Now to
a very
important update on a story
we've been watching closely
here in The Situation Room.
A murder warrant has just been issued for
the husband
of a missing Massachusetts woman
on a wall.
CNN's Brian Todd has details for us.
Brian, what is the latest?
Wolf, this warrant comes
after a massive search
lasting about two weeks.
A search for any sign of Ana Walshe.
Police have so far turned up
circumstantial evidence,
but authorities clearly
believe it's strong enough
to charge her husband
Brian Walshe tonight
facing murder charges
in the mysterious disappearance
of his wife, Ana Walshe.
That word
coming from the district attorney
of Norfolk County, Massachusetts.
Michael Morrissey.
The continued investigation
has now allowed police to obtain
an arrest
warrant, charging Brain Walshe
with the murder of his wife.
A murder charge
despite the fact that authorities
have not disclosed
that a body or body parts
have been discovered.
Experts say
a body is not needed to bring charges.
You don't need a body anymore.
It's great when you have it
it's great
when you have a video of the event.
But the forensic evidence
has gotten so much better
in the past 15 or 20 years.
And on the Internet, searches by DNA.
So even without the body,
they're going to have enough evidence,
seemingly, as they put it all together,
to focus on nobody else but him.
There is considerable
circumstantial evidence.
Law enforcement sources told CNN
a hacksaw torn up cloth
and what appeared to be bloodstains
were recovered from a garbage
transfer station north of Boston.
Earlier, prosecutors
said a bloodied, broken knife
and bloodstains
were found
in a search of the family's
basement in Cohasset, Massachusetts.
They have the utensils,
so or the tools to dismember a body.
The tools are there.
If they could find a body
or if you could find body parts,
you can link up
those items
found in the trash
with the skeletal remains.
CNN also learned
that law enforcement collected
DNA samples from the Walshe's sons,
presumably to compare those samples
to the blood found in the trash piles
and in the basement.
Law enforcement sources
say Brian Walsh's
Internet records
showed searches in the days
following his wife's disappearance
of how to dismember a body
and how to dispose of a £115
woman's body.
Prosecutors have said
he bought $450 in cleaning supplies
the day after her disappearance.
That would include mops, bucket tops,
TV, x
drop plots,
as well as various kinds of tape.
And CNN has obtained police logs showing
it was on a Walshe's employer
who first called police
to report her missing, not her husband.
Brian Walshe's
attorney says
that call was the result of him
telling the employer she was missing.
But that wasn't until January 4th,
three days after he told police
he last saw her.
When you delay reporting of a crime
or delay
reporting of what could be a crime.
What that does
is it
gives you time and distance
before the police get involved.
Ryan Walshe had already been charged
with misleading investigators,
which he pleaded not guilty to.
CNN reached out
to Walshe's lawyers for a response
to the murder warrant.
They had no comment.
Walshe is scheduled to be arraigned
tomorrow morning.
We'll see what happens there.
Brian, thank you very much.
Let's discuss
with our chief law enforcement
and intelligence analyst
John Miller and CNN legal analyst
Joey Jackson.
John,
what changed
today, today
for authorities
to issue this murder warrant?
Well, Wolf,
I think last week
the investigators testified
before the grand jury
kind of lining up the
evidence that we've seen
described in the last story.
And then I think the last witness to go
in, the grand jury was from the
from the state police lab.
And that testimony is probably
what led them from where they were
to a warrant to arrest him for murder.
You know, Joey,
there's clearly, as we heard
in Brian's report,
overwhelming amount
of circumstantial evidence,
but still no body.
How does this hold up legally?
I think it holds up very well as we
look at the key circumstantial evidence,
when I say
very well with respect
to moving forward with the prosecution,
as you look at the blood
and the bloody knife in the basement,
the hacksaw and apparent blood stains
at the trash collection,
the husband's Internet search searches,
the husband's
purchase of the cleaning supplies.
What everyone has to remember,
Wolf, is that circumstantial
evidence is evidence.
The reality is, is that criminals
generally don't
or murderers
commit crimes in the light of day
where everyone can say
And when ultimately we look at this,
I think you're going to see
when you examine the warrant,
when it's released,
a healthy dose of forensic evidence
and what that evidence
may be in terms of blood
and where it was collected.
I think you'll see
Internet activity more of that.
I think you'll see
cell phone pinging
and not pinging with respect
to our phone being active and inactive.
I think there'll be
his timeline
and his whereabouts
and whether he was justified
in being there.
So I think it's shaping up
to be a very compelling case.
Wolf, even in the absence of a body.
A good point.
You know, John,
you just heard our reporting
that Anna Walshe
was first reported
missing by her employer,
not by her husband.
What does that tell you?
That tells me that
one of the people
that the employer reached out to
to say where's
honor was the husband
and I think at the point
that the conversation turned to,
well, we're worried
we're going to call the police.
Once he learned
they call the police,
he called the police behind them.
You know, Joey,
what can we expect
from tomorrow's arraignment?
Yeah, I think once
when a person gets before the court,
the most important thing is
that a
defendant is informed
of his constitutional right,
constitutional right
to a lawyer, constitutional
right to remain silent, etc..
You have an opportunity
during the first appearance
to establish your bail conditions.
We know he's already in on bail
with the other case.
I would expect that to increase.
As a result of that,
he'll ultimately have an opportunity
to plead not guilty.
The charges may not be formally read
with respect to all the details
but I think we'll see some unveiling
of what specific evidence
the police do have and prosecutors have.
So to bring him to justice,
this is the beginning of a long process
but it's a very significant step
in the search
for finding out
what specifically happened
and when and why.
Quite frankly,
those are important points.
And John,
you think we'll actually hear
from the prosecutors a motive
in this particular case?
I'm not
sure they're going to get into motive
at this stage of the game.
And as Joe will tell you, it's
not something they have to prove.
It's something they like to prove.
But I do agree that we're going to see
if this prosecutor follows
the pattern
that that he has so far in this case.
We're going to see a charging document,
Rich, with details,
some of which we've talked about.
But I'm told there are things in there
that we haven't reported yet.
And Joey,
you think we'll hear of a motive
You know, inquiring
minds always want to know, Wolf.
And so when you actually
are proving a case as a prosecutor,
you don't have to establish motive.
But you certainly
you want as a jury to understand
why someone would do this.
I think in the natural course of events
as it unfolds,
we will learn what his mindset was.
We will learn how he was driven to this
and we'll learn the details,
quite frankly, how it actually happened.
So I do believe ultimately, Wolf,
we'll get to the issue of mode.
All right.
Joey Jackson, John Miller, guys,
thank you very very much.
Will stay on top of this story for sure.