December 1, 2025, The high-profile murder trial of Brian Walshe, accused of killing his wife, Ana, whose body has never been found, got underway on Monday morning with opening statements. Full Transcript of the Trial

TRIAL DAY 1 – Full Transcript

Opening Statements and Initial Witness TestimonyDay 1 presented the differing accounts. The State outlined a planned killing with subsequent cleanup, digital searches, and trash disposal. The Defense claimed an unexplained sudden death caused panic.The initial witnesses verified the early search for Ana, highlighted Brian’s inconsistent statements, and described the workplace events leading to the missing person report.

STATE OPENING SUMMARY

Ana’s employer in Washington DC noticed her unexplained absence on January 3 and 4. Colleagues contacted Brian, who said Ana had left for a work emergency on January 1. This prompted a chain of events leading to DC security entering Ana’s townhouse and finding no sign she ever arrived.

The State outlined:

• Ana was the main provider for her family.
• She traveled frequently to Washington DC.
• She had begun a relationship with William Fastow.
• She was planning a future that did not include the financial and legal burdens created by Brian.
• Digital data showed she stopped communicating around 3 a.m. on January 1.
• Brian’s devices showed searches relating to body disposal, decomposition, and murder charges without a body.
• Surveillance captured him buying cleaning supplies and visiting dumpsters.
• Evidence recovered from dumpsters contained Ana’s DNA, her belongings, and tools with blood.

DEFENSE OPENING SUMMARY

The Defense argued:

• Ana died suddenly in her sleep.
• Brian panicked due to his pending fraud case.
• He tried to manage the situation to avoid losing his children.
• The marriage was intact.
• There was no financial motive.
• Brian did not know about Ana’s affair.

WITNESS: Sergeant Harrison Schmidt

Schmidt interviewed Brian on January 4 and documented:

• Brian claimed Ana left between 6 and 7 a.m. for a flight.
• No evidence supported this.
• The house showed unusual elements such as a hole in the bedroom ceiling and plastic lining in the Volvo.
• Brian provided multiple shifting timelines about errands, his mother’s health, and the children’s activities.
• A child handed police Ana’s glasses and an iPad during the interview, contradicting Brian’s statements about her belongings.

WITNESS: Nicholas Guarino

Guarino’s January 6 interview revealed more inconsistencies:

• Brian claimed Ana regularly went silent during travel.
• He said he ran errands on January 1, yet surveillance did not confirm these trips.
• The route he described to his mother’s house could not be validated.

WITNESS: DC Security Officers and HR Personnel

They testified:

• Ana never arrived at her DC townhouse.
• Her car, keys, and bags were not present.
• There were no signs of travel on January 1.

WITNESS: Crime Scene Services

They processed:

• Blood staining in the basement.
• A damaged knife with red brown staining.
• Debris collected from vacuuming.
• Plastic sheets lining the rear of the Volvo.

WITNESS: Digital Forensics

January 1 searches included:

• Best way to dispose of a body
• How long DNA lasts
• How to clean blood
• Can you throw away body parts
• Can you be charged with murder without a body

January 2 searches included:

• How to dismember a body
• How long does it take to get rid of a body smell
• How long does Lowe’s keep surveillance footage

WITNESS: Transfer Station Evidence Introduction by Gould

Recovered items included:

• Green boots
• Black jacket with stains
• Purse, wallet, keys
• Towels, tissues, bathrobe
• Gray slippers with hairs
• Rugs and carpet pieces
• Tyvek suit and goggles
• Hydrogen peroxide, blue sheet
• Hammer, snips, shears
• Hatchet and hacksaw with staining
• Tarp, insulation, protective booties
• Ana’s COVID vaccine card
• Many items contained Ana’s DNA.

Trial Day 1. Exhibits published and discussed

• Exhibit 1 (photo, file referenced as SLD7068).
• Exhibit 3 (photo, file referenced as 7175).
• Exhibits 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, all described in-court as photographs while walking through areas of the home (multiple file numbers referenced).

Jurors on Tuesday heard more of Brian Walshe’s first interview with Cohasset police, which took place on Jan. 7, 2023. The defendant was asked if he had injured his wife. “No, I would never do that,” Walshe said in the recording. Full Trial Transcript

Brian Walshe Trial Day 2

Day 2 continued the Commonwealth’s case with testimony from officers and forensic investigators who built the first timeline of Ana’s disappearance. The day focused heavily on early police interactions with Brian, the first walkthrough of the house, the discovery of a damaged knife, and a growing list of inconsistencies in Brian’s account.

Witness: Sergeant Harrison Schmidt (continued)

Schmidt resumed testimony with a detailed review of January 1 through January 3 as provided by Brian.

Brian claimed the following for January 1, 2023:

• He prepared French toast for the children at 7:30 a.m.
• He cleaned up from the previous night.
• He showered and ran errands for milk and juice.
• He visited his mother.
• He went to Whole Foods and CVS.
• He said he stayed home for the remainder of the day.
• He may have stopped at Walgreens for baseball cards.
• His mother needed cleaning supplies, gloves, and medications.
• He frequently got lost driving to Swampscott.
• He did not purchase gas that day.
• His mother recently had cataract surgery.
• He may have taken one son for ice cream on January 2.

