Brian Walshe trial recap | How the defense is responding to prosecutors' case so far

Summary

The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential

Podcast: NBC10 Boston
Episode: Brian Walshe Trial Recap | How the Defense is Responding to Prosecutors' Case So Far
Date: December 4, 2025

---

Overview & Main Theme

This episode focuses on the ongoing Brian Walshe murder trial, covering the day’s rapid-fire testimony, shifts in defense strategy, and how both sides are handling the case's most incriminating evidence. The hosts and guests analyze how the defense is responding to the prosecution’s detailed evidence, the potential impact of Walshe’s guilty pleas to lesser charges, and the relative lack of personal testimony relating to victim Ana Walshe. The episode also draws thematic comparisons to the high-profile Karen Read trial, providing a broader context for courtroom strategies.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Recap of Key Testimonies (02:48–06:16)

• Images & Evidence:
  Glenn Jones opens by highlighting prosecution efforts to show Brian Walshe’s methodical steps after Ana's disappearance, including blood-covered items brought as evidence.

• Witnesses:
  Brianna Borghe outlines the day’s slate of witness testimony:

  • State Trooper Nicholas Guarino is cross-examined about Brian Walshe’s Google searches, specifically questioning when the term "murder" appeared.
  • Testimony about Ana’s unused flight and lack of Uber/Lyft rides suggests she never left home as Walshe claimed.
  • Walsh’s calm demeanor when reporting Ana missing and a landlord’s account of Brian inquiring about building security.
  • Life insurance policies: Ana had two policies totaling $1.25 million, both with Brian as beneficiary.
  • Forensic scientist details items found in trash bags (e.g., hammer, hatchet, hacksaw with red-brown stains).
  • Judge gives direction to limit text messages between Ana and her affair partner, William Fastow, to those relevant for state-of-mind evidence.

“Bag number eight contained a hammer, a pair of wire snips, a hatchet, and a hacksaw with red brown stains on it.”
—Martin Radner, 05:47

2. Defense Strategy on Google Search Evidence (06:16–07:38)

• Selective Focus:
  Legal expert Martin Radner (Brother Counsel) analyzes the defense’s approach to highly incriminating Google searches.
  • Defense is focusing on searches less directly tied to murder, highlighting more benign searches to create doubt.
  • Radner explains why the absence of early searches directly mentioning murder is strategically emphasized to the jury.

“You try to focus the jury’s attention on the searches that help you... searching for Porsches, searching for a 4 carat diamond—who’s going to do those types of searches for their wife if they’re planning on either divorcing them or murdering them?”
—Martin Radner, 07:15

3. Limited Cross-Examination & Defense Calculus (07:38–09:21)

• Contrast with Karen Read Case:
  Glenn Jones notes that unlike the Karen Read trial, the defense in the Walshe case does not cross-examine every witness.
  • Radner explains that sometimes, especially with unfavorable evidence, it’s best not to cross-examine, as doing so could make things worse for the defendant or open up damaging lines of questioning.
  • The defense appears experienced and strategically focused, accepting uncontested evidence unless it directly refutes the charge of murder.

“Sometimes if a fact is not going to hurt you or you’re not disputing it, then just say no questions. That seems to be the approach these seasoned, experienced attorneys are taking.”
—Martin Radner, 08:50

4. Agreement on Many Case Facts (09:21–11:30)

• Narrow Dispute:
  Glenn Jones notes minimal disagreement between prosecution and defense, except over the cause of Ana’s death. Most other facts (deception, dismemberment, etc.) are uncontested.
  • Radner suggests this might benefit both sides: prosecution can quickly present evidence; defense maintains focus on the single disputed fact (did Brian commit murder?).
  • Defense acknowledges Brian lied and dismembered the body, maintaining only that he didn’t kill Ana.

