimes you have to put on a three hour deposition where everyone's falling asleep. But then when it comes to closing argument, if you never did that, then during closing, you wouldn't be able to reference certain parts of the deposition. So a lot of times we'll be putting on something just because we want to highlight a few parts. But in order to get there, we got to lay the foundation, we've got to lay the chain of custody, everything that we saw today. And unfortunately, there's just no way around it. And then hopefully you can come back to closing and you're able to highlight it and remind the jury what was said and then, you know, put it all together for them then.

[Interviewer/Host]

Well, Martin. Yeah. Finally we did get some answers. We got some answers about the DNA. It was the 11th forensic scientist who got up there and was told that, you know, the DNA was closely linked to Anna Walsh on some of the evidence that came from the final forensic scientists, as I just mentioned. So is this how you would have handled sort of the reveal about the fact that DNA was in fact on the hacksaw, the slippers, the towels?

[Legal Analyst/Expert]

Yeah. I mean, this, is this what you have to do? Because you're laying the links, you're going through the chain of custody, finally getting to the last person who is going to say, yes, it was Anna Walsh. As the Internet, if you started with that person, then you wouldn't be able to conclusively say that this is the, the material, the item that made it through the lab. How do we know that it made it through the lab, what type of contamination, maybe somebody didn't keep their area clean or whatever, all those questions that we went through. So, yeah, this is what you would have to do. They did everything that they're supposed to do. And quite interestingly also is the fact that, you know, ultimately you don't have the DNA expert at the end saying, yes, this is Ana's DNA. You find that they're talking in these type of terms of, you know, this is closely related or 1 in 10 quintillion times more likely. And the reason that they do that is as similar that we found to the Karen Reid case when we had the ARCA expert saying that either these injuries are consistent or they're not consistent with a vehicle pedestrian strike, because they can't say. The ultimate question of, yes, John o' Keefe was hit, John o' Keefe was not hit. Same thing here. They're not going to say, absolutely, this is Anna Walsh's DNA. It's not. They have to talk in this type of lingo, which is also super technical and gets into the rules of evidence and what you're allowed to say and what you have to let the jury ultimately decide.

[Interviewer/Host]

Martin, we're running out of time, but I just have to ask you quickly, we heard a lot about a clean crime scene. Did you take anything from that? For somebody who says they have dismembered their wife's body, there wasn't a lot that they had to go on.

[Legal Analyst/Expert]

Yeah. And remember that there was some discussion about blood splatter as well, and that's something that you would expect to see if there's some sort of struggle, you know, between Brian and Ana, where's the blood splatter? Whereas, you know, if there's a struggle, if she's chasing or whatever it is. But it was very clear, I think the prosecution laid this out very clearly by all the surveillance that Brian Walsh went and purchased hydrogen peroxide, purchased bleach, ammonia, and as the experts testified, this is what cleans up these type of blood, DNA and blood evidence. So, yeah, I think the jury's thinking Brian cleaned up that area as well as he could, which is why you don't find the blood splatter, which is why it was a pretty clean crime scene. But you can't be perfect. So they definitely found spots which had Anna Walsh's DNA on it, and that may actually sink him.

[Interviewer/Host]

Martin Radner, brother counsel, thank you so much for joining us tonight. Love your insight.

[Reporter/Correspondent]

Thank you. JC Joining us tonight here in house is the rest of our panel, NBC 10 Boston Chief Legal analyst Michael Coyne and courtroom insider Sue o'. Connell. All right, sue, what was the reaction ultimately from the jury when they finally heard the end of this cliffhanger, that that DNA on the tools that Brian Walsh was buying in the surveillance video was likely on a Walsh.

[Jury Expert]

It was pretty grim. You know, I mean, as in my jury watching career here. Today was the day that I saw them in the morning actually joking a little bit with each other during a break, during a sidebar. You know, they're warming up to each other. They're understanding how much they can kind of get away with in their jury booth. Not talking about the case, but probably just about the art. That's the architecture that's in this big courtroom. But when that last forensic scientist got up there and said that, and it wasn't a surprise, we knew this is where it was leading. They're certainly paying attention. You know, there was a sidebar at one point, and they were just staring straight ahead, all of them, with a grim look on their face, their mouths turned downward, as if this heaviness of what actually happened to Ana came to bear upon them. So it really was a palpable change in the courtroom.

[Interviewer/Host]

Michael, just talking about the procedure and how it can be sort of laboring and boring, to use Martin Radner's word. One thing I noticed was when they were talking about evidence, they were saying all the numbers, you know, 32, 456. In the Karen Reid trial, Alan Jackson was able to make it a little bit more conversational. Say, can we just all agree this is a shirt? Okay, so on the shirt, was there any opportunity in this one to do that, to kind of take away the dryness of.

