Dec. 11, 2025
The Brian Walshe Trial Day 9: “I Will Not Testify” And With That, The Defense Rests
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed A somewhat shocking day in the Brian Walshe trial with the defense announcing not only will Brian Walshe not testify, no one else will either. It’s a decision based on strategic confidence or avoidance of risk, but either way, the defense surprised a number of legal experts who were anticipating at least a few witnesses to take the stand in defense of Walshe. Today’s decision suggests Walshe’s defense team feels good about their ability to sew reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors through their cross examination of the state’s witnesses. Closing arguments are set for tomorrow!
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Thursday, December the eleventh, and the defense rests in the case of Brian Walsh. And no, he did not take the stand. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Roads. Does it sound weird to say that I was I was really hoping he was going to testify.
00:00:23
Speaker 2: Oh, it would have been beyond fascinating from a from a just a personal preference.
00:00:30
Speaker 3: Oh my gosh. Yes, I don't want to hear from him to be disappointed. Yes, but you know what, what he is claiming is so out there that I want to hear him.
00:00:41
Speaker 2: I mean, as a juror. If he here's the deal.
00:00:45
Speaker 3: I hate to say this, but if he is innocent of the charges I and he is saying that he found his wife debt, I want to hear how he found her, where he found her, at what time he found her, what condition she was in, what his thoughts were in the moment. You want to believe someone. It would be so nice to believe that he didn't actually kill his wife.
00:01:11
Speaker 1: I didn't think about that. The way you put it now is that I would give him more of a shot if he would tell me his story. That makes sense.
00:01:19
Speaker 3: In this case, what the defense is claiming that he walked in and found his wife dead and he panicked.
00:01:28
Speaker 2: I could get behind even.
00:01:29
Speaker 3: The gruesomeness of what he did afterwards in the panic of trying to protect his children from losing both parents. I could maybe get behind it. I would want to hear him and hear his story. It's important for me to buy what he's selling to believe what his attorneys are suggesting. It would go a long way to hear him explain.
00:02:00
Speaker 2: It, because it doesn't have an explanation right.
00:02:03
Speaker 1: Now, because first question from the prosecutor is what where's the body? Yes, and that is why he can't get on the stand. What did you do with her body?
00:02:15
Speaker 3: Which implies to me that he is guilty, Because if finding her body didn't support your claims, then I understand why you don't want them to find the body.
00:02:29
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're on fire. Now here's the thing. Can't you prove how she died? Why don't y'all go dig her up? You'll see that I didn't do anything to her. Damn robes. You don't fight her.
00:02:39
Speaker 3: That's a good point, correct, So, yes, there's nothing in her system that showed I poisoned her. There's no marks on what's left of her body that shows I strangle. And if you have that level of confidence that you know you did not murder her, and when they do the autopsy and they can't find how she died, or perhaps they can look at her heart or look at something that could suggest natural causes, then I would be all for that. But for you not wanting them to find the body, and for you not wanting to testify how you found her body, that throws a huge, huge question mark.
00:03:22
Speaker 1: And that is a huge question that I wonder will come up if it'll come up in the jury room twelve individuals. I bet it will. But this is where we are now, folks, and we're giving you a They're putting up this update earlier than we normally would because this is the day that they had in court today. As soon as they got in, the jury was in and out of there because they started the day by the defense putting on their case, which happens to be no case robes, and first things first, they had to find out whether or not Brian Walsh was going to testify and look for whatever reason, legal experts thought that there was still a chance there was still some chance didn't make sense, but sure not. They confirmed it for us this morn.
00:04:06
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was reading everywhere. I was reading legal experts saying they thought he needed.
00:04:12
Speaker 2: To testify or had to testify.
00:04:14
Speaker 3: Obviously, we talked to our gal, Alison Treesel, who is a criminal defense attorney, and she made it very clear, and we know this historically from covering plenty of murder trials, that no defense attorney wants their client to be cross examined, period. So I get it from a criminal defense attorney's standpoint, But it was interesting to see a lot of articles and a lot of legal analysts saying kind of maybe what I was just feeling when I heard he wasn't going to testify. As a juror, that this would be a case if you were innocent, that you would actually want or even maybe need your client to explain.
00:04:52
Speaker 1: There is no one who can tell the story. He is the only person on planet Earth who actually knows what happened to Don Walsh.
00:05:02
Speaker 3: As a juror, are you allowed then, I say, allowed legally to consider it, but as a human you of course are going to consider why then wouldn't he testify?