“They’re not going to fight the disinterment of the body. He already pled to that. We’re not going to fight the fact that he lied to the police. He already pled to that.”
—Martin Radner, 10:45

5. Legal Implications of Guilty Pleas to Lesser Charges (11:40–15:06)

• Jury Awareness:
  Margaret McClain, former prosecutor, and Sue O'Connell discuss the ramifications of Walshe’s guilty pleas to misleading police and improper disposal of remains, and whether the jury should be made aware.
  • McClain posits that knowledge of these guilty pleas could support Walshe’s claim: "I did these things, but not murder."
  • The psychological challenge for jurors: Would a truly innocent person respond by dismembering and disposing of a body, rather than calling 911?
  • Risks and strategy around potentially having Brian Walshe testify to explain his actions.

“Why would I plead guilty to these two charges... and I'm keeping the murder open? So if you look at it that way, it would bolster his case.”
—Margaret McClain, 13:02

6. The Victim: Ana Walshe’s Life and its Narrative Impact (16:14–20:40)

• Background Story:
  JC Monahan presents a detailed biography of Ana Walshe—her Serbian origins, U.S. immigration, professional success, and family life with Brian.

  • Emphasizes her optimism and drive (“full of light and energy”), contributing to the American dream narrative.
  • Colleagues and friends recount Ana’s plans and last conversations.

• Prosecutorial Approach:
  Discussion follows about prosecution’s lack of emotional or personal context about Ana in court.

  • Both McClain and O’Connell stress that humanizing the victim is vital; failing to do so may cede emotional ground to the defense.

“She’s a mother. She was a wife... There’s just today you saw that blood evidence. And I think the jurors would be even more upset with Brian Walsh [if they saw pictures of her].”
—Margaret McClain, 19:36

“It humanizes Ana. It humanizes the victim. And that’s really very important to do because otherwise she’s just this ethereal entity that people don’t get to know.”
—Sue O’Connell, 20:02

7. Debate Over Sudden, Unexplained Death & Life Insurance (20:40–23:19)

• Health Evidence:
  Testimony from a New York Life agent established Ana as having the highest possible health rating, which undercuts defense claims of a “sudden, unexplained death.”
  • The defense rests on the theory that sudden natural death can happen to anyone; prosecution and guests argue this is a serious stretch, especially for someone so recently reviewed and found healthy.

“It is just really a big stretch here that a perfectly healthy human being who just got life insurance... it is just really a big stretch here.”
—Sue O’Connell, 22:53

“She had the highest rating for the life insurance. So she’s a healthy person and it debunks Brian Walsh’s theory or story.”
—Margaret McClain, 23:04

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Sometimes the best way to cross examine is to not ask any questions at all.”
  —Martin Radner, 08:43
• “Without a body, without a cause of death, the only person who can tell that story—a narrative, whether you believe it or not—is Brian Walsh. But putting him up on the stand opens up a whole other can of tomatoes. It’s very risky.”
  —Sue O’Connell, 15:16
• “There has to be a narrative... and it has to be believable to the jury.”
  —Sue O’Connell, 15:18

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 02:48: Start of case recap: evidence and witness overview.
• 06:16: Analysis of defense strategy with Martin Radner.
• 09:21: Discussion of prosecution vs. defense agreement on case facts.
• 11:40: Margaret McClain discusses jury awareness of guilty pleas.
• 16:14: JC Monahan’s profile of Ana Walshe.
• 19:29–20:40: Debate on emotional impact and trial strategy for humanizing the victim.
• 20:58–23:19: Testimony on Ana’s health and life insurance, implications for the defense theory.

---

Summary Takeaways

• The prosecution’s methodical approach is yielding a fast pace, with little resistance to non-murder facts from the defense.
• The defense is tightly focused, conceding incriminating facts not directly related to murder, with a strategy that aims to avoid unnecessary cross-examination pitfalls.
• Legal experts express skepticism about the plausibility of the defense’s “sudden, unexplained death” theory, especially in light of health evidence and insurance application data.
• The lack of a strong emotional narrative about Ana Walshe in court is noted as a potential strategic gap for the prosecution.
• Significant courtroom developments may hinge on whether Brian Walshe testifies, and how jurors interpret his previous guilty pleas.