During interviews, Brian described Ana as exhausted, pale, and overwhelmed by work. He said she had a cancer scare and family stress.

Schmidt also testified:

• He did not enter the attic during the first search.
• The backyard pool was green and cloudy without a cover.
• Plastic sheeting lined the back of the Volvo.

Witness: Officer Nicholas Guarino

Guarino conducted the second interview with Brian on January 6, 2023. Guarino testified that Brian explained:

• Ana kept a second phone related to her DC job.
• She maintained a Metrocard and left belongings in her DC office.
• She had a pattern of not responding while traveling and this did not alarm him.

Brian provided this version of January 1:

• He drove a different route to his mother’s house and became lost.
• He bought goods for his mother at CVS and Whole Foods.
• He returned home and stayed in the house.
• He threw out trash on January 2 or 3.

Guarino observed inconsistencies including:

• A lack of surveillance corroborating his stated route.
• Inconsistent explanations about when he last saw Ana.
• Multiple errands that did not match store surveillance.
• Missing time gaps.

Witness: Sergeant Foley

Foley described Ana’s townhouse search in Washington, D.C. He testified:

• The home was locked and undisturbed.
• No bags or suitcases were missing.
• No signs Ana had returned on January 1.

This contradicted Brian’s claims that Ana flew back to DC early that morning.

Witness: Detective Patrick Rearton

Rearton reviewed property and technology belonging to Ana. He testified:

• Ana kept work files in DC, not Massachusetts.
• Nothing suggested she returned to DC after December 30.
• Cell activity supported the conclusion she never left Cohasset after arriving home.

Witness: Lieutenant Thomas Menino

Menino described the January 4 missing person report. He testified:

• The report was filed after Brian contacted Ana’s workplace.
• The timeline Brian provided did not match employer records.
• Early inconsistencies caused concern.

Witness: Gregory Lowrance

Lowrance focused on early digital evidence. He testified:

• Ana’s last meaningful phone activity was around 3 a.m. on January 1.
• There were no rideshare records.
• No flight reservations were booked.
• All data indicated Ana never left the Cohasset home.

Witness: Detective Seth Fox

Fox described the January 8 search. He located:

• The broken knife with red brown staining.
• A tarp and other materials near the rear property.

Witness: Alyssa Wimmer

HR Specialist at Tishman Speyer. Wimmer testified:

• Ana was extremely responsive.
• Silence from Ana on January 1 through 3 was completely outside her behavior.
• Team members quickly grew suspicious.

Witness: Michael Kenyon. Kenyon testified and described the early corporate response.

• The DC office attempted to locate Ana.
• Multiple attempts failed.
• Her absence was immediately unusual.

Witness: Amy Waterman. Waterman described Ana’s workplace stress. She testified:

• Ana was reliable and structured.
• She had never missed work without communication.

Witness: Peter Capozzoli. Capozzoli conducted early interviews and preserved surveillance. He testified:

• His early review of Cohasset surveillance found no sign of Ana leaving by vehicle.
• The home’s neighborhood cameras showed no activity matching Brian’s claims.

Witness: Detective Mark Selvaggi. Selvaggi introduced digital extractions from devices in the home. He testified:

• Search histories supporting the Commonwealth’s timeline began appearing.
• These would later expand into dozens of searches on body disposal and DNA removal.

Witness: Crime Lab Specialist Davis Gould. Gould introduced the trash bag evidence. He testified:

• Multiple bags were recovered from a transfer station.
• Items included boots, jackets, towels, rugs, a Tyvek suit, goggles, tools, hatchet, hacksaw, hammer, snips, gloves, a blue sheet, insulation, and Ana’s vaccination card.
• Many samples had red brown stains later confirmed to contain Ana’s DNA.
• Some had mixed DNA from Ana and Brian.

Trial Day 2. Exhibits published and discussed

• Exhibit 31 (photo, described as already in evidence).
• Exhibit 34 (photo 7335, tied to the door and childproof latch testimony).
• Exhibits 44, 47 (recognized and discussed as previously marked).
• Exhibit 48 (file 7697).
• Exhibit 49 (file 7701).
• Exhibit 50 (file HAS7025).
• Exhibit 51 (file 6810).
• Day 2 also featured a court exhibit image set of Brian Walshe’s alleged Google searches, as covered in local reporting.

Day 3 of Brian Walshe trial reveals clothes found in dumpster matching Ana Walshe’s · Murder trial continues for Brian Walshe

Brian Walshe Trial Day 3 – Full Transcript

Day 3 expanded the forensic and digital timeline, connecting Brian’s movements, purchases, and disposal activity to the evidence recovered in Peabody. The Commonwealth deepened the digital reconstruction supporting its timeline of January 1 through January 3.

Additional Forensic Testimony Forensic analysts testified that:

• Red brown stains on multiple items were blood.
• Several stains matched Ana through DNA.
• Tool surfaces showed patterns consistent with recent use.
• Mixed DNA profiles were found on certain tools.