00:05:11
Speaker 1: You can tell us, maman, we're here now, you can actually get it all out. You know, it's as sitting here with you now in that manner, not thinking as a legal matter, this was the right move, of course, as a juror, and sitting here talking to you, it just doesn't you have to tell us the story. You want us to believe you, but you won't talk to us. I get that, but I don't know if a juror will they say, okay, I get it, it's a legal thing. He couldn't or will they hold it against him?
00:05:39
Speaker 3: And you know what that is why what we've been kind of listening to all morning, the very specific conversations, arguments, discussions about the jury instructions going on right now with the jury not present, because it matters so much as a juror, common sense and as a human Yeah, if no one else can tell the story, and you're claiming you walked in on her and you didn't kill her, that she was just dead, why wouldn't you tell us? So perhaps what the judge instructs the jury to consider and what she instructs them not to consider, will have a huge legal impact, because yeah, common sense, human being, this is a case where you'd be like, I kind of need to hear what you say happened.
00:06:27
Speaker 1: And now we think robes the jury. They got to go home, They got the day today, maybe get some Christmas shopping done.
00:06:36
Speaker 3: She was saying, rest up she is, because who knows how the jury deliberations are gonna go.
00:06:42
Speaker 1: But we thought, okay, the plan was the final closing arguments were supposed to be tomorrow. But as we sit in as of this recording, we're seeing jury them argue over jury instructions and this is very specific stuff. Look, every little word matters, and they go into that jury room what they can and can't consider. So this is it's actually fascinating to watch. Most people might call it boring, and it is fascinating to watch them. Mark, you said it about Tipton. These are them. This is where you don't even realize how good an attorney is.
00:07:13
Speaker 3: Right. So we were listening to Brian Walsh's lead attorney, who we've been talking very highly of Larry Tipton today, but just even specifically asking whether or not they can even recognize or instruct the jury about a potential weapon. And his point was, if you're even going to use the word weapon, you're insinuating there was a murder and we're saying there wasn't a murder, and a knife or a hacksaw.
00:07:39
Speaker 2: Or whatever it was, those were all.
00:07:42
Speaker 3: Posthumous tools used to dismember, which we've already copped to. So if you you even use the word weapon, that can sway the jury. And I thought, wow, we don't. Look, that's not the salacious headlines that we click on or that we talk about, or that jurors are instruct But what's happening behind the scenes and what the jury ultimately gets to hear or consider is so important when it comes to how they decide things, and those are what make like this.
00:08:12
Speaker 2: These are the moments that I think.
00:08:15
Speaker 3: Are what distinguishes between good lawyers and mediocre lawyers. I'm curious, were you surprised when they said the defense rests without calling any witnesses.
00:08:26
Speaker 1: Because I'd read so much that they were going to call that they had a plan to call witnesses. Witnesses, right, that's been the case, so from the very beginning, I thought they were going to put someone on. The question only was whether or not he was going to get up there. Now, I there is a level of confidence they clearly have. They think that either the prosecution hasn't made its case or the defense feels like they made their case through the prosecution witness you which one was it that you said? Yeah, they turned the defense turned it into a defense witness a couple, which.
00:09:03
Speaker 3: Yeah, one of the medical examiner for sure, Yes, and maybe you could even argue jem from yesterday and perhaps even her best friend, who were both forced to admit that Anna Walsh had told them privately that her husband was not a jealous man, and that they told each other everything, that they didn't keep any secrets, that he was aware that she had a crush on the guy.
00:09:34
Speaker 2: Who she was having an affair with.
00:09:36
Speaker 3: All of that takes away from this motive that the prosecution is trying to push for the jury.
00:09:45
Speaker 2: So yes, but.
00:09:49
Speaker 3: It's interesting when you don't call the I Obviously, most notably and recently Diddy in Shawn Commb's trial, we saw Mark Agnefello and team decide not to call any witnesses to rest its case based on what they were able to do in cross examination with the prosecution's witnesses. But it's interesting because this strategy is either a strategic confidence where you're actually signaling to the jury. Yeah, we don't even have to put up any witnesses because we feel good. It's also about avoiding risk. So who could they put up that would make Brian Walsh look or appear to be innocent, that wouldn't cause them some sort of risk.
00:10:31
Speaker 1: From cross You know, when if they were going to put witnesses together, I think they would have called Fast out. They would have called Jim the friend who was there, because these folks ended up saying things or giving testimony that helped them to your point, a medical except they went through and what they need somebody to come up and say good things and what a great man he was. No the people they needed to say, this was a solid relationship from a guy who was not jealous. Now what what's your motive? Money? No, look at this, this is what they did for their kid. That now what they they took away money as a motive.