---

The next episode promises deeper dives into Anna Walshe’s life and more expert analysis as the trial continues. Gavel-to-gavel coverage is available on NBC10 Boston for those wanting ongoing updates.

Transcript

[Andy Richter]

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.

[Vivgart Hytrulo Ad Voice]

I like things my way. My coffee, my schedule and my treatment. So I talked to my doctor about self injecting with the Vivgard Hytrulo pre filled syringe, which contains fgartegamide Alpha and Hyaluronidase qvfc. It's injected under your skin subcutaneously. It means I can inject in my space on my time. It's my treatment my way. Visit vivgartmyway.com that's V Y V G-A-R-T myway.com and talk to your doctor about Vivgart Hytrulo Brought to you by Argenics.

[Indeed Ad Voice]

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 tonight, Brian Walsh's.

[Vivgart Hytrulo Ad Voice]

Google searches once again front and center.

[Glenn Jones]

There's no reference to murder in that query, correct?

[Martin Radner]

That's correct.

[Vivgart Hytrulo Ad Voice]

But did the defense do enough for the jury to move on from those chilling search? Legal expert weighs in plus new details about his wife's million dollar plus life insurance policies.

[Martin Radner]

Who is the beneficiary of that policy?

[Vivgart Hytrulo Ad Voice]

Brian Walsh what the policies revealed about Anna Walsh's health before her Death. And could Brian Walsh's guilty pleas to lesser charges come into play for the jury? We dig into the potential ramifications. Commonwealth Confidential the Brian Walsh murder trial starts right now.

[Glenn Jones]

For the first time, we are seeing the images of blood covered items in connection with the disappearance of Anna Walsh. Good evening, I'm Glenn Jones. JC Monahan is off tonight. The prosecution is laying out how methodical Walsh was after they say he killed his wife. That evidence came courtesy of a state police crime lab specialist. He was one of nearly a dozen witnesses in a single day who all testified for the prosecution as they try to convict Walsh of murdering his wife. Our Brianna Borghe was in court for all of it. She joins us live from outside Norfolk Superior Court in Denham with today's update. Brianna?

[Brianna Borghe]

Well, Glenn, unlike the first two days of this trial, we heard from a lot of witnesses today. Some of them were relatively quick and the defense did not cross examine all of them. So I want to walk you through what we heard during today's testimony starting where we left off yesterday. State Trooper Nicholas Guarino returning to the stand today as the defense cross examined him about Brian Walsh's Google searches.

[Glenn Jones]

So the first time the word murder appeared in these, all these records was.

[Martin Radner]

Approximately six hours after these searches began. Again, I'd have to take your word for it, but it seems that the.

[Brianna Borghe]

Prosecution then focusing on Anna Walsh's travel, starting with her flight bookings.

[Sue O'Connell]

Was there a flight on January 3rd of 2023?

[Martin Radner]

That's correct.

[Sue O'Connell]

And was that flight used? And Ms. Gilman, if you could go down now.

[Martin Radner]

No, that says it was no show.

[Glenn Jones]

So it meant that the person did.

[Brianna Borghe]

Not show up Later. Employees from Uber and Lyft took the stand.

[Sue O'Connell]

Were there any rides between December 30th.

[JC Monahan]

Of 2022 and January 8th of 2023.

[Sue O'Connell]

That were used by this rider? No.

[Brianna Borghe]

We also heard about the first time police visited the Walsh home on January 4th.

[Martin Radner]

He wanted to file a missing person report for his wife.

[Sue O'Connell]

What was his demeanor?

[Martin Radner]

He was calm, collected.

[Brianna Borghe]

The Walsh's landlord detailing a phone call he received from Brian after New Year's.