Digital Timeline Reconstruction. Analysts compared:

• Brian’s errands
• Surveillance videos
• Purchases
• Phone pings
• Movement gaps

Analyst conclusion:

• Brian left the house multiple times on January 1 and January 2, contrary to statements he gave police.
• Travel patterns matched location of dumpsters later found to contain Ana’s belongings.

Witness: Additional Representatives from Tishman Speyer

• Ana Never arrived for work on January 3.
• Ana Had no scheduled emergency on January 1.
• Did not communicate with anyone after 3 a.m. on January 1.

Messages from coworkers showed:

• Deep concern when Ana failed to appear.
• Repeated attempts to contact her.
• Escalation to security staff.

Witness: Search specialists

• Brian’s visits to Peabody transfer station area lined up exactly with disposal times.
• Trash bags were traced to dumpsters associated with Brian’s movements.

Exhibits shown included:

• Screenshots of Google searches
• Digital timelines from laptop and phone
• Travel and flight record graphics

Jurors in the Brian Walshe murder trial heard testimony from a man involved in an affair with Ana Walshe before her death.

Relationships, Communications, Digital Messaging, and Final Phone Activity – Full Transcript

Day 4 delivered the most personal testimony of the trial so far. Witnesses described Ana’s emotional state, her plans, her romantic relationship with Fastow, and her final communications.

WITNESS: William Fastow

• Meeting Ana in early 2022.
• Their romantic relationship beginning months later.
• Frequent communication and time spent together.
• Ana’s frustration with Brian’s ongoing legal constraints.
• Her desire to relocate the family to Washington.
• Tension over Brian’s spending and stalled life plans.
• Their Thanksgiving trip to Dublin and her Serbia visit.
• Christmas Eve together.
• Their January 4 plans, including dinner reservations.

Final communications:

• A Happy New Year message January 1 at midnight.
• No replies afterward.
• Brian called him January 4 asking if he had heard from Ana.
• Fastow found no sign of Ana at her DC townhouse.

WITNESS: Christopher Murphy. Murphy testified:

• Ana confided emotional exhaustion.
• She never went silent without explanation.
• He immediately suspected something was wrong on January 1.

WITNESS: Suzanne Garland

• Ana made forward looking plans.
• Ana did not express fear or hopelessness.

WITNESS: Ashley Cimmino.

• Ana was enthusiastic about upcoming travel and work.
• She stopped replying suddenly on January 1.

WITNESS: Janet Cotter

• Ana as professionally consistent and responsive.
• Silence from her was unheard of.

WITNESS: Julie Basler

• Ana was tired but optimistic.
• She was preparing for the new year.

WITNESS: Sandra Hempel Waldroup

• Ana appeared happy and goal oriented days before her disappearance.

WITNESS: MSP Cell Phone Analyst

The analyst reconstructed device behavior:

• Ana’s phone activity stopped at 3:00 a.m. on January 1.
• Her phone never left the Cohasset house.
• Brian’s phone displayed multiple unexplained gaps.
• Deletions occurred soon after he spoke to police.
• Communications with coworkers, friends, and her sister all ceased abruptly.
• Brian attempted to shape a narrative that Ana left for Washington.

Summary of communications:

• Ana exchanged messages with friends and coworkers December 30 and 31.
• She planned meetings for early January.
• She confirmed a dinner for December 30.
• She messaged relatives expressing stress but did not mention fear or plans to leave.
• No messages were sent after about 1 a.m. on January 1.
• Brian sent messages to multiple people portraying Ana as traveling, which contradicted the digital evidence.

Exhibits shown included:

• Surveillance stills and video frames
• Location maps
• Phone and text message screenshots tied to witnesses

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco.

Narrative with Detailed Witness Sections

Day 5 focused almost entirely on digital forensics, including the recovery of deleted data, text message patterns, location history, device gaps, and the reconstruction of Brian Walshe’s movements on January 1 and January 2. The Commonwealth used this day to reinforce the digital timeline they previewed earlier in the week, expanding on phone extractions, missing activity, and contradictions between Brian’s statements and objective device data.

The State continued its case by calling the Massachusetts State Police digital forensic specialist who handled extractions from Brian’s iPhone and other devices seized from the home.

Witness: MSP Digital Forensics Analyst

The analyst resumed testimony from late Day 4 and provided a detailed walkthrough of Brian’s phone behavior between December 31 and January 3.

The State highlighted several major components:

Device activity gaps on January 1

The analyst reconstructed the phone’s data and testified:

• Brian’s phone showed normal activity during the early evening of December 31.
• There was sporadic activity shortly after midnight.
• For significant portions of January 1, the phone recorded no movement, no steps, no app switching, and no location changes.
• Portions of this missing activity coincided with the State’s proposed window in which Ana died and her body was moved.

The analyst told jurors that the lack of data did not mean Brian was asleep. It meant the device was not generating data, which can happen if a phone is powered down, left behind, or manually disabled.

Activity inconsistent with Brian’s version of events

Brian told police he:

• Woke early.
• Made breakfast.
• Cleaned the house.
• Ran errands.
• Visited his mother.
• Went shopping for basic supplies.

