In this conversation with defense attorney Bob Motta, we dig into the strange forensic angle the defense is clinging to: the fact that investigators found no biological evidence in the bedroom where Brian claims Ana died naturally.

Crime lab specialist Matthew Sheehan testified that blood was found everywhere it should be if a body was moved and dismembered: the hacksaw, the hammer, the hatchet, the basement floor, the towels, the carpet fragments. Meanwhile, the bedroom — the place where the defense insists Ana died peacefully — was spotless.

Bob helps us unpack whether that’s actually good for the defense… or whether it just reinforces the prosecution’s timeline. Because a clean bedroom might sound helpful until you remember bleach destroys DNA — and that the basement is telling a very different story.

We explore Tipton’s tactical choices: pushing Sheehan to confirm “no evidence in the bedroom,” highlighting the investigators entering without protective gear, and pointing to oddities like the undisturbed insulation around a ceiling hole. Bob breaks down whether these are meaningful cracks or tiny fishing holes in a case that’s already drowning in physical evidence.

And then there’s the jury. Bob walks us through how jurors typically interpret “absence of evidence” arguments: do they hear reasonable doubt, or do they hear a lawyer trying to redirect their attention away from the bloody basement?

This is the chess match inside the trial — a defense building a narrative around what isn’t there while the prosecution points repeatedly to what is.

#BrianWalshe #AnaWalshe #BobMotta #TrueCrimeAnalysis #HiddenKillers #CleanBedroomDefense #ForensicEvidence #CourtroomStrategy

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