[Martin Radner]

He had asked me if I had security on my building and I said no, not at this time. I said why? And he said, well, my wife is missing. She took an Uber this morning. I was supposed to take an Uber this morning to go to DC Then.

[Brianna Borghe]

Life insurance came to the forefront with the New York life agent who sold on a Walsh two policies, one for a million dollars and one for a quarter of a million.

[Martin Radner]

Who is the Beneficiary of that policy, Brian Walsh.

[JC Monahan]

At no point did Mr. Walsh ever.

[Glenn Jones]

Contact you to ask you about getting.

[Brianna Borghe]

Paid out on any of Anna Walsh's.

[Glenn Jones]

Life insurance policies, Correct?

[Margaret McClain]

Overall, you can answer that question.

[Brianna Borghe]

Finally, a forensic scientist from the Mass. State Police walked us through dozens of Items recovered from 10 trash bags at a facility in Peabody.

[Martin Radner]

Bag number eight contained a hammer, a.

[Glenn Jones]

Pair of wire snips, a hatchet, and a hacksaw with red brown stains on it.

[Brianna Borghe]

Now, before the jury even entered the courtroom this morning, the judge gave some guidance about text messages between Anna Walsh and the man she was having an affair with, William Fastow. The judge advised the commonwealth to limit the text messages only to those that are relevant and show state of mind evidence. Fast out is expected to take the stand as early as tomorrow. For now, we're live in debt. I'm Brianna Borg, NBC 10 Boston.

[Glenn Jones]

It'll be interesting testimony when it happens. Brianna, thank you. Let's bring in Martin Radner. He's a Michigan based attorney known as brother counsel on YouTube, a friend of this program, if I can say that. He's covering the trial on his channel again. So, Martin, let's start with the cross examination of Trooper Nicholas Guarino. Do you think the defense was able to accomplish what was clearly its goal, to poke holes in that damning evidence around the Google searches? Did they score any points there?

[Martin Radner]

Oh, yeah. Well, you know, when you have bad facts, when you have these Google searches which look really incriminating, what you got to do if you're the defense attorney is you got to figure out a way to show the jury why those searches don't hurt you, how you're trying to show that these searches may actually help your case. So you don't try to just ignore it and take the focus off of it as Google searches. You try to focus the jury's attention on the searches that help you. For example, the fact that murder didn't appear in the searches initially. He initially was just talking about how to dismember a body, which again is incriminating. But they're not disputing that fact that Brian Walsh did that. They're disputing the fact that he murdered Anna Walsh. So if you can try to focus the jury on what helps you a part of the Google searches, then that's going to help you. So, for example, searching for Porsches, searching for a 4 carat diamond, who's going to do those type of searches for their wife if they're planning on either divorcing them or murdering Them.

[Glenn Jones]

So speaking of cross examinations more broadly, we haven't seen that much attention paid to that part of the case by the defense. Unlike, of course, the Karen Reid trials, which we were all watching together. Every witness seemed to be cross examined and some for multiple days. Is the defense leaving opportunities on the field here by not cross examining more often?

[Martin Radner]

Well, it could be that the witnesses in this case are just being more honest and truthful.

[Glenn Jones]

Okay, well, I see what you did there. Okay.

[Martin Radner]

But no, I mean, the point is that again, when you have a tough case like this, when you have the facts that are unhelpful, on which you've already admitted to some of the incriminating things in this case, so the one you got to focus your cross examination on is just some sometimes short points that can help your case. If you try to go down the rabbit hole, you try to open up all the different areas and avenues, then it can really backfire. So what I'm seeing from the defense in this case so far is that they know their theory of the case, which again, is tenuous, but they're trying to work with it and trying to just ask pointed questions that will help them to achieve their theory and to prove their theory to the jury. So therefore, it makes a lot of sense to me that they don't want to cross examine too much. They don't want to open up all these different areas where things can look a lot worse for and incriminating for Brian. And sometimes, when, sometimes the best way to cross examine is to not ask any questions at all. You know, some elementary trial lawyers, in the beginning, they'll think that if it's cross examination, you got to ask something, and that's not always true. Sometimes if a fact is not going to hurt you or you're not disputing it, then just say no questions. And that seems to be the approach that these seasoned, experienced attorneys are taking.