The analyst testified that the phone’s movement patterns and step count did not corroborate this version. Significant discrepancies included:

• No evidence the phone traveled to Swampscott at the time Brian claimed.
• No indication of travel to Whole Foods or CVS during the periods Brian described.
• Instead, the device showed stillness during times that lined up with the prosecution’s theory of body disposal and cleanup inside the home.

Text messages introduced through narrative summary

The Commonwealth summarized Brian’s texts between January 1 and January 3. Key points:

• Brian did not text Ana once during this period.
• Instead, he messaged friends, coworkers, and acquaintances about unrelated matters.
• No effort was made to ask Ana where she was, despite his claim she left suddenly for a work emergency.
• Brian did not message his wife to check on her, to ask whether she arrived in Washington, or to ask why she had not called her children.

The Commonwealth emphasized the contrast:

• Ana’s colleagues were frantic by January 3.
• Brian appeared calm and detached, not contacting her at all.

Calls placed by Brian

The analyst narrated the call history.

• Brian called Ana’s phone multiple times only after police involvement increased.
• On January 4, he began calling Ana’s coworkers, including Fastow, asking whether they had heard from her.
• The State implied these actions were staged to create the appearance of concern.

The analyst testified that:

• Many of Brian’s calls on January 4 occurred after he already knew Ana was missing and police were involved.
• The timing of these calls appeared reactive rather than genuine.

Deleted data. The analyst confirmed:

• Several user actions occurred that suggested deletion of content.
• Some messaging apps showed unexpected gaps.
• Certain logs that would normally populate were missing.

While he could not testify to intentional destruction without speculative wording, he confirmed:

• The phone’s records were not complete.
• Some datasets appeared to have been cleared or overwritten.

Location reconstruction

This portion strengthened the timeline first introduced on Day 3. The analyst described the following:

January 1

• Brian’s phone connected to the home network in the early morning hours.
• The phone remained stationary during a period in which Brian said he was running errands.
• No evidence showed travel consistent with Brian’s claimed milk and juice run.

January 2

• The phone traveled to multiple locations that aligned with stores where Brian purchased cleaning items.
• The analyst described video and receipts that matched the movement logs for this day.
• The phone also aligned with locations near dumpsters later linked to trash bags containing Ana’s belongings.

January 3

• More routine activity, but still inconsistent with Brian’s claims that he spent the day at home.

Prosecution’s strategic use of Day 5. By the end of Day 5, the jury had:

• A digital timeline showing Brian’s phone movements.
• A contradicting narrative to Brian’s police interviews.
• Evidence of gaps in activity consistent with cleanup or staged behavior.
• Patterns showing delayed communication efforts with Ana.
• A foundation for the next witnesses who will testify about additional searches, financial behavior, and movements.

Brian’s statements to police suggested:

• He was cooperative.
• He was confused.
• He tried to piece together the days after New Year’s.
• The digital data contradicted many of those claims.

Trial Day 5. Exhibits published and discussed

• Exhibit 69 (referenced during text-message evidence discussion).
• Exhibit 90 (photo, file number not stated in the excerpt).
• Exhibit 107 (file 6556, tied to Peabody dumpster location testimony).
• Exhibit 125 (image published, context suggests evidence-site imagery).
• Exhibit 168 (described as a call log type record).
• Exhibit 169 (celebrate report of phone interactions, admitted).
• Exhibit 170 (text message, previously marked for ID, admitted).
• Exhibit 171 (wire snips in a bag, admitted).
• Exhibit 172 (the hacksaw, admitted).

Narrative with Detailed Witness Sections

Day 6 moved deeper into the State’s digital case. Jurors heard extensive testimony about Brian Walshe’s Google searches, browser history, deleted files, device extractions, and location data that prosecutors say outline consciousness of guilt, planning, and post homicide cleanup.

The tone of Day 6 was highly technical. Prosecutors introduced timelines of search queries conducted from the Walshe home on January 1 and January 2, specifically those relating to body disposal, decomposition, DNA destruction, and criminal liability. The forensic analysts walked the jury through each search in chronological order, tying it to Brian’s evolving statements to investigators and the physical evidence already entered.

Witness: MSP Digital Forensic Examiner (continued)

The same digital forensic specialist from Days 4 and 5 returned to continue walking through Brian’s online searches and device activities. The Commonwealth projected a chronological list of search terms for the jury.

Key January 1 searches recovered from the device extraction

The examiner testified that these searches originated from a device inside the Walshe home during a time when:

• Brian claimed he was asleep.
• Brian claimed Ana had left the home.
• Ana’s phone activity had already stopped.

Recovered searches included:

• How long before a body starts to smell
• Best ways to dispose of a body
• How to stop decomposition
• How long DNA lasts
• Can you throw away body parts
• Can you be charged with murder without a body
• How long someone must be missing before they can be declared dead

The examiner explained that these searches were not random or benign. They appeared concentrated within a narrow time window and reflected knowledge of both decomposition and legal consequences.