00:11:11
Speaker 3: He had just bought her a diamond ring that Jem that Jem testified to seeing on New Year's Eve. The clearly that I guess that was a Christmas gift or something. And we saw that he was searching Blue Nile. She's got a big beautiful new diamond ring on her hand on New Year's Eves?
00:11:25
Speaker 1: What's the motive? Money and jealousy? I got questions about those two in listening to this trial.
00:11:33
Speaker 2: Reasonable doubt.
00:11:33
Speaker 1: I have a reasonable enough doubt that those two things were a motive. Now we got to go to what circumstantial evidence.
00:11:41
Speaker 2: There's nobody.
00:11:43
Speaker 1: I actually don't have ropes? Did I sit here with you? I don't have, as a juror a motive for why this guy might have killed his wife. I would like one. They don't have to prove one, but I sure would like to know why.
00:11:58
Speaker 2: But you have an idea why?
00:12:00
Speaker 3: Sitting through this trial, what is your best guess about what his motive would have been.
00:12:09
Speaker 1: My only theory is that he saw something that sent him off on New Year's Eve that he we talked about this, he saw something, say, wait a minute, on this night that was so important to our family, which was Christmas? Right, she missed Christmas morning because she was with her lover.
00:12:26
Speaker 3: We now know she spent Christmas Eve with her lover, William Fastaut Now.
00:12:30
Speaker 1: If I find that out on New Year's Eve about to say this celebration is something like that? He could have snapped. But as a juror, that's my theory, the best I can come up with based on what you all have given me.
00:12:44
Speaker 3: I wonder if in closing arguments, the prosecution is going to finally wrap up this testimony because we have been complaining throughout the trial that it didn't feel as though there was a Perry Mason moment or an aha, or let me put this all together for you jury, because what you just heard there is exactly why Brian Walsh killed his wife.
00:13:08
Speaker 1: Nope, some of the biggest Perry Mason moments happened during opening arguments from the defense, like the moments where I feel like things mic drops or things that it all came from the defense, all came from the defense. You one hundred percent right, So, folks, this seems in a trial this high profile, with stakes this high, that the defense wouldn't put on a defense if you will. But again, we talked about a recent example. We're going to explain why some say, including dear friends of ours, dear legal friends of ours, say there's a sign here and it's not a good one for the prosecution. Stay here, all right, we continue Now. The Brian Walsh trial was supposed to Robes go three plus weeks. We're at the end of week two.
00:14:12
Speaker 2: They even said four and a half weeks. At one point.
00:14:15
Speaker 1: It seems like everybody wants to be home for Christmas. But they are wrapping this up. Closing arguments are expected tomorrow. Rose We followed, I can't imagine what we'd be doing. We would just have to do a NonStop loop of podcasts. If we had cameras in the courtroom for that Diddy trial, Oh my god, I.
00:14:35
Speaker 3: Mean, I don't think we would have done anything this summer. We wouldn't have gone anywhere, we wouldn't have seen friends. We probably wouldn't have even gone out to lunch if.
00:14:43
Speaker 1: They had cameras, And we damn near still were locked inside just reading through the people who were in the courtroom.
00:14:50
Speaker 2: Do you remember we went to my parents' home.
00:14:52
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, right when the Ddty trial was ending, and we didn't know it at the time. When we booked the flights, we were going to a Georgia and we're like, Mom, Dad, so sorry, but we're literally going to be on our computers all damn day.
00:15:07
Speaker 2: And we but it was exciting.
00:15:08
Speaker 3: We were watching basically our computers, reading through Yes, reading through the reporters who were in the courtroom and then reacting to it in real time. It was but yes, if you had had cameras in the court, that would have been a whole other level.
00:15:26
Speaker 1: So that's what we have. And we thought this was going to be a longer trial. It is wrapping up already now jury deliberations. Who knows how long those will go. But this thing has absolutely gone quickly. And part of that robes is that the defense decided not to put on any witnesses. Now, I was shocked when that happened at the Diddy trial, and this I was too recent stuff now to where I get it. So in hearing this, I'm not as shocked, But it sends a signal about what the defense it feels about its case.
00:16:01
Speaker 3: It basically sends the signal that they're confident, especially that before the trial started they suggested, or at least you have to kind of put out what you think your witness list may or may not be, so that the other side can look and prepare. And they had eight people potentially on their witness list, and when they decided not to call anyone, certainly, I mean I have to say I was shocked at that notion.
00:16:26
Speaker 2: And I also I wasn't shocked that he didn't testify.
00:16:29
Speaker 1: Though, because wait, which one we're talking about.
00:16:31
Speaker 2: Well, in this case, in the Brian Walsh case, that's fair, that's fair.