[Glenn Jones]

Ed Martin, the lack of cross today meant that, that we got through nearly a dozen witnesses very quickly. The pace of this trial is moving so fast, and I wanted to ask you about what seems to be a lack of disagreement between the prosecutors and the defense. Here we have a graphic that we've been showing to people at home so that they can follow along. Of course, in the re case, almost everything was fought over. We've just discussed that, especially because in some cases we didn't think that the witnesses were being truthful. But with so much agreement here, except on the one issue about how Anna Walsh died, is this simplified sort of Venn diagram That you're looking at favored the defense of the prosecution?

[Martin Radner]

Well, I mean, you can argue that it can favor the prosecution and the defense because, you know, a lot of the issues here that Brian Walsh was lying about the fact that she went missing. The defense agrees with that fact. Now the prosecution's gonna argue with that helps their case because it shows that he's trying to hide a murder. But according to the defense, they're gonna say, well, he was lying because he was panicked and he had nothing to do with the murder. This was just a sudden, unexplained death. So a lot of the witnesses that we're seeing so far is establishing a lot of the facts that the defense is not really going to push back so much on because they think, look, we're not going to fight the disinterment of the body. He already pled to that. We're not gonna fight the fact that he lied to the police. He already pled to that. So if it doesn directly to do with him committing the murder, we're just gonna leave it alone. And we're gonna allow them to show their investigation about the missing person and show them that Brian Walsh lied. We had. The defense is gonna say we agreed with that. You know, again, if that's going to actually help them ultimately get an acquittal, you know, I don't see that really working out at this point. But that is their theory, so that's what they're stuck with, and that's their approach to this trial. So you're not gonna be finding them fighting on every little detail about the investigation, about the missing person investigation, about the. All the items that they found in the trash and in the dumpsters, and that he did disinter. He did dismember her. So they're not going to fight that. So they're just kind of letting it go and letting the trial play out.

[Glenn Jones]

All right, Martin Radner, brother counsel, thanks very much for your counsel tonight. We appreciate it. Hope to see you back on the show before this trial is over.

[Martin Radner]

Me too. Nice to see you again also, Glenn. Thanks for having me on.

[Glenn Jones]

We're joined now by former prosecutor Margaret McClain and courtroom insider Sue O'. Connell. It's good to have you both here. All right. There was an interesting moment after testimony concluded today where there was a discussion from judge Furnear about how to handle the sentencing of Brian Walsh to the crimes that he's pleaded guilty to. Take a listen.

[Margaret McClain]

So one of the things I'm concerned about is in line drawing that I'M inviting the jury. If I allow them to hear evidence that he pled guilty, then I'm inviting them to.

[Glenn Jones]

To do exactly what I'm going to tell them not to do, which is.

[Margaret McClain]

You are not to consider yours. You stay in your lane, I stay in mine.

[Glenn Jones]

So, just a reminder, Walsh pleaded guilty to a couple of charges on the day the jury was starting to be selected. He pleaded guilty to misleading police and disposing of Ana's remains. But he's still fighting, of course, that first degree murder charge. So, Margaret, starting with you.

Gosh. It would be unusual for the jury to be made aware of those guilty pleas, and they're also having a discussion about whether or not he'll be sentenced on those charges before this trial is over. Does any of that get anywhere close to the jury?

[Margaret McClain]

Well, here's the thing. So you could go both ways. Now, for the defense, it could also bolster Brian Walsh's case. Right.

[Brianna Borghe]

Why?