January 2 searches

• The analyst then moved to January 2 searches, which continued the same pattern and expanded into more explicit language:
• How to dismember a body
• Which tools are best for cutting bone
• How long does store surveillance last
• How to clean blood on a wooden floor
• Does hydrogen peroxide clean blood
• How to get rid of odors from a dead body
• Can a person track your phone if you leave it at home

The examiner also tied these searches to:

• Brian’s purchases at Home Depot
• The Tyvek suit, goggles, gloves, and cleaning tools recovered in trash bags
• Brian’s surveillance footage showing him buying items inconsistent with cleaning for his mother

Deleted browser history and recovered fragments

• Portions of browser history that had been deleted
• Recovered fragments from unallocated space on the drive
• Search strings found in cache records that had been overwritten

He explained that while not every deleted item could be recovered, it was clear the browser had been manually wiped in part.

Movement data aligned with searches

The Commonwealth emphasized that the search activity aligned with critical moments in the State’s timeline:

• The earliest searches occurred shortly after 4 a.m., when Ana’s phone activity stopped.
• Searches relating to odors, decomposition, and cleaning coincided with a period of device stillness.
• Searches about surveillance, body disposal, and tools aligned with Brian’s trips to Home Depot, CVS, and dumpsters.

The examiner again noted that the phone alternated between normal activity and complete inactivity, consistent with:

• A powered down device
• A phone left behind
• Manual disabling of location services

Witness: Medical Examiner’s Digital Liaison

This witness testified about:

• Blood detection technology
• Patterns seen on items recovered in trash bags
• Matching stains to DNA profiles

He confirmed:

• Several items containing Ana’s blood were consistent with violent injury.
• Transfer stains on towels and fabrics indicated wiping or cleaning, not passive contact.
• Some stains were diluted, suggesting attempts to wash material.

Witness: Cohasset Police Analyst

The police analyst introduced:

• A reconstructed timeline based on all digital feeds
• A summary overlay that mapped searches, movements, and receipts

The timeline highlighted:

• Ana’s last known phone usage around 3 a.m.
• First incriminating search at 4:54 a.m.
• Multiple clusters of body disposal searches throughout the morning
• Brian’s appearance on surveillance purchasing cleaning supplies
• Trash disposal routes aligned with cell site records
• Device gaps during windows when physical evidence suggests body movement or dismemberment

The analyst also testified:

• There was no evidence Ana used any device after 3 a.m.
• Her Apple ID did not log into any network after that.
• None of her cards, transportation passes, or workplace systems showed activity.

Witness: State Police Financial Crimes Analyst

This witness introduced banking and transaction records to support the digital case. He testified:

• Brian made charges on January 2 consistent with purchases of tools, tarps, plastic liners, mops, buckets, and gloves.
• The debit and credit card logs matched receipt timestamps.
• The purchases corresponded closely to items found in Peabody trash bags.

He added:

• No spending activity from Ana occurred after December 31.
• All household financial activity came from Brian.

Prosecution’s strategic framing on Day 6

The Commonwealth used Day 6 to tie digital behavior to physical evidence:

• Search activity to cleaning supplies
• Device gaps to time windows for body movement
• Home Depot purchases to tools found with blood
• Surveillance footage to Brian’s stated whereabouts
• Recovered data fragments to intentional cleanup on devices

Brian’s omissions and contradictions from earlier police interviews were repeatedly compared to the objective digital records.

By the close of the day, jurors had:

• A precise timestamped digital timeline from midnight January 1 through late January 2
• A mapping of all known searches related to dissolution, decomposition, dismemberment, and criminal liability
• Confirmed inconsistencies in Brian’s accounts
• Evidence of deleted browser history and missing logs

Exhibits shown included:

• Hacksaw and hatchet
• Tyvek suit
• Slippers and footwear
• Towels and rugs with red-brown stainin

December 10, 2025

Massachusetts v. Brian Walshe

• Day 7 centered on forensic interpretation and cross examination of crime scene processing, biological testing, DNA interpretation, and the chain of laboratory work. The testimony focused on what was found in the Walshe residence, what was detected in the trash bags recovered in Peabody and Swampscott, how the items were handled, and what the scientific limitations were for each test.

Cross Examination of Matthew Sheehan

Massachusetts State Police Crime Scene Services

Findings and limitations

• White powder residue on the rug was baking powder.
• The white discoloration on the bedroom floor was caused by worn varnish, not chemicals.
• Mops, brooms, pails, and buckets purchased at Lowe’s did not appear to be used.
• Hydrogen peroxide found in the cabinet above the refrigerator was unopened.
• Numerous items in the home were unused and did not contain biological evidence.
• No determination of blood spatter anywhere in the house.
• Blood spatter is defined as blood in flight.
• No evidence that Luminol was used inside the residence.
• Seratec blood confirmation tests require dilution because the instrument detects extremely low concentrations of hemoglobin.
• Significant blood related findings were only located in the basement.
• No biological evidence was found on the stairway, living room, or kitchen.

Rug and basement evidence

• He could not confirm whether the rug shown in earlier exhibits was the same rug he examined.
• When he searched the house on January 8 the rug was not present.
• Nothing in the living room prompted biological examination.
• The broken basement step and bottom wood piece showed a red brown stain, but no confirmatory test was done.