00:16:35
Speaker 3: I was in both cases. I was not shocked that either one did not take the stand. And in Brian Walsh's case, his biggest obstacle was that he has this other conviction hanging over his head, and so you've got a prior bad act first of all, that he has to now be cross examined about, which would question his morality, question his ethics, question, all of these things that would play into whether or not a juror thought, this is a good guy who just accidentally walked in on his wife who unexplained death scared the hell out of him. But that wouldn't have been good. But obviously, more importantly, it's the body issue. The first question that Brian Walsh would have been asked under cross examination.
00:17:15
Speaker 1: Is where is your wife's body? What did you do with her body? That's it, And there's going to be a row of police officers in the back of that courtroom waiting to hear and as soon as he reveals it they're going to haul ass out of there, and they're going to find that body immediately. They're going to take it to a medical examiner's office and determine how that woman died. And because of that robes it was impossible. We were holding out hope. But because when Allison brought that up to us, Okay.
00:17:50
Speaker 3: That's the first question that he's not going to be willing to answer, which to me would signify guilt. But I digress. I do think it's interesting. This surprised me. I decided to google basically what the outcomes were of defendants who decided to testify on their own behalf and those who didn't. A Cornell Law review turns out it doesn't probably even matter that much. Yeah, seventy seven percent of defendants who testified on their own behalf were convicted. Seventy two percent of those who did not testify on their own behalf were convicted. So there's a five percent difference between defending yourself on the stand or not.
00:18:35
Speaker 1: Generally speaking, most people that go to trial are guilty.
00:18:39
Speaker 2: So that is where we're starting from. Okay, that is true.
00:18:42
Speaker 3: For you to get to the level at which you are now in trial, accused of murder, chances are, statistically speaking, you're probably guilty. There obviously are innocent people who are taken to trial and even convicted, for sure.
00:18:59
Speaker 2: We know that, we talk about it all the time.
00:19:02
Speaker 3: But yes, when you get to that point, it's likely you are dealing with trying to say you're not guilty when you actually are.
00:19:13
Speaker 1: All right, well, folks, as we wrap up here, we are still watching as they continue with jury instructions. They're arguing over jury instructions rooms. But as we wrap up here, the longer this goes, this is going to push maybe the schedule back. She says she wanted to give them all afternoon right to work on their closing arguments, so she wanted to not be doing this this afternoon. We'll see how long this has to go.
00:19:36
Speaker 3: Now, Yes, because you know, it's curious. Obviously the defense knew. I wonder at what point they made their decision not to call any witnesses. I wonder at what point Brian Walsh decided not to testify. It's interesting because did he know it from the beginning. Was he basing it off of how the trial went?
00:19:56
Speaker 2: That's curious.
00:19:56
Speaker 3: So have they had time to prepare their closing are you I'm thinking, was the prosecution anticipating this?
00:20:03
Speaker 2: Did they have to.
00:20:03
Speaker 3: Say, you know, what could be that he doesn't testify, they don't bring anyone up onto the witness stand, and we got to be ready to go on Friday.
00:20:11
Speaker 2: I'm curious.
00:20:12
Speaker 3: I don't know how you had your best They have been calling up their witnesses and having to be ready for all of that testimony and all of that. Did they even have the correct amount of time to get ready for closing arguments? I don't know how it works, but it seems like now, all of a sudden, it's like, holy crap, we got to get our shit together by tomorrow ret row. But maybe that's just me.
00:20:37
Speaker 1: You know what you said, if he knew ahead of time, if Brian wash maybe knew, and I'll remind you of it. This was always will stand out to me. At the end of the Ditty trial, we text a friend of ours, former federal prosecutor, and say, hey, what do you make of it that Diddy's defense team didn't call any witnesses. She immediately responded, because they think they've already won, so if they are comfortable, they would do anything that they think would help their case. They think they put on the best case they have without calling a single witness. I am, I am so curious to see what this jury does.
00:21:19
Speaker 3: You know what's so interesting is that even when you follow a trial like we have from start to finish, there have still been plenty of shocking outcomes where you've seen it and you think, oh, that person's so guilty, and the jury comes back Yep, not guilty. It happens all the time. I'm curious. I am so fascinated by how long the jury will deliberate, especially with a Christmas deadline hanging over their heads and Hanikah as well. So it's like, you know, depending on who that we don't even know. Do we even know what the Duram make up? I haven't either, But it is one of those trials where I actually can say, having sat through it, I know what I feel, but I have no idea what this jury is going to come back with.
00:22:13
Speaker 2: Do you have a sense of what you think may happen?
