meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary

No Body, No Autopsy… Bob Motta On How Prosecutors Still Build A Case Against Brian Walshe

Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary

True Crime Today

True Crime, News, News Commentary

3791 Ratings

🗓️ 10 December 2025

⏱️ 23 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

In this segment, Bob Motta helps us untangle one of the most challenging elements of the case: Ana Walshe’s body has never been found. No remains. No autopsy. No definitive cause of death. And yet prosecutors are moving forward with a full murder charge.

Bob breaks down what prosecutors need to prove in a no-body case, and why this one may be stronger than most. While the defense argues that the lack of a body creates insurmountable doubt, the state points to the mountain of circumstantial evidence: the blood-soaked carpet fragments containing a Gucci charm that Ana owned, the surveillance footage of Brian buying cutting tools on New Year’s Day, the dump runs, the inconsistencies in his statements, and Ana’s complete digital silence afterward.

We walk through each piece with Bob: how inconsistent stories become evidence, how behavior becomes motive, and how digital forensics often fill the gaps left by the absence of remains. Bob also explains the tightrope prosecutors walk with motive, especially in cases involving financial pressures and life insurance policies.

Bob weighs in on the potential verdicts, too — including the real possibility of a second-degree conviction if jurors believe Brian dismembered Ana but aren’t certain he killed her.

This episode goes deeper than headlines. It’s about how modern homicide cases work when the most crucial piece of evidence — the victim’s body — is missing, and what it means for the defense when everything else points in a direction they can’t explain away.

#BrianWalshe #AnaWalshe #BobMotta #NoBodyMurder #HiddenKillers #DigitalForensics #TrueCrime #CourtCase #TonyBrueski #LegalBreakdown

Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?

Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod
Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok
https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter
https://x.com/tonybpod

Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872


Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Bruske, Stacey Cole, and Todd Michaels.

0:08.8

I mean, for sure.

0:10.8

You just don't know.

0:11.8

Let's talk more about the no body.

0:14.0

Prosecuting murder without remains is a difficult thing.

0:18.5

Anna Walsh's body has never been recovered.

0:20.5

Prosecutors have blood evidence,

0:22.7

surveillance footage, digital forensics, and a husband who admitted to disposing of all of that.

0:28.5

So that's it's accounted for. But no corpse, no autopsy, no definitive cause of death. Dr.

0:33.7

Atkinson testified that his office couldn't determine how Anna died because there's nothing to examine.

0:39.0

So how do you convict someone of murder when the victim's body is gone?

0:44.3

No murder cases.

0:46.0

There are no body murder cases are rare, but they're not unprecedented.

0:50.3

What does the prosecution typically need to prove here?

0:53.1

What do they need to prove in this case when there are no remains to examine?

0:58.6

Do they, I mean, does the evidence just speak for itself here?

1:01.9

I know nothing's truly open and shut, but in this case, does it just really less is more?

1:09.2

Yeah, I mean, it is.

1:10.8

It's a totality of the circumstances and the totality of the evidence compiled.

1:15.1

And it's all obviously circumstantial.

1:17.5

You know, I mean, you're clearly not going to have any direct evidence that the person was killed.

1:22.3

You're going to get evidence, you know, if you're lucky enough, if you're the state and you're trying to prove somebody killed somebody, you know, you hope that you have some evidence of blood, which they do have here, you know, and you've got the evidence of, you know, the Google searches, which are powerful, you know, you've got the evidence of him dumping, you know, but again, you know, that argument, like, that is really only evidence to dispose of her body, you know, and it is. It admitted to. Right. You know what I'm saying? So, like, in the, it used to be no body, no crime type shit. Like, that used to be the mindset. And, you know, it's, they're far more common than they used to be. I mean, think about sweet little Harmony Montgomery. That's a no body case. Think about Zacharii Anderson up in Wisconsin. That was a no body case. And he was convicted on that shit, you know? And it was like, there's a lot of people in that particular case. or're like, that dude didn't do it. You know, and he was just like the way that he was in, like, I don't know if you watch any of that trial, but like he was just doing shit on the stand or when like his kid was on the stand. He's making faces like, you know, don't, don't say that. But, you know, it was like it threw people off.

...

Transcript will be available on the free plan in 23 days. Upgrade to see the full transcript now.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from True Crime Today, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of True Crime Today and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2025.