Search activity

• January 8, 2023: about 10 investigators were at the residence.
• January 9, 2023: about 15 investigators were at the residence.
• Investigators examined every room and consulted each other on findings.

Documentation and review

• He relied on field notes from multiple troopers.
• He reviewed Trooper Stephanie Devlin’s report but not her handwritten field notes.
• Devlin’s report did not state that the January 8 discoloration matched what Sheehan saw on January 9.
• He did not visualize the bedroom floor on January 8 and cannot confirm its condition the previous day.

Slippers

• Dark grey slippers contained red brown stains on both sides.
• He collected samples from the interior to look for skin cells.
• He does not know who owned them or how staining occurred.

Trash facility evidence

• He never went to the Peabody trash facility.
• Defense suggested stains could originate from compactor transfer.
• He examined hair fibers and found one hair consistent with human hair and one with animal hair.
• Hair was collected at Peabody.
• A separate clump of hair was also consistent with human hair.
• Human hair naturally sheds and could be present without violence.

Tools

• He does not know where the tools were found, only that they came from the Peabody trash facility.
• Biological material on tools could come from cross contamination due to bag compression.
• A greasy oily film was found on the hatchet, but no testing was performed to identify the substance.
• He did not purchase a duplicate tool for comparison.

Re Direct of Matthew Sheehan

• Not all areas of a scene are tested.
• He focused on the most forensically relevant areas.
• A thoroughly cleaned home could reduce or eliminate biological evidence.
• Blood can be destroyed or diluted by bleach, hydrogen peroxide, and temperature.
• There was a carpet present on January 9 and additional repair work had been completed.
• He does not know whether the trash bags entered the compactor.

Re Cross of Matthew Sheehan

• He did not examine repair work.
• Repair materials could include foam padding around the fireplace.

Lab Analyst Chain Overview

• The Commonwealth presented the list of laboratory personnel who handled evidence before DNA interpretation.

Bryce Raymond: 

• Analyzed basement stains.
• Examined hacksaw blade, hacksaw handle, towel #1, apparent hairs, and rug piece from Bag 5.

Brianna Kiesel

• Examined interior of dark grey slippers and exterior of left slipper.
• Processed Tyvek suit interior cuff, exterior pant leg, and interior sleeve.
• Worked on unknown tissue from Swampscott dumpster.
• Prepared and passed samples for extraction.

Madison Frank

• Performed amplification stage of DNA testing.

Troy Adams

• Worked on slippers, Tyvek suit sections, and Swampscott tissue.
• Performed second and fourth DNA processing steps.

Emily Oliver

• Worked on hatchet head, hatchet handle, and gauze with red brown staining.
• Performed extraction and quantification.

Mary Nagle

• Worked on hatchet and gauze.
• Performed amplification.

Joli Regu

• Worked on hatchet.

Karen Jacobson

• Performed second and fourth steps for Ana and Brian’s reference DNA.

Catarina Stashyn

• Created DNA profiles for Ana and Brian for comparison.

Stipulated DNA Reference Samples

• Collected May 9, 2018 by FBI during art fraud investigation.
• These reference samples were used for comparison in this case.

Testimony of Saman Saleem – MSP Forensic Scientist III

DNA interpretation and final reporting – DNA results by item

• Interior dark grey slippers: Three contributors, including Ana and Brian.
• Exterior left slipper top: Two contributors, Ana included.
• Tyvek suit interior sleeve cuff: Three contributors, Ana and Brian included.
• Tyvek suit exterior pant leg: One contributor, Ana.
• Tyvek suit right interior sleeve: Two contributors, Ana included. Limited support for Brian.
• Unknown tissue from Swampscott dumpster: One contributor, Ana.
• Basement floor stain: Two contributors, Ana included. Brian excluded.
• Hacksaw blade and handle: One contributor, Ana.
• White towel #1 with red brown staining: One contributor, Ana.
• Apparent hairs: One contributor, Ana.
• Rug piece from Bag 5: One contributor, Ana.
• Hatchet head: One contributor, Ana.
• Hatchet handle: Two contributors, Ana included. Second contributor unsuitable for comparison.
• Tape with gauze and red brown stain: One contributor, Brian.

Cross Examination of Saman Saleem

Report dated January 13, 2023.

• Some contributors may not be detected depending on quantity.
• Exact matching is possible only when there is a single contributor.
• She cannot tell how or when DNA was deposited.
• DNA transfer is possible inside compressed trash bags.
• Cannot determine cell type (blood, skin, saliva).

Testimony of Michael Roddy: HomeGoods Loss Prevention

Surveillance review

• January 2, 2023 – 9:30 AM: Brian purchased rugs and candles using Ana’s gift cards.
• January 4, 2023 – 9:57 AM: Brian purchased towels and bath mats.

Cross examination

• Some December transactions occurred in D.C.
• Gift cards from D.C. eventually used in Massachusetts.
• Defense suggested gift card exchange among family members.
• Commonwealth did not ask him to pull December D.C. store videos.