[Margaret McClain]

Well, the reason, because he'd be saying, well, listen, I admit I did this. I dismembered the body. I transported the body. I misled the police. I lied. I admit I lied. And that's what his attorney said in an opening statement. But, you know, I didn't kill her. I didn't kill her. So in that way, he's trying to tell the jury, you know, why would I plead guilty to these two charges unless. But, you know, and I'm keeping the murder open. So if you look at it that way, it would bolster her case, his case. You could look at it possibly the other way.

[Glenn Jones]

Well, before we move on to the other way, Sue, I think maybe what Margaret is also saying is that the jury could think, all right, there's some accountability for this crime. Even if I don't convict, I know that this person is going to be punished.

[Sue O'Connell]

Right. But there's still that leap you have to make of the common sense of what would you do if you found your loved one unresponsive in your bed and you had nothing to do with it? I mean, I actually have a question, too. If he were to take the stand, if Brian Walsh were to take the stand and they decide, we're not going to talk about. The judge decides we're not going to talk about this plea. Can he be asked? Okay, so you found your wife, she was unresponsive, and then what happened? And then what happened? And then what happened? Can the prosecution ask those questions like that?

[Margaret McClain]

Yes, I believe they can, because they'll have wide latitude to ask him questions like that because One of the quote, why didn't he call 911? Is a big one that we talked about. And you know, the other evidence that came in, too, about the blood stains, I would think he'd want to explain that away. I mean, that was a very heavy day in court today. I was there, sue was there, and it was just. But all of that evidence, you'd think he'd want to explain away. Listen, I panicked. I thought, you know, I have this sentencing in federal court, fraud, and my God, I just panic for what, four days? It's not believable. But what else is he going to say?

[Glenn Jones]

Well, sue, your question does raise a new question for me. Has the defense set themselves up in such a way where almost they have to put their defendant on the witness stand?

[Sue O'Connell]

There has to be a store, a narrative here. We've talked about this all the time in the Karen retrials. There has to be a narrative of what happened, and it has to be believable to the jury. And without a body, without a cause of death, the only person who can tell that story. A story, a narrative, whether you believe it or not, is Brian Walsh. But putting him up on the stand opens up a whole other can of tomatoes is very risky. So either they're left wondering or they're left questioning, I guess, is the issue.

[Glenn Jones]

All right, you two stay there because we have a lot more to discuss. They'll be sticking around. What about the victim? Coming up next, a deeper look at the life of the woman at the center of this case, Ana Walsh. Why Anna's immigrant story was the embodiment of the American dream. Plus, we hear from those who knew her best. You're watching Commonwealth Confidential, the Brian Walsh murder trial.

Days into the murder trial of Brian Walsh, we've learned very little so far about the woman he's charged with murdering his wife, Anna, the mother of his three sons. So tonight we're taking a closer look at her life leading up to her reported disappearance. Back on New Year's Day, 2023, our JC Monahan brings us a closer look.

[JC Monahan]

Ana Walsh was the epitome of the American dream. Born Anna Lubichek 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.

[Margaret McClain]

The kind of person, when you walk into a room, you feel her energy.

[JC Monahan]

Like that's just who she is. This is a loving person, person who loves life. Anna 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.

[Glenn Jones]

She reached out and she said she was gonna.

She was gonna 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.

[JC Monahan]

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.

[Glenn Jones]

We're back now with former prosecutor Margaret McLean and courtroom insider Sue O'. Connell. I just wanted to pick up where that piece left off, Margaret, because so far, we haven't really had a character sketch of Anna Walsh from the witness stand. Certainly in the Karen Reed trial, we learned so much about John o' Keefe and also John and Karen's relationship before we got into the meat of the trial. And I know the prosecutors have presented a lot of data, a lot of forensic evidence. Are they missing out on a balance here, or do you think they're taking the right approach?