00:22:16
Speaker 1: No, I'm gonna give it some more thought and we'll hop back on here and give you really our opinions of what. And we have watched this very closely, almost every single moment of testimony in this trial, so we will talk about it more. But folks, we always appreciate you spending some time here with us as we continue to update you about this Brian Walsh trial. Again, Closing arguments are scheduled now for Tomorrow Friday for my dear Amy. We're welcome. TJ. Holmes talk to y'll soon
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Thursday, December the eleventh, and the defense rests in the case of Brian Walsh. And no, he did not take the stand. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Roads. Does it sound weird to say that I was I was really hoping he was going to testify.
00:00:23
Speaker 2: Oh, it would have been beyond fascinating from a from a just a personal preference.
00:00:30
Speaker 3: Oh my gosh. Yes, I don't want to hear from him to be disappointed. Yes, but you know what, what he is claiming is so out there that I want to hear him.
00:00:41
Speaker 2: I mean, as a juror. If he here's the deal.
00:00:45
Speaker 3: I hate to say this, but if he is innocent of the charges I and he is saying that he found his wife debt, I want to hear how he found her, where he found her, at what time he found her, what condition she was in, what his thoughts were in the moment. You want to believe someone. It would be so nice to believe that he didn't actually kill his wife.
00:01:11
Speaker 1: I didn't think about that. The way you put it now is that I would give him more of a shot if he would tell me his story. That makes sense.
00:01:19
Speaker 3: In this case, what the defense is claiming that he walked in and found his wife dead and he panicked.
00:01:28
Speaker 2: I could get behind even.
00:01:29
Speaker 3: The gruesomeness of what he did afterwards in the panic of trying to protect his children from losing both parents. I could maybe get behind it. I would want to hear him and hear his story. It's important for me to buy what he's selling to believe what his attorneys are suggesting. It would go a long way to hear him explain.
00:02:00
Speaker 2: It, because it doesn't have an explanation right.
00:02:03
Speaker 1: Now, because first question from the prosecutor is what where's the body? Yes, and that is why he can't get on the stand. What did you do with her body?
00:02:15
Speaker 3: Which implies to me that he is guilty, Because if finding her body didn't support your claims, then I understand why you don't want them to find the body.
00:02:29
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're on fire. Now here's the thing. Can't you prove how she died? Why don't y'all go dig her up? You'll see that I didn't do anything to her. Damn robes. You don't fight her.
00:02:39
Speaker 3: That's a good point, correct, So, yes, there's nothing in her system that showed I poisoned her. There's no marks on what's left of her body that shows I strangle. And if you have that level of confidence that you know you did not murder her, and when they do the autopsy and they can't find how she died, or perhaps they can look at her heart or look at something that could suggest natural causes, then I would be all for that. But for you not wanting them to find the body, and for you not wanting to testify how you found her body, that throws a huge, huge question mark.
00:03:22
Speaker 1: And that is a huge question that I wonder will come up if it'll come up in the jury room twelve individuals. I bet it will. But this is where we are now, folks, and we're giving you a They're putting up this update earlier than we normally would because this is the day that they had in court today. As soon as they got in, the jury was in and out of there because they started the day by the defense putting on their case, which happens to be no case robes, and first things first, they had to find out whether or not Brian Walsh was going to testify and look for whatever reason, legal experts thought that there was still a chance there was still some chance didn't make sense, but sure not. They confirmed it for us this morn.
00:04:06
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was reading everywhere. I was reading legal experts saying they thought he needed.
00:04:12
Speaker 2: To testify or had to testify.
00:04:14
Speaker 3: Obviously, we talked to our gal, Alison Treesel, who is a criminal defense attorney, and she made it very clear, and we know this historically from covering plenty of murder trials, that no defense attorney wants their client to be cross examined, period. So I get it from a criminal defense attorney's standpoint, But it was interesting to see a lot of articles and a lot of legal analysts saying kind of maybe what I was just feeling when I heard he wasn't going to testify. As a juror, that this would be a case if you were innocent, that you would actually want or even maybe need your client to explain.
00:04:52
Speaker 1: There is no one who can tell the story. He is the only person on planet Earth who actually knows what happened to Don Walsh.
00:05:02
Speaker 3: As a juror, are you allowed then, I say, allowed legally to consider it, but as a human you of course are going to consider why then wouldn't he testify?
00:05:11
Speaker 1: You can tell us, maman, we're here now, you can actually get it all out. You know, it's as sitting here with you now in that manner, not thinking as a legal matter, this was the right move, of course, as a juror, and sitting here talking to you, it just doesn't you have to tell us the story. You want us to believe you, but you won't talk to us. I get that, but I don't know if a juror will they say, okay, I get it, it's a legal thing. He couldn't or will they hold it against him?