Trial Day 7. Exhibits published and discussed

• Exhibit 97 (photo of Ana Walshe lying on a rug, referenced again during deliberations in later coverage).
• Exhibits 201, 202 (photos tied to the knife found above the refrigerator cabinet area).
• Exhibit 208 (photo published during forensic testimony).
• Exhibits 215, 216 (knife item and swab documentation referenced).
• Exhibit 230 (dark gray slippers item photo).
• Exhibits 232, 233 (hair and hair comparison imagery referenced).
• Day 7 reporting also summarizes that analysts testified about DNA on items including Tyvek suit, slippers, hacksaw, hatchet, towel, rug pieces, and tissues.

End of Day 7 Summary

• Day 7 emphasized the scientific limitations, the potential for environmental and compaction transfer, and the consistency of Ana’s DNA appearing across tools, clothing, towels, and basement stains. The defense focused on contamination and the absence of confirmatory testing on some items. The prosecution continued building a cumulative DNA narrative linking multiple recovered objects to Ana and evidence of cleanup efforts within the home.

Trial Day 8 – December 9, 2025

Massachusetts v. Brian Walshe

• Day 8 featured the end of the Commonwealth’s case and emotional testimony from friends and associates of Ana Walshe. The prosecution introduced testimony from people who knew her personally, including the last people to see her alive, and the court heard about surveillance evidence and actions taken in the days immediately after her disappearance. The prosecution then rested its case.

Testimony of Gem Mutlu and Alissa Kirby – Friends of Ana Walshe: 

Gem Mutlu, a close friend of both Ana and Brian, took the stand and delivered emotional testimony. He described being with the couple on New Year’s Eve, shortly before Ana was last seen alive.

• Mutlu testified about that evening and recalled details from a celebratory gathering, noting that everything appeared normal between the couple at that time.
• Gem Mutlu recounted that he left the New Year’s celebration between approximately 1:00 a.m. and 1:30 a.m. That was the last time he saw Ana alive.
• He testified that several days later, Brian Walshe called him to ask if he had heard from Ana because she had not been in contact.
• Mutlu said he advised Brian to call the police and alert the community when Ana remained missing.

Alissa Kirby, a close friend of Ana’s from Washington, D.C., also testified. She described her friendship with Ana and recounted messages and phone calls exchanged after Ana went missing.

• Kirby became emotional while testifying about Ana and spoke about contact she had with Brian in the days following the disappearance.

Surveillance and Digital Evidence Described: Prosecutors presented surveillance video evidence showing Brian Walshe’s movements after Ana’s disappearance.

• Footage from a Home Depot in Rockland on January 2, 2023 showed Walshe purchasing large items including cleaning supplies and a 12-pound bag of baking soda.
• Additional surveillance showed Walshe’s vehicle at other locations in the days following Ana’s disappearance.

Prosecution Rests Its Case: After testimony from Mutlu and Kirby, the Commonwealth rested its prosecution case.

• The defense filed a motion arguing the prosecution failed to prove its case, but Judge Diane Freniere denied the defense motion, finding sufficient evidence had been presented for the jury to decide.
• The denial of the defense motion cleared the way for the defense to begin presenting its own witnesses the following day.

Context from Day 8: Day 8 was marked by emotionally charged testimony from individuals close to Ana.

• Testimony linked back to the timeline of Ana’s disappearance and her last social interactions.
• Video evidence continued to be used to outline Brian’s actions in the days after Ana was last seen.
• The prosecution’s rest allowed the defense to prepare its case and call witnesses to the stand.

Trial Day 8. Exhibits published and discussed

• Exhibit 145 (a specific picture on page 39, published).
• Exhibit 166 (published during necklace related text message testimony, “I love my necklace” appears in the excerpt).
• Exhibit 257 (file SLD 7221, the signed box).
• Exhibit 258 (file 7222, side of box with Brian’s signature).
• Exhibit 259 (file 7224, another side of the box).
• Exhibit 263 (TJ Maxx thumb drive, admitted).
• Exhibit 264 (photo of Ana, with her face blurred in the exhibit as described in-court).

Trial Day 9 – December 10, 2025

Massachusetts v. Brian Walshe

Focus of the Day

• Trial Day 9 centered on digital forensic evidence, specifically Brian Walshe’s phone activity, device usage patterns, and how those records conflicted with statements he made to law enforcement and others after Ana Walshe’s disappearance.

Digital Evidence and Phone Activity

• The Commonwealth presented additional testimony contextualizing Brian Walshe’s cellular phone usage during the period immediately following Ana Walshe’s disappearance.
• Evidence showed repeated phone activity, including unlocks and power connections, during times Brian Walshe claimed the phone was misplaced or not in use.
• Prosecutors emphasized that the phone was actively connecting to power sources, undermining claims that it was lost or inaccessible.

Correlation With Prior Evidence

• The Commonwealth tied phone activity to previously introduced surveillance footage, including movements consistent with shopping trips and disposal related activity.
• Prosecutors placed the digital evidence alongside earlier testimony regarding:
• Purchases of cleaning supplies and tools
• Dumpster surveillance
• Internet searches related to cleanup and body disposal
• Jurors were shown how the timing of phone activity aligned with those events rather than contradicting them.