[Legal Analyst/Michael Coyne]

And I didn't see it as so dry. When we talk to our law students about foundation and chain of custody, the idea is that the greater you can show that the evidence is trustworthy, comes from a trustworthy and reliable source, the greater weight the jury should receive it. So I found these people really well qualified, all 11 of them articulate, did just their part, and moved on to the next piece. So in some ways, it was a build up to the most dramatic moment of the day. So, I mean, I like watching soccer too, so I don't mind the long delay to the big end finish. And I thought it was a very powerful finish. And I think, like sue said, too, is that that had to be very impactful for the jury because most of the day was relatively uneventful. And we ended with some good visual images as well as the testimony.

[Interviewer/Host]

Michael sue, don't go anywhere. We're going to continue with them right after the break. But coming up next, we dig deeper into the criminal past of Brian Walsh. Details on the art fraud scheme he pulled off involving fake Andy Warhol paintings, plus a look at how that crime played a role in authorities obtaining Anna's DNA.

[Reporter/Correspondent]

And as we go to break, we take a moment to remember Anna Walsh. She grew up in Serbia, later immigrated to the U.S. she ended up settling in Cohasset with her husband. She became a successful businesswoman and was co parenting three young sons. @ the time of her disappearance. She was just 39 years old. You're watching Commonwealth Confidential the Brian Walsh murder.

[Commercial Announcer]

Trial.

Pandora makes it easy for you to find your favorite music. Discover new artists and genres by selecting any song or album and we'll make you a personalized station for free download on the Apple App Store or Google Play and enjoy the soundtrack to your.

[Legal Analyst/Expert]

Life. 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 [e-mail] and talk to your doctor. That's cidpselfinjection.com brought to you by.

[Commercial Announcer]

Argenics. 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 or your money back. Don't face drained accounts, fraudulent loans or financial losses alone. Get more holiday fun and less Holiday worry with LifeLock. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.comSpecialOffer Terms.

[Courtroom Reporter]

Apply.

On May 9, 2018, FBI Special Agent Tyler DeLorey.

Obtained a DNA sample from Brian Walsh. Also on May 9, 2018, FBI special agent Matthew Rippartella obtained a DNA sample from.

[Interviewer/Host]

Ana. So this was an interesting moment. In court today, Judge Freniere read a stipulation which is an agreement between the prosecution and defense. She revealed to the jury that the FBI had collected DNA from both Brian and Anna Walsh in May of 2018. The judge did not say why the FBI collected DNA from the couple, but we do know that very same month Brian Walsh was arrested and charged in connection with an art fraud.

[Reporter/Correspondent]

Scheme. That federal case has since been brought up several times during this trial. Eli Rosenberg gives us a closer look at the.

[Narrator/Host]

Scheme. Every day that Brian Walsh walks into Court on trial for killing his wife. He does so also serving 37 months for what federal prosecutors describe as a years long international art fraud scheme that spanned the.

[Legal Analyst/Expert]

Globe. I see him as a very kind of.

[Narrator/Host]

Calculated. That's Ron Rivlin. According to Prosecutors, back in 2016, Walsh sold two fake Andy Warhol paintings to Rivlin, who runs a Los Angeles gallery dedicated to the life and work of Warhol. Court records stating Walsh took a picture of a friend's real Warhol paintings and used those photos to sell the fake ones on.

[Legal Analyst/Expert]

Ebay. I felt like he had no sense of accountability, empathy towards myself and the other.

[Narrator/Host]

Victims. According to federal prosecutors. This right here, the fake Warhol and the real one. The fake Warhol and the real one. These fakes, though, experts tell us not very good, which is how we ended up with a far different piece of artwork. This right here, a federal courtroom sketch. The Brian Walsh.

[Interviewer/Host]

Piece. It's not that complicated.

[Narrator/Host]

Really. When you look at what he.

[Legal Analyst/Michael Coyne]

Tried to do, it was easily discerned.

[Legal Analyst/Expert]

By the person he tried to dupe via an ebay.

[Narrator/Host]

Purchase. Anthony Amore is a Boston based art fraud investigator and author of the Art of the Con. And while not involved in Walsh's investigation, he has seen similar schemes, forgeries and frauds aren't really that hard to.

[Reporter/Correspondent]

Detect. It's a matter of how crafty.

[Legal Analyst/Expert]

The con man is, how good he is at his.

[Narrator/Host]

Game. And now this fraud case appearing in his ongoing murder trial. At the time Walsh's wife Ana disappeared on New Year's Day in 2023, Walsh was at home awaiting sentencing on those art fraud charges after he pled guilty back in 2021, Walsh sentenced to 37 months for the Warhol scheme. By then, Walsh also the prime suspect in Ana's disappearance. So fast forward to this murder trial. Walsh's lawyer saying the art case has caused the family, but was not a motive for murder. And as for the real Warhol paintings, federal prosecutors say Walsh sold them to a gallery back in 2011 where they passed through multiple buyers before leaving the country. Walsh also ordered to pay close to a half million dollars in restitution as part of his art fraud sentencing, as he awaits to learn his fate on his most serious criminal charges yet in Boston. Eli Rosenberg, NBC10 Boston Anna Walsh.