00:05:39
Speaker 3: And you know what that is why what we've been kind of listening to all morning, the very specific conversations, arguments, discussions about the jury instructions going on right now with the jury not present, because it matters so much as a juror, common sense and as a human Yeah, if no one else can tell the story, and you're claiming you walked in on her and you didn't kill her, that she was just dead, why wouldn't you tell us? So perhaps what the judge instructs the jury to consider and what she instructs them not to consider, will have a huge legal impact, because yeah, common sense, human being, this is a case where you'd be like, I kind of need to hear what you say happened.
00:06:27
Speaker 1: And now we think robes the jury. They got to go home, They got the day today, maybe get some Christmas shopping done.
00:06:36
Speaker 3: She was saying, rest up she is, because who knows how the jury deliberations are gonna go.
00:06:42
Speaker 1: But we thought, okay, the plan was the final closing arguments were supposed to be tomorrow. But as we sit in as of this recording, we're seeing jury them argue over jury instructions and this is very specific stuff. Look, every little word matters, and they go into that jury room what they can and can't consider. So this is it's actually fascinating to watch. Most people might call it boring, and it is fascinating to watch them. Mark, you said it about Tipton. These are them. This is where you don't even realize how good an attorney is.
00:07:13
Speaker 3: Right. So we were listening to Brian Walsh's lead attorney, who we've been talking very highly of Larry Tipton today, but just even specifically asking whether or not they can even recognize or instruct the jury about a potential weapon. And his point was, if you're even going to use the word weapon, you're insinuating there was a murder and we're saying there wasn't a murder, and a knife or a hacksaw.
00:07:39
Speaker 2: Or whatever it was, those were all.
00:07:42
Speaker 3: Posthumous tools used to dismember, which we've already copped to. So if you you even use the word weapon, that can sway the jury. And I thought, wow, we don't. Look, that's not the salacious headlines that we click on or that we talk about, or that jurors are instruct But what's happening behind the scenes and what the jury ultimately gets to hear or consider is so important when it comes to how they decide things, and those are what make like this.
00:08:12
Speaker 2: These are the moments that I think.
00:08:15
Speaker 3: Are what distinguishes between good lawyers and mediocre lawyers. I'm curious, were you surprised when they said the defense rests without calling any witnesses.
00:08:26
Speaker 1: Because I'd read so much that they were going to call that they had a plan to call witnesses. Witnesses, right, that's been the case, so from the very beginning, I thought they were going to put someone on. The question only was whether or not he was going to get up there. Now, I there is a level of confidence they clearly have. They think that either the prosecution hasn't made its case or the defense feels like they made their case through the prosecution witness you which one was it that you said? Yeah, they turned the defense turned it into a defense witness a couple, which.
00:09:03
Speaker 3: Yeah, one of the medical examiner for sure, Yes, and maybe you could even argue jem from yesterday and perhaps even her best friend, who were both forced to admit that Anna Walsh had told them privately that her husband was not a jealous man, and that they told each other everything, that they didn't keep any secrets, that he was aware that she had a crush on the guy.
00:09:34
Speaker 2: Who she was having an affair with.
00:09:36
Speaker 3: All of that takes away from this motive that the prosecution is trying to push for the jury.
00:09:45
Speaker 2: So yes, but.
00:09:49
Speaker 3: It's interesting when you don't call the I Obviously, most notably and recently Diddy in Shawn Commb's trial, we saw Mark Agnefello and team decide not to call any witnesses to rest its case based on what they were able to do in cross examination with the prosecution's witnesses. But it's interesting because this strategy is either a strategic confidence where you're actually signaling to the jury. Yeah, we don't even have to put up any witnesses because we feel good. It's also about avoiding risk. So who could they put up that would make Brian Walsh look or appear to be innocent, that wouldn't cause them some sort of risk.
00:10:31
Speaker 1: From cross You know, when if they were going to put witnesses together, I think they would have called Fast out. They would have called Jim the friend who was there, because these folks ended up saying things or giving testimony that helped them to your point, a medical except they went through and what they need somebody to come up and say good things and what a great man he was. No the people they needed to say, this was a solid relationship from a guy who was not jealous. Now what what's your motive? Money? No, look at this, this is what they did for their kid. That now what they they took away money as a motive.
00:11:11
Speaker 3: He had just bought her a diamond ring that Jem that Jem testified to seeing on New Year's Eve. The clearly that I guess that was a Christmas gift or something. And we saw that he was searching Blue Nile. She's got a big beautiful new diamond ring on her hand on New Year's Eves?
00:11:25
Speaker 1: What's the motive? Money and jealousy? I got questions about those two in listening to this trial.