[Margaret McClain]

I think they're missing out on a balance. And what I would have done in the opening statement, use the big screen and have her picture up there. There's so many beautiful pictures of Ana and then the one with her kids, you know, blocked out. Why not use that? She's a mother. She was a wife. And then you're going to hear, you know, there's just today you saw that blood evidence. And I think the jurors would be even more upset with Brian Walsh and they'll want to find something where they can convict him on.

[Glenn Jones]

So, sue, is there value in that approach that Margaret is talking about? And if there is, what is that value?

[Sue O'Connell]

Well, it humanizes Anna. It humanizes the victim. And that's really very important to do because otherwise she's just this ethereal entity that people don't get to know. And in any. Anytime you're trying to convince anybody of anything, it helps to have a face to what the issue is. And even in the worst case scenario where your victim is not a perfect person, they always find, because everybody has value and everybody has someone who loves them, find a way to make sure that the jury, the people, can connect to what happened, that this is a real person and there's great loss from her not being here anymore.

[Glenn Jones]

Listen, it's early in the prosecution's case, but when you look at their witness list, it doesn't seem like they've left themselves many opportunities to do exactly what it is that you're talking about. Let's delve deeper now into some interesting testimony. Today we heard from the life insurance agent who sold two policies to Honor Walsh. Take a listen.

[Martin Radner]

And what was Prado Walsh's rating on those policies for the health rating for New York Life Select Preferred? And what number would that be? That's the highest level you can receive. So she was the healthiest.

[JC Monahan]

Correct.

[Glenn Jones]

So according to the research of that policy, Anna Walsh was determined to be as healthy as you possibly can be as an applicant. But the defense revealed in opening statements their entire case rests on her dying suddenly and unexpectedly. Here's some of that theory. You will hear evidence in this case of sudden, unexplained death. You will hear evidence that it is rape.

You will hear evidence that it happens in young people and old people. You will hear evidence it happens in male and female. You will hear evidence that happens during the day and during the night that it happens.

The trained efforts. Now, of course, Honor Walsh's health ranking was determined by an underwriting process, not by a medical doctor.

[Sue O'Connell]

But they have to look at medical records to do that.

[Glenn Jones]

You're absolutely right. And it also made me think of something that you said after opening statements, sue, because it may be that the prosecution was a little bit surprised by this theory from the defense of. But with this witness on the stand, it seems as if they were intentional about trying to poke holes in that theory by presenting this Medical evidence, if we can call it that. Sure.

[Sue O'Connell]

I mean, look at every day, people die from all sorts of things that you don't expect. And without a body, it makes it really difficult to determine what her health status was.

[Glenn Jones]

Right.

[Sue O'Connell]

But at the same time, it's just really a big stretch here that a perfectly healthy human being who just got life insurance and they really don't want to pay out, like their, their whole business model is based on making sure that you stay alive for a good amount of time. It is just really a big stretch here.

[Glenn Jones]

Yeah. Was that, was that a sort of point scored for the prosecution? It felt like it, certainly.

[Margaret McClain]

Yes. I think it was a big point for today for the prosecution. Plus, remember in the opening statement he mentioned the bar class. So she took that bar class. She's healthy and she, people use their common sense as far as life insurance goes and they know that, you know, she's 39 years old. She, she had the highest rating for the life insurance. So she's a healthy person and it debunks Brian Walsh's theory or story.

[Glenn Jones]

All right, Sue Margaret, thank you very much and thank you very much for joining us. Stay with us for continuing coverage of the trial. We have gavel to gavel coverage on our sister station NEC. You can also watch the trial on NBC10, Boston's YouTube channel. You're watching Commonwealth Confidential, the Brian Walsh murder trial.

[Brianna Borghe]

With stays under $250 a night, Verbo makes it easy to celebrate.

[Margaret McClain]

Sweater weather.

[Brianna Borghe]

Book a cabin with leaf views or a home with a fire pit for nights with friends with stays under $250 a night, find a home for your exact needs. Book [e-mail].