[Reporter/Correspondent]

Defended her husband in a letter addressed to the judge in his art fraud case. In that letter, dated September 7, 2021, Anna Walsh writes, quote, brian has been deeply affected by his childhood and relationship with his parents. He was taught to lie and hide. He was told that he was a loser, that his parents should have not had him, that he had no chances of making anything of himself in life, and that he was a lost cause. A deep feeling of shame governed his life. She adds, quote, brian has a big heart, and he's impacting everyone around him in ways that will surpass the present moment. He has been a leader to our family and an inspiration to all he comes into contact with. I am in awe of his transformation and so happy to see him living a fulfilled.

[Interviewer/Host]

Life. So who is Brian Walsh, the man who garnered such praise from his wife, who then just a few years later, admits he dismembered her. So back now with us is Michael and Sue. It seems like perhaps there is a side to Brian that maybe no one has ever really.

[Legal Analyst/Michael Coyne]

Seen. Yeah, I think those statements by his now deceased wife would be very impactful. I'm not sure they're admissible. At the end of the day, they would fall within hearsay in all likelihood, and I don't think the government would want them to come.

[Jury Expert]

In. Listen, you can't be a successful con artist unless people like you and unless you actually have some ability to mimic good feelings. Right. So it wouldn't be surprising that, you know, I would successfully did get caught. But he was successful in selling these very clearly phony Warhols, and he did it with the force of his.

[Reporter/Correspondent]

Personality. Give us an idea, sue, of the gallery in the courtroom. I know we've seen Brian Walsh's mother.

[Jury Expert]

There.

[Reporter/Correspondent]

Yeah. But how about support? Physical support in person, support for Ana, who people speak so glowingly.

[Jury Expert]

About. There is no one there that I recognize as being a supporter of honor. The only person there daily is. Is Brian Walsh's mother, who's sitting there. There are a number of lawyers who come in and out to watch the case. There are a number of folks that are just watching, but I haven't seen anyone that I would identify as there to support Anna or her memory. You know, when the bar instructor and owner came in, manager came in, they were very glowing. You know, I almost feel like there was an instruction not to come in because apparently she has a very strong community of people who cared about her, but they're not.

[Interviewer/Host]

There. But wouldn't you want to see them in there? I mean, wouldn't you want to see. So it just adds to who Ana was. If you don't get to meet her, at least you are seeing the faces of people who loved.

[Reporter/Correspondent]

Her. And does it have a jury.

[Legal Analyst/Michael Coyne]

Impact? Yes, it does have a jury impact. And you would want people to be there that they could look at, feel sympathy for them as well as the defendant. But, and let's be clear here though, because this piece opens this up. He's not a sympathetic figure for what he's already admitted to doing. Dismembering his wife in such a way, you know, he didn't have the perfect childhood. None of us do. The fact is, is that what he did? There's no excuse for his.

[Reporter/Correspondent]

Behavior. I remember hearing so clearly sue from the foreman in the Reed jury saying how difficult it was to deliver an acquittal while looking at Mrs. O' Keefe in the.

[Jury Expert]

Getaway. Now, this is also a very different courtroom. Right. I mean, I feel it all the time in this big, big courtroom. We are so far away from the jury. I'm not even sure that they can see his mother very clearly because of the sight lines. It's just a big, spacious jury. So, yes, I do think it would make a difference. I'm not sure why people aren't there. Maybe shouldn't have family that are really here that can travel here as.

[Interviewer/Host]

Well.

[Reporter/Correspondent]

Right? Okay.

[Legal Analyst/Michael Coyne]

Michael. But they should sit him.

[Reporter/Correspondent]

Close. Thank you very much for your insight. We appreciate you being with us. Thanks for tuning in from home. Be sure to stay with us for continuing coverage of the trial. We have gavel to gavel coverage on our sister station NECN. You can also watch the trial on our YouTube.

[Interviewer/Host]

Channel. And if you have questions about the case we want to hear from you, just send them to commonwealth.confidentialbcuni.com and.

[Reporter/Correspondent]

Be sure to catch the NBC 10 Boston 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.

[Commercial Announcer]

Trial.

Finding the music you love shouldn't be hard. That's why Pandora makes it easy to explore all your favorites and discover new artists and genres you'll love. Enjoy a personalized listening experience simply by selecting any song or album and we'll make a station crafted just for you. Best of all, you can listen for free, download Pandora on the Apple App Store or Google Play and start hearing the soundtrack to your life.