00:11:33
Speaker 2: Reasonable doubt.
00:11:33
Speaker 1: I have a reasonable enough doubt that those two things were a motive. Now we got to go to what circumstantial evidence.
00:11:41
Speaker 2: There's nobody.
00:11:43
Speaker 1: I actually don't have ropes? Did I sit here with you? I don't have, as a juror a motive for why this guy might have killed his wife. I would like one. They don't have to prove one, but I sure would like to know why.
00:11:58
Speaker 2: But you have an idea why?
00:12:00
Speaker 3: Sitting through this trial, what is your best guess about what his motive would have been.
00:12:09
Speaker 1: My only theory is that he saw something that sent him off on New Year's Eve that he we talked about this, he saw something, say, wait a minute, on this night that was so important to our family, which was Christmas? Right, she missed Christmas morning because she was with her lover.
00:12:26
Speaker 3: We now know she spent Christmas Eve with her lover, William Fastaut Now.
00:12:30
Speaker 1: If I find that out on New Year's Eve about to say this celebration is something like that? He could have snapped. But as a juror, that's my theory, the best I can come up with based on what you all have given me.
00:12:44
Speaker 3: I wonder if in closing arguments, the prosecution is going to finally wrap up this testimony because we have been complaining throughout the trial that it didn't feel as though there was a Perry Mason moment or an aha, or let me put this all together for you jury, because what you just heard there is exactly why Brian Walsh killed his wife.
00:13:08
Speaker 1: Nope, some of the biggest Perry Mason moments happened during opening arguments from the defense, like the moments where I feel like things mic drops or things that it all came from the defense, all came from the defense. You one hundred percent right, So, folks, this seems in a trial this high profile, with stakes this high, that the defense wouldn't put on a defense if you will. But again, we talked about a recent example. We're going to explain why some say, including dear friends of ours, dear legal friends of ours, say there's a sign here and it's not a good one for the prosecution. Stay here, all right, we continue Now. The Brian Walsh trial was supposed to Robes go three plus weeks. We're at the end of week two.
00:14:12
Speaker 2: They even said four and a half weeks. At one point.
00:14:15
Speaker 1: It seems like everybody wants to be home for Christmas. But they are wrapping this up. Closing arguments are expected tomorrow. Rose We followed, I can't imagine what we'd be doing. We would just have to do a NonStop loop of podcasts. If we had cameras in the courtroom for that Diddy trial, Oh my god, I.
00:14:35
Speaker 3: Mean, I don't think we would have done anything this summer. We wouldn't have gone anywhere, we wouldn't have seen friends. We probably wouldn't have even gone out to lunch if.
00:14:43
Speaker 1: They had cameras, And we damn near still were locked inside just reading through the people who were in the courtroom.
00:14:50
Speaker 2: Do you remember we went to my parents' home.
00:14:52
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, right when the Ddty trial was ending, and we didn't know it at the time. When we booked the flights, we were going to a Georgia and we're like, Mom, Dad, so sorry, but we're literally going to be on our computers all damn day.
00:15:07
Speaker 2: And we but it was exciting.
00:15:08
Speaker 3: We were watching basically our computers, reading through Yes, reading through the reporters who were in the courtroom and then reacting to it in real time. It was but yes, if you had had cameras in the court, that would have been a whole other level.
00:15:26
Speaker 1: So that's what we have. And we thought this was going to be a longer trial. It is wrapping up already now jury deliberations. Who knows how long those will go. But this thing has absolutely gone quickly. And part of that robes is that the defense decided not to put on any witnesses. Now, I was shocked when that happened at the Diddy trial, and this I was too recent stuff now to where I get it. So in hearing this, I'm not as shocked, But it sends a signal about what the defense it feels about its case.
00:16:01
Speaker 3: It basically sends the signal that they're confident, especially that before the trial started they suggested, or at least you have to kind of put out what you think your witness list may or may not be, so that the other side can look and prepare. And they had eight people potentially on their witness list, and when they decided not to call anyone, certainly, I mean I have to say I was shocked at that notion.
00:16:26
Speaker 2: And I also I wasn't shocked that he didn't testify.
00:16:29
Speaker 1: Though, because wait, which one we're talking about.
00:16:31
Speaker 2: Well, in this case, in the Brian Walsh case, that's fair, that's fair.
00:16:35
Speaker 3: I was in both cases. I was not shocked that either one did not take the stand. And in Brian Walsh's case, his biggest obstacle was that he has this other conviction hanging over his head, and so you've got a prior bad act first of all, that he has to now be cross examined about, which would question his morality, question his ethics, question, all of these things that would play into whether or not a juror thought, this is a good guy who just accidentally walked in on his wife who unexplained death scared the hell out of him. But that wouldn't have been good. But obviously, more importantly, it's the body issue. The first question that Brian Walsh would have been asked under cross examination.
