The courtroom fell silent as prosecutors clicked to the next slide—a screenshot of a Google query that made even veteran investigators shift in their seats: “How to saw a body.” It was one of dozens of disturbing searches extracted from Brian Walshe’s laptop, searches made in the hours and days after his wife, Ana Walshe, vanished on New Year’s Day 2023.

There is no body.
There is no confession.
But there is a timeline of digital footprints so chilling that jurors are being asked to see them as a map of murder.

THE TIMELINE: WHAT HAPPENED AND WHEN

January 1, 2023 – Hours After the New Year

4:52 a.m. – “Best ways to dispose of a body” is typed into Google on Brian Walshe’s laptop.
4:55 a.m. – “How long before body starts to smell.”

Ana was last seen hours earlier at a small New Year’s gathering. By dawn, her husband was researching decomposition.

9:35 a.m. – “Can identification be made on partial human remains.”
11:50 a.m. – “Can I use bleach to clean my wood floors from blood stains.”
12:10 p.m. – “What does bleach do to dead bodies.”
1:43 p.m. – “Can the FBI tell when you accessed your phone.”

Investigators say a web page called “6 ways to dispose of a body” was accessed from a site ominously named murdermurdermurder.com. Two YouTube videos on disposal and dismemberment were also viewed.

Brian Walshe told police Ana left for a work emergency in Washington, D.C. that morning.

Authorities say: There is no evidence she made that trip.

January 2, 2023

12:27 p.m. – “How to saw a body.”
1:12 p.m. – “Can you identify a body with broken teeth.”

Searches escalate from disposal to mutilation, suggesting planning or aftermath—not panic.

January 3, 2023

1:12 p.m. – “Can a body decompose in a plastic bag.”
7:30 p.m. – “Can police get your search history without your computer.”

The tone shifts. Not just disposal… but fear. Fear of getting caught.

THE EVIDENCE: WHAT PROSECUTORS SAY THEY HAVE

1. The Search History

Pulled from Walshe’s laptop by digital forensic investigators.
Prosecutors argue this is premeditation.
Defense argues it is a panicked response to finding Ana dead.

2. The Motive

Prosecutors:

• Brian Walshe was the sole beneficiary of Ana’s $2.7 million life insurance policy.
• He believed Ana was having an affair.

Defense:

• No proof of either theory as a motive.
• Claims Ana died suddenly and unexpectedly, and Brian made “terrible decisions” afterward.

3. His Lies to Police

Brian admitted lying about Ana’s disappearance—claiming she left for work.
Prosecutors say this was to stall and destroy evidence.
Defense says he lied out of fear no one would believe him if Ana died naturally.

4. The Lack of a Body

No remains have ever been found.
This complicates the case—but forensic search histories have increasingly served as circumstantial evidence in modern murder trials.

RUMOR VS. FACT

Rumor: “Investigators found dismembered remains.”

Fact: None. There have been no remains recovered.

Rumor: “Ana was confirmed to be having an affair.”

Fact: Prosecutors suggested Brian believed she was. No evidence has confirmed an affair.

Rumor: “Brian confessed by accident.”

Fact: Brian has never confessed. He pleaded guilty only to misleading police and improper conveyance of a body, not homicide.

Rumor: “The searches must mean he killed her.”

Fact: Searches are damning—but not direct proof. The defense insists the searches were made after discovering Ana dead, not before harming her.

The trial hinges on one critical question:
Do these digital breadcrumbs point to murder—or panic?

THE HUMAN IMPACT: WHAT THIS CRIME LEFT BEHIND

Three boys lost their mother—and effectively, their father.
Ana’s coworkers, family, and friends speak of a woman with limitless energy, a devoted mom, and a rising professional star.

Her disappearance left a void.
Her unconfirmed fate left a scar.
And every detail revealed in court peels it open again.

Even without a body, the emotional gravity in the courtroom is unmistakable:
This is a story of a family shattered long before the verdict arrives.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Brian Walshe’s internet searches form one of the darkest digital trails ever presented to a jury.
Prosecutors call it evidence of murder.
The defense calls it evidence of panic.
But for a nation watching, it is a disturbing reminder of how much truth a search bar can hold.

What Do You Think?

Was this:
A calculated killing?
A tragic death followed by catastrophic decisions?
Or something in between?

Drop your thoughts in the comments below — let’s talk about this case.

---

Affiliate Disclosure:
Some links in my articles may bring me a small commission at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support of my work here!