Internet Searches Revisited

• Prosecutors revisited internet search evidence already admitted earlier in the trial.
• Day 9 testimony emphasized timing, frequency, and sequence, arguing the searches reflected purposeful conduct rather than curiosity or coincidence.
• The Commonwealth argued that when viewed alongside phone activity, the searches demonstrated planning and concealment behavior.

Prosecution Theory Reinforced

• The Commonwealth stressed that no single piece of evidence stood alone, but that the combined weight of:
• Digital records
• Physical evidence
• Surveillance footage
• Witness testimony

formed a consistent narrative of intent and post offense conduct.

• Prosecutors argued that Brian Walshe selectively used his phone to create an alibi, while later claiming gaps in activity were due to the phone being missing.

Defense Response

• The defense challenged the prosecution’s interpretation of phone data, suggesting alternative explanations for device activity.
• Defense arguments reiterated that digital evidence does not establish homicide, emphasizing the absence of a recovered body.
• The defense maintained that the Commonwealth’s case relied on inference rather than direct proof.

Exhibits shown included:

• Phone activity charts
• Device movement timelines
• Correlation graphics tying phone use to other evidence

End of Day Proceedings

• Additional portions of the Commonwealth’s evidentiary presentation were completed.
• Procedural and scheduling matters were addressed by the court.
• Jurors were dismissed for the day.

Significance of Day 9

• With Day 9, the trial reached a point where:
• Digital evidence became fully integrated with physical and testimonial evidence
• Brian Walshe’s credibility regarding his phone usage was directly challenged
• The Commonwealth solidified its theory of deliberate post disappearance conduct
• The defense continued to focus on reasonable doubt and lack of direct proof

Trial Day 10 – December 11, 2025

Massachusetts v. Brian Walshe

Focus of the Day

• Trial Day 10 marked the conclusion of the evidentiary phase of the trial. The court heard closing arguments from both the Commonwealth and the defense, followed by jury instructions and the start of jury deliberations.

Commonwealth Closing Argument

• Prosecutors summarized the full body of evidence presented during the trial.
• The Commonwealth argued that Ana Walshe was killed inside the family home in the early hours of January 1, 2023.
• Prosecutors emphasized that Brian Walshe’s actions afterward demonstrated planning, cleanup, and concealment.
• Surveillance footage, purchase records, and dumpster activity were revisited as part of a unified timeline.
• Digital evidence and internet searches related to body disposal and forensic evasion were highlighted as intentional and purposeful.
• The Commonwealth stressed that Ana’s absence, combined with DNA evidence, tools, and cleanup materials, supported the charge of murder.
• Prosecutors argued that Brian Walshe repeatedly lied to police, friends, and family about Ana’s whereabouts.

Defense Closing Argument

• The defense focused on reasonable doubt and the Commonwealth’s burden of proof.
• Defense counsel argued that the evidence did not establish how Ana died or that Brian caused her death.
• The defense acknowledged post disappearance conduct but framed it as panic rather than intent to kill.
• Emphasis was placed on the absence of a body and the lack of direct evidence identifying a cause of death.
• The defense argued that circumstantial evidence alone was insufficient to support a murder conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defense Rests

• The defense rested its case without calling any witnesses.
• Brian Walshe did not testify.

Exhibits referenced included:

• Composite evidence timelines
• Search summaries
• Surveillance and purchase recap image

Jury Instructions

• The judge instructed the jury on the elements of first degree and second degree murder.
• Jurors were instructed on evaluating circumstantial evidence, credibility, and reasonable doubt.
• The court explained how jurors should weigh competing interpretations of evidence.

Jury Deliberations Begin

• Following instructions, the jury began deliberations.
• Jurors deliberated briefly before being dismissed for the day.
• Deliberations were scheduled to resume on the next court date.

Trial Day 11 – December 12, 2025

Massachusetts v. Brian Walshe

Focus of the Day

• Trial Day 11 consisted entirely of jury deliberations. No witnesses testified and no new evidence was introduced.

Jury Deliberations Continue

• Jurors reconvened following closing arguments and jury instructions delivered on Trial Day 10.
• Deliberations continued for several hours inside the jury room.
• Jurors reviewed testimony, exhibits, and the judge’s legal instructions on first degree and second degree murder.

Jury Question to the Court

• During deliberations, jurors submitted a written question to the judge.
• The question concerned an exhibit previously introduced at trial, identified as Exhibit 97.
• Exhibit 97 consisted of a photograph showing Ana Walshe on a rug later recovered from a dumpster.
• The judge addressed the question in open court with counsel present and provided guidance consistent with jury instructions.

No Verdict Reached

• Jurors did not reach a verdict by the end of the court day.
• The jury was dismissed to resume deliberations after the weekend recess.
• Court officials confirmed deliberations would continue on the next scheduled court date.

Exhibits:

• Photograph of Ana on a rug later recovered from a dumpster, discussed during jury questions

Significance of Day 11

• With Day 11, the trial entered its deliberation phase.
• All evidence had been presented and argued.
• The jury focused on evaluating credibility, forensic evidence, digital records, and intent.
• The case remained under active deliberation with no verdict announced.

December 15, 2025

• Jurors reach a verdict: Brian Walshe guilty of first-degree murder