00:17:15
Speaker 1: Is where is your wife's body? What did you do with her body? That's it, And there's going to be a row of police officers in the back of that courtroom waiting to hear and as soon as he reveals it they're going to haul ass out of there, and they're going to find that body immediately. They're going to take it to a medical examiner's office and determine how that woman died. And because of that robes it was impossible. We were holding out hope. But because when Allison brought that up to us, Okay.
00:17:50
Speaker 3: That's the first question that he's not going to be willing to answer, which to me would signify guilt. But I digress. I do think it's interesting. This surprised me. I decided to google basically what the outcomes were of defendants who decided to testify on their own behalf and those who didn't. A Cornell Law review turns out it doesn't probably even matter that much. Yeah, seventy seven percent of defendants who testified on their own behalf were convicted. Seventy two percent of those who did not testify on their own behalf were convicted. So there's a five percent difference between defending yourself on the stand or not.
00:18:35
Speaker 1: Generally speaking, most people that go to trial are guilty.
00:18:39
Speaker 2: So that is where we're starting from. Okay, that is true.
00:18:42
Speaker 3: For you to get to the level at which you are now in trial, accused of murder, chances are, statistically speaking, you're probably guilty. There obviously are innocent people who are taken to trial and even convicted, for sure.
00:18:59
Speaker 2: We know that, we talk about it all the time.
00:19:02
Speaker 3: But yes, when you get to that point, it's likely you are dealing with trying to say you're not guilty when you actually are.
00:19:13
Speaker 1: All right, well, folks, as we wrap up here, we are still watching as they continue with jury instructions. They're arguing over jury instructions rooms. But as we wrap up here, the longer this goes, this is going to push maybe the schedule back. She says she wanted to give them all afternoon right to work on their closing arguments, so she wanted to not be doing this this afternoon. We'll see how long this has to go.
00:19:36
Speaker 3: Now, Yes, because you know, it's curious. Obviously the defense knew. I wonder at what point they made their decision not to call any witnesses. I wonder at what point Brian Walsh decided not to testify. It's interesting because did he know it from the beginning. Was he basing it off of how the trial went?
00:19:56
Speaker 2: That's curious.
00:19:56
Speaker 3: So have they had time to prepare their closing are you I'm thinking, was the prosecution anticipating this?
00:20:03
Speaker 2: Did they have to.
00:20:03
Speaker 3: Say, you know, what could be that he doesn't testify, they don't bring anyone up onto the witness stand, and we got to be ready to go on Friday.
00:20:11
Speaker 2: I'm curious.
00:20:12
Speaker 3: I don't know how you had your best They have been calling up their witnesses and having to be ready for all of that testimony and all of that. Did they even have the correct amount of time to get ready for closing arguments? I don't know how it works, but it seems like now, all of a sudden, it's like, holy crap, we got to get our shit together by tomorrow ret row. But maybe that's just me.
00:20:37
Speaker 1: You know what you said, if he knew ahead of time, if Brian wash maybe knew, and I'll remind you of it. This was always will stand out to me. At the end of the Ditty trial, we text a friend of ours, former federal prosecutor, and say, hey, what do you make of it that Diddy's defense team didn't call any witnesses. She immediately responded, because they think they've already won, so if they are comfortable, they would do anything that they think would help their case. They think they put on the best case they have without calling a single witness. I am, I am so curious to see what this jury does.
00:21:19
Speaker 3: You know what's so interesting is that even when you follow a trial like we have from start to finish, there have still been plenty of shocking outcomes where you've seen it and you think, oh, that person's so guilty, and the jury comes back Yep, not guilty. It happens all the time. I'm curious. I am so fascinated by how long the jury will deliberate, especially with a Christmas deadline hanging over their heads and Hanikah as well. So it's like, you know, depending on who that we don't even know. Do we even know what the Duram make up? I haven't either, But it is one of those trials where I actually can say, having sat through it, I know what I feel, but I have no idea what this jury is going to come back with.
00:22:13
Speaker 2: Do you have a sense of what you think may happen?
00:22:16
Speaker 1: No, I'm gonna give it some more thought and we'll hop back on here and give you really our opinions of what. And we have watched this very closely, almost every single moment of testimony in this trial, so we will talk about it more. But folks, we always appreciate you spending some time here with us as we continue to update you about this Brian Walsh trial. Again, Closing arguments are scheduled now for Tomorrow Friday for my dear Amy. We're welcome. TJ. Holmes talk